¶
March 4, 2020¶
Via ECF¶
Hon. Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007¶
Re: 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF), Request for Extension of Time v. Darren K. lndyke, et at,
¶
Dear Judge Schofield:¶
Haddon, and Laura A. Menninger¶
150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com Imenninger@hmflaw.com¶
On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, I write to request a thirty-day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond in the above-captioned case, from March 6, 2020 to April 6, 2020. There have been no previous requests for extension of time. Counsel for Plaintiff objects, as described below; counsel for the Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein consent to Ms. Maxwell's request.¶
On February 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman authorized alternative service on Ms. Maxwell by provision of a copy of the Summons and Complaint by email to undersigned counsel, who serves as counsel of record in v. Maxwell, 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), as well as to an outdated email address of our client.' (ECF # 27) Plaintiff's counsel thereafter sent the required documents by email to undersigned counsel. Magistrate Freeman ordered that Ms. Maxwell answer or respond by March 6, 2020.¶
Undersigned counsel was retained today to represent Ms. Maxwell in this matter. Although involved on Ms. Maxwell's behalf in the case from its inception in 2015 until its settlement in 2017, counsel's recent role has been to handle¶
I Undersigned counsel was not served with a copy of Plaintiff's request for the alternate service when it was filed on January 27, 2020, and therefore did not participate in any hearing on the topic. Had undersigned counsel participated, we could have corrected inaccurate statements made to the court respecting Ms. Maxwell.¶
Hon. Lorna G. Schofield March 4, 2020 Page 2 issues regarding the potential disclosure of documents on remand following the Second Circuit's decision in v. Maxwell, Case No. 18-2868. Our law firm is a small trial-based practice with numerous pre-existing deadlines and court appearances scheduled in the month of March 2020. The Complaint alleges conduct occurring as far back as 1995, under the legally-untested CVA, CPLR § 2I4-g. An appropriate answer or response will require research, investigation and analysis. Pursuant to this Court's Practice Standard 2, Ms. McCawley requested to have her position included as follows: "Plaintiff does not consent, as Maxwell has intentionally evaded service for months while having actual notice of the allegations in the Complaint, which were emailed to her. During this time, Maxwell was actively represented by (and has been in contact with) the same counsel who now claims to have been retained only today in this matter. Allowing 30 additional days to answer would unnecessarily delay proceedings and effectively reward Maxwell's evasion of service, particularly in a case where we have an upcoming discovery deadline of June 10, 2020." Ms. McCawley's representations regarding Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are demonstrably false and unsupported by any evidence and accordingly violate New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 and Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.3, among others. Undersigned counsel was retained today, Ms. Maxwell has not actively evaded service, the email address referenced by Plaintiff's counsel was rendered inactive following its public release by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2019 and subsequent hacking by third parties, and the additional thirty days to respond to a complaint (which purportedly could have been filed decades ago, but was not) is reasonable and customary for her newly hired counsel to appropriately respond to these old — and false — allegations.¶
Therefore, on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, we request that the Court extend the time to respond to the Complaint in this matter until 30 days from March 6, 2020 until April 6, 2020.¶
Respectfully Submitted,¶
Laura A. Menninger¶
C: Counsel of Record via ECF¶