## Exhibit E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Plaintiff, v. 19 Civ. 10475 (LGS) (DCF) DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as executor of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as executor of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein; GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendants. Before: x Teleconference New York, N.Y. December 16, 2020 3:00 p.m. HON. DEBRA C. FREEMAN, Magistrate Judge APPEARANCES BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY ANDREW VILLACASTIN SABINE MARIELLA MOTLEY RICE Attorneys for U.S. Virgin Islands BY: LINDA CARMEN S. SCOTT ## APPEARANCES Cont'd TROUTMAN PEPPER SANDERS LLP Attorney for Defendant Executors BY: BENNETT JEROME MOSKOWITZ HADDON, AND P.0 Attorney for Defendant Maxwell BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER 4 5 This is Judge Freeman. This is v. Indyke. 19CV1475. 6 7 Counsel, could I have your appearance for the record, starting with plaintiff's counsel? 8 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. 9 10 11 12 13 14 This is plaintiff's counsel, Sigrid McCawley, for, with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. I have with me Andrew Villacastin, my colleague; and Sabina Mariella, my other colleague. Along with us is the Chief Deputy Attorney General from U.S. Virgin Islands, ; as well as the USVI counsel, Linda 15 16 THE COURT: Okay. Don't know that everybody is needed, but welcome. 17 Who do I have representing the estate? 18 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Good afternoon, your Honor. 19 20 This is Bennett Moskowitz, Troutman Pepper, counsel for the executors. 21 22 THE COURT: All right. And who do I have for Ms. Maxwell? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Good afternoon, your Honor. 24 Laura Menninger, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. 25 THE COURT: So there are more people on the line, THE COURT: This is Judge Freeman. Hold on a second while I hit a key that lets us record this conference. 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is the plaintiff. 5 6 We typically do have a court reporter, so I'm not sure if that was my office that called in or somebody else's. 7 8 9 THE COURT: Okay. Do I have anyone else who is an attorney, either on this case or on any of the other cases involving the Epstein estate? 10 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, good afternoon. 11 12 This is Carmen Scott, with the law firm of Motley Rice, outside counsel for the government of the Virgin Islands. 13 14 THE COURT: II. I think I already had you identified, no? 15 16 MS. SCOTT: My colleague, Linda, was previously identified. 17 THE COURT: Okay. Fine. 18 Anyone else? Any other attorneys? 19 Do I have my law clerk on? 20 LAW CLERK: Yes, Judge, I'm here. 21 THE COURT: Do I have any intern students on? No? 22 23 Okay. Do I have any members of the press on, just so that we know who's here? Do I have anyone? 24 25 MR. : Yes. Good afternoon, this is James from ABC News, in listen-only mode. based on what I understood when I joined in. I understood that someone wanted to arrange for a court reporter; is that right? Is that right; is that not right? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. All right. This is essentially a courtroom. It's open to the public. This is not a confidential proceeding. I don't consider this a settlement conference, and so there's no reason why it can't be a public proceeding. I'll also note that I just saw come in an application that looks like it could be rather similar to what's going on here in another one of the cases, 20 Civ. 484; different plaintiff, different plaintiff's counsel. Apparently an agreement has been reached through the compensation program, and that case also has Ms. Maxwell as a defendant. So I'm assuming whatever happens here will be relevant to that case. And I'll just ask plaintiff's counsel -- or the defendant's counsel, for that matter -- to please be in touch with plaintiff's counsel in that other case. Somebody should be in touch with them to let them know what's going on here, since it seems similar. So it seems to me there's only one issue here, and this has to do with the release. Seems like you've agreed on language for a stipulation discontinuance, and the only question is whether Ms. Maxwell does or does not get a full and redacted copy of the settlement agreement that was reached through the program or mutual releases. I'm finding it hard to understand why we have any kind of complicated issue here. If what Ms. Maxwell is looking for is assurance that she's being 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 released from claims and therefore the plaintiffs cannot sue her again because she's been released from claims, and, in fact, if plaintiff has executed such a release in connection with the settlement through the compensation program, then I don't see why she can't just copy and paste that into a new document called "release" and give it to Ms. Maxwell and sign it, and Ms. Maxwell will have her release. I don't understand why Ms. Maxwell is looking for -- or why plaintiff would be looking for mutual releases. You didn't seem to be demanding that coming in the door when you asked to have this case resolved -- you know, terminated. And I don't understand why Ms. Maxwell needs to know the amount of the compensation through the program. Seems like that would not be relevant to her estated issue, which is that she wants to have a release. 15 16 So why can't she just get a release, period? Somebody explain to me why this is an issue. 17 18 MS. MCCAWLEY: Sure, your Honor. This is Sigrid McCawley, for the plaintiff, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You're absolutely correct that the parties participated -- not Ms. Maxwell, but we participated in the Epstein compensation program, as your Honor encouraged us to do back in the summertime to explore that opportunity in order to get rid of pending litigation if that was possible. So we went through that process. And as you know, that process has very defined rules in how it moves forward, and that was all 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 negotiated in advance of the program starting. And we went through that process. And as part of that process, you know, as you've said, we have to provide a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in order to complete that program. So we went through that program. We signed the settlement release that's required by that program, and that is an exchange for the compensation. And we then submitted to you the dismissal with prejudice request after we proposed it to opposing counsel. The estate agreed. The estate also agreed that Ms. Maxwell could raise her fee issue with them, that that was not precluded. And the only issue -- THE COURT: Let me just ask for a clarification point. MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. THE COURT: The release that's required in connection with the compensation program, does it include a release of Ms. Maxwell, and not just the estate? MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes. So the language in the release, which is why they demanded it, has release of anybody who has been employed by the estate, which includes Ms. Maxwell. So it does cover her, so that's why there is no -- I think the Court -- we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. What we're giving her -- by giving her a copy of the general release and dismissing our case with prejudice under Rule 41(2), we cannot bring those claims again. So she has what she needs. She has the release that has the language that we've already signed with the estate. The only thing in that that would be redacted is the amount. And she has a dismissal with prejudice such 4 that would not be able to bring these claims against her. So -- 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I'm still having a lot of trouble seeing what the problem is here. Maybe Ms. Maxwell's counsel can explain to me what the problem is if you have a copy of the signed release and it covers your client, what is the holdup? 9 10 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is Laura Menninger, on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. 11 12 13 14 I do not have a copy of the signed release. The only people who have a copy of the signed release are the estate and plaintiff's counsel. One has not been provided to me, redacted or otherwise. 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Well, okay. So let's assume the release is provided to you and the only thing that's redacted from the document is the amount of the compensation being received in exchange for the release. 19 20 What is the problem with that? That's been offered to you. What would be the problem with that? 21 22 23 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we believe that having an authentic copy of the release is important for at least two reasons: One -- 24 25 THE COURT: And you think something redacted would not be authentic? MS. MENNINGER: It would be altered in some way. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, how about what I said in the first place, which is, on plaintiff's side, take the release language exactly as it appears in the agreement that you already have. You're not doing anything other than what you've already agreed to do, put it on a new piece of paper, put the date on it, put a signature line, put an original signature on it, and give it to Ms. Maxwell. She has an document that's an authentic release, unaltered, exactly the document we're giving you. We're giving you a release. 11 What would be wrong with that? 12 13 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley, for the plaintiff. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 You know, that is not something we agreed to obviously in the course of the program. So we agreed to the general release in exchange for the compensation we're getting from the estate. So this would be requiring Maxwell some separate document, which I assume there would have to be some negotiation over, and Ms. Maxwell's not giving anything in exchange. So that's why we propose when your Honor raised the issue -- 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Why not a document then that recites: Whereas, plaintiff has participated in the program and whereas has reached an agreement which is confidential -- or in exchange for which she will be getting some compensation for a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I mean, why is there no way around this? This seems ridiculous. If plaintiff is willing to release, Ms. Maxwell should not have to provide the amount of the compensation. I agree with that. Ms. Maxwell should have a document she can go to court with that says: Here's the release. She wants a document that doesn't have a redaction in it. Give her a clean document that doesn't have a redaction in it. 11 12 13 14 15 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, one of the other reasons that we do think having the original release is important will be, it is going to be relevant in our lawsuit that is currently pending against the estate for indemnification in the Virgin Islands. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: So give them a copy of the redacted agreement together with a statement from plaintiff that says, you know, plaintiff agrees that, you know, in the future should this release be raised in any lawsuit against plaintiff, plaintiff will not object to the release on the ground that it has been redacted -- the amount has been redacted. We'll waive a right to -- would that be acceptable? 23 24 25 MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. We could agree to send a letter saying that we have signed the release, including a copy in redacted form and attesting to the fact that we've release, and whereas that agreement contains the terms of the release, which are recited below, and whereas plaintiff has agreed to those terms, signed document? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 signed that and she can use it to the extent necessary in another litigation. You know, we're only dismissing with prejudice, so we can't -- Annie will not be able to sue her again for these claims. THE COURT: Right. Right. MS. McCAWLEY: So, I mean, I don't know we have to write additional documents that -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. If we talk simultaneously, no one will ever be able to make a transcript of this, either the court reporter you retained or anyone using this recording. So all I'm saying is, you're capable counsel. This seems like a ridiculous problem. There's no issue here, right. Plaintiff has resolved the claims. As part of the resolution of the claims, she's willing to give a release to Ms. Maxwell. It's part of the condition of the program; she's willing to do it. Ms. Maxwell wants to have a copy of the release that she can use. She should be entitled to have a copy of the release she can use. If you're worried that if I go to court and I have a copy of the document that's redacted and they'll make some stink and say this isn't authentic, so write a piece of paper that she says we won't object on that ground. And I think the point is well taken; if the case is dismissed with prejudice, it's dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be brought again. So you're not particularly at risk here, Ms. Maxwell's 4 5 6 7 side, right? But if plaintiff is willing to give you a letter or some kind of signed statement that says, we won't object to you using this in the future on the ground that it's redacted and a copy, you know, signing here, that we won't object on that basis, there really ought to be some way that's not -- you don't need me to think of, to make this go smoothly. It seems to me it's making a mountain out of a mole 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I don't disagree with you. I don't think it should be a mountain. I think it should be a molehill. I have not heard -- one of the reasons that we believe it will be relevant and admissible in future proceedings is because we do have ongoing litigation against the estate related to indemnification for this and other legal matters. And the actual copy of the release, the fact that was paid out moneys, some of which under the claims program, as I understand it, would be additional money based on her claims against Ms. Maxwell that are separate and apart from those against the estate will be relevant to that indemnification proceeding. If your Honor would prefer that we just have a redacted copy now with some language that says no one's going to contest the authenticity of that document when and if it's relevant in future proceedings, that's fine, and in the indemnification case, we may have to ask under discovery rules for a copy of it there for whatever purposes might be relevant in that proceeding. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I'm not trying to make this substantial. When I went to plaintiff's counsel and tried to discuss what your Honor suggested, they would only give us a release if Ms. Maxwell was releasing, which, of course, there's no basis for that request. And in the past, plaintiff's counsel have said they don't even know if Ms. Maxwell is covered by these releases. So I am simply trying to make sure that if what counsel is representing to be true, that Ms. Maxwell is fully released from all came claims by and that I have a copy of the document that I can use in future proceedings, it should be the molehill that your Honor has described. 12 13 14 THE COURT: Are you saying that you need assurance from the estate that the estate will not contest the document based on its being redacted or being a copy? 15 16 17 18 19 MS. MENNINGER: Since both the estate and plaintiff's counsel have a copy, I would assume whatever I get, neither party -- either party would be willing to tell me is an authentic copy, or they won't contest it, if it's relevant in future proceedings. 20 21 22 THE COURT: So what you're saying is you're contemplating potential future proceedings involving the estate -- or potentially against the estate. 23 Am I -- 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: We already have -- that's pending, your Honor. THE COURT: Is what you can anticipate -- assurance from the estate as opposed to assurance from the plaintiff, that it will not contest your use of the document based on its being redacted or being a copy. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: My preference would be to have an unredacted copy. And I -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to order that you get a copy that chose the compensation. I don't think you need that for what you're describing at this time. And I don't think you need a mutual release either. I'll direct that to plaintiff's counsel. I think all you need is confirmation that you have the release that plaintiff and defense estate both say you have. You need a copy of the release that you can use in the future and rely on and nobody will contest it's authentic; that's all it comes down to. So it seems to me you folks should be able to figure that out because it seems like a simple problem. There's a willingness to give the release, there's a desire to get the release. It's just a question of what it looks like. If it's a separate piece of paper with - fine. If it's a redacted copy, fine, as long as Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, has the assurance that nobody will later contest it on the ground that the copy is redacted, or the copy is a copy. It's not -- it doesn't seem like it's that hard. All right? So can you please figure this out -- 4 5 6 7 8 Maybe the easiest at this point is just to provide the redacted copy and have, you know, a signed letter from counsel for both plaintiff and counsel for the estate saying that there won't be an objection on the ground that it's redacted or a duplicate as long as been everybody knows what's being referred to? 9 10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm so sorry, your Honor. I didn't mean to interrupt you. 11 12 13 THE COURT: It seems to me you should be able to come up with some language in some manner that settles this issue, puts this issue to bed and get this case resolved. 14 15 MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. And we're happy to do that. My only concern is that the timing of this. 16 17 18 Is it possible if some other issue comes up, that we're able to get a conference with you? Because obviously Annie can't complete the program until this issue is resolved. 19 20 21 THE COURT: Yes. I'll make myself available for another conference if you need it. I'm really hoping you don't. 22 MS. MCCAWLEY: I agree. 23 24 25 THE COURT: I mean, you work this out. You resolved this. There was an amount of money that was acceptable and was accepted. You know, Ms. Maxwell should be thrilled that, MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: -- in some way that resolves this? 4 5 6 without doing anything, she got included in a release. You all should be quite pleased with the outcome here and move along. So I don't mean to be like giving you -- I don't mean to sound like I'm giving you such a hard time, but it's sort of beyond me how you can't work this out. It seems like so much of a non-issue. 7 8 9 10 And for anyone who's listening in from the press and hearing me talk about this, this is a non-issue here you're listening in to. So, you know, welcome to a conference on which should be a non-issue. 11 12 13 You know, if anything, it's good that the claims compensation program successfully resulted in what seems to be a resolution of a claim. That's it. All right? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. 15 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: I'll make myself available if you still need me. Go figure it out. And I'll watch the docket. if there's a problem, you'll put it on the docket. Please don't have a problem. Okay? 20 MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. 21 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Take care, everybody. Be well. 23 24 25