CARI TT ACORASIGK Bosumsatsst efile hQ52477, caged of 2 Michaol C. Mitier i 212 508 3955 Step maniier@steptoa.com a 7 oe STEPTO & JOWNTON UF 1114 Avenue of the Americas Now York, NY 10036 meee 5 ol ysoc SONY ' b OK adel DOCUTONICALLY va - i* WE /1? 7 25 a co * “ED. DAFE FILED —— May 22, 2017 VIA ECF Hon. Joho G. Koelt! So United States District Court AM United States Courthouse b, lo lP 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 ae wD: _ Re: Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Lat) Civil Action No. 17-cv-616 Dear Judge Koeltl: We are counsel to defendants Jeffrey Epstein and [J in the above-referenced matter, We write in response to Pluintiff’'s May 19, 2017 letter to the Court, in which Plaintiff contends that discovery should proceed now, i.e., before the Plaintiff files her amended complaint and the Court resolves the inevitable motions to dismiss. We respectfully submit that, for the reasons set forth below, the Court should stay discovery pending the resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. We are advised that Defendant (EEE joins in this request. Plaintiff's counsel recently advised us that Plaintiff is likely to file an amended complaint and will do on or before June 3.2013. Plaintiff arrived at this conclusion after receiving letters on May 15, 2017 this firm (on behalf of Defendants Epstein and Groff) and counsel for a outlined the many deficiencies in the current complaint that warrant its dismissal (“ 15 Letters”). Pursuant to this Court's May 15, 2017 Stipulation and Order, Defendants wil! have unti] June 19, 2017 to move to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, and briefing will be completed by August 2, 2017. We respectfully submit that discovery should be stayed until the Court resolves the inevitable motions to dismiss the amended complaint, for the following reasons: First, and in any event, the Plaintiff has not yet served her amended complaint. It is not possible to properly assess the propriety of any discovery propounded by the Plaintiff until her amended complaint has been served on and reviewed by the Defendants. Rogen v. Scheer, 1991 EFTA00286404

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CARS FM QRRIE IK RAGA hd H IY pabas or Ht 2 Hon. John G, Koeltl pleptoe May 22, 2017 ‘ Page 2 WL 33294 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 1991) (“before the plaintiff can avail himself of the process of this Court to build his case, he must state an adequate claim on the information in his hands. The stay on discovery is therefore continued until a final amended complaint and answer thereto are filed with this Court”); American Fed. of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund y. Atlantic Recording Corp., 2016 WL 2641122 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2016) (staying discovery pending motion to dismiss amended complaint). Second, we do not believe that Plaintiff can cure the many defects in her current complaint with an amended complaint. As outlined in the May 15 Letters, the current complaint is fatally deficient because it: (a) fails to state a claim; (b) is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; (c) fails to allege jurisdiction; and (d) fails to establish that venue is properly laid in the Southem District of New York. We respectfully request that the Court waive its page limitation on letter motions to permit us to provide the Court with a copy of the May 15 Letters. Third, Plaintiff's purported urgent need to press forward with discovery cannot be reconciled with the fact that she waited over ten years to bring this action. There is no need to commence discovery immediately in a case that the Plaintiff has neglected to commence for such a long period of time. Fourth, while there will be no prejudice to the Plaintiff if discovery in connection with her more than 10-year old claim is stayed by the Court, the Defendants will undoubtedly expend time, energy and resources in responding to discovery demands that may prove to be unjustified and completely irrelevant if the motions to dismiss even an amended complaint by Plaintiff bring the Plaintiff's claims to an appropriate and immediate end. Lastly, there is a pending action in Florida where Plaintiff's lead counsel, Brad Edwards, is the counter-claim plaintiff against Jeffrey Epstein. Given the pending Florida litigation, the timing of Plaintiff's request to proceed with discovery for this case at this time, before the Court’s determination as to whether Plaintiff's has sufficiently stated a claim and whether her claim is time-barred, raises questions as to the purpose and propriety of the request. For all of the above reasons, we respectfully submit that there is good cause to stay discovery until the Court has resolved the motions to dismiss the led complai t Michael C. Miller Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and EFTA00286405