EFTA00206829.pdf

Subject: RE: (draft) Pleadings to Be Filed Tomorrow -- RE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:13:28 +0000 Importance: Normal I just talked to Brad Edwards again, and he and Judge Cassell ("Paul") are apparently having a disagreement. Brad did say that Paul agreed to the extension, if we made the motion. Dexter is on a flight right now. Brad and I have agreed to talk again in the morning. I will discuss with Dexter tonight, then hopefully try to set up a conference call with and I for tomorrow morning so we can get everyone on the same page. I will keep you all posted. 400 Subject: RE: (draft) Pleadings to Be Filed Tomorrow -- RE JEFFREY EPSTEIN In addition to the thoughts I raised earlier, I'd note that two weeks doesn't seem like much time. Subject: FW: (draft) Pleadings to Be Filed Tomorrow -- RE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Good afternoon, everyone. So much for my telephone call this morning. Judge Cassell has apparently taken a different point of view. Please see below and attached. From: Paul Cassell [mailb3:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:49 PM EFTA00206829 Subject: (draft) Pleadings to Be Filed Tomorrow I wanted to send you drafts of the pleadings we are in the process of preparing to file tomorrow, pursuant to Judge Marra's order. As mentioned in several previous e-mails, we stand ready to work with you to try and narrow the range of disputed facts — and trust that you will be willing to stipulate to all the facts that are correct in our pleadings. (Most of them are now based on documented e-mails, so we trust the bulk of the facts will gain your stipulated approval.) I am also writing because co-counsel Brad Edwards has been working with on a possible approach to the filings tomorrow. At MIEJggestion, Brad has offered to take out a paragraph that Marea was concerned about in our fact section and to file our pleadings under seal tomorrow for, say, a period of (at least) two weeks. This would give us an opportunity to work with you to resolve disputed facts and, more generally, to try and resolve the entire dispute. In exchange, we request that you agree not to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and not to argue that we need to file some sort of civil complaint to litigate these issues (both suggestions you raised in your earlier e-mail). Brad and I don't believe such arguments would be legally well founded in any event. But if you are asking for concessions on our part, we would like to narrow the subjects of the litigation that we have to respond to in exchange. As we have mentioned at every stage of this case, we stand ready to work with you to try and resolve the matter. We continue to be willing to attempt a fair resolution that protects our client's interests. Along those lines, if you have concerns about us filing our pleadings under seal tomorrow, we are ready to discuss the idea of delaying any filing for a period of, say, two weeks. Such a delay, however, would be contingent on your obtaining an extension from Judge Marra of our filing deadline. As you can see, we are ready to file and would delay only as an accommodation to you — and would except you to do the motion that would be required for such an extension). Brad and I stand ready to discuss these issues at any time with you and/or Marie. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CONFIDENTIAL: l 11.6 electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206830