IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN

********************************

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED ) Case No.: ST-2020-CV-00014

STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
V. )
)
DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as )
the EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF )
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and )
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 )
TRUST; RICHARD D. KAHN, in his )
capacity as THE EXECUTOR FOR THE )
ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and )
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 )
TRUST; ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. )
EPSTEIN; THE 1953 TRUST; PLAN D. )
LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC; )
NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, )
LLC; POPLAR, INC.; SOUTHERN )
TRUST COMPANY, INC.; JOHN AND )
JANE DOES )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
)

JOINT PRE-CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 93 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, the Government of the
Virgin Islands (“the Government”) and Defendants hereby submit their Joint Pre-Conference
Statement.
The parties, through counsel of record, met and conferred by telephone and e-mail on
several occasions. During the course of those meetings, the parties agreed on certain items in the
discovery plan. Multiple items remain at issue and thus the parties are presenting competing
proposals.
I. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Government alleges that for decades, Jeffrey E. Epstein conducted an enterprise (the
“Epstein Enterprise”) whereby he used his web of businesses in the Virgin Islands to transport
female victims, many of them children, to his privately-owned Little St. James Island, where they
were sexually abused, injured, and held captive in violation of Virgin Islands criminal laws. FAC,
¶¶ 40-41. Mr. Epstein and his associates lured these girls and young women to his island with
promises of modeling and other career opportunities. Id., ¶ 49. Once they arrived, they were
sexually abused, exploited, and held captive in that passports and other travel documents were
often confiscated upon their arrival and withheld. Id.
The Government alleges that the Epstein Estate and the other named Defendants violated
the Virgin Islands’ Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“CICO”) by committing
and conspiring to commit multiple criminal human trafficking offenses. See id., ¶¶ 115-170
(Counts One through Eight). The Government further alleges that Defendants violated CICO by
committing and conspiring to commit various child-abuse, neglect, rape, unlawful sexual contact,
prostitution, and sex offender registry related offenses based upon the foregoing sexual abuse
conduct. See id., ¶¶ 171-287 (Counts Nine through Nineteen). The Government also alleges that
Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to conceal their unlawful actions. See id., ¶¶ 281-287
(Count Twenty-Two). Finally, the Government alleges that committed and conspired to commit
fraudulent conveyances and fraudulent claims upon the Government based upon Epstein’s
transfers of assets in the days immediately preceding his jailhouse suicide in July 2019. See id., ¶¶
259- 280, 288-306 (Counts Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three, and Twenty-Four).
Defendants deny many of the substantive allegations made against them and, if necessary,
will answer those allegations at the appropriate time. In response to the Government’s allegations,
Defendants also assert several legal defenses. First, Defendants contend that the CICO claims are
all time-barred because the Government failed to allege relevant acts within the five-year statement
of limitations period. Def.’ Mot. Dismiss at 3-4 (Mar. 17, 2020). Second, Defendants argue that
the Governments’ CICO claims do not meet the definition of “criminal activity” as defined by 14
V.I.C. § 604(e). Id. at 4. Similarly, Defendants allege that the Government failed to identify an
“enterprise” as defined by CICO. Id. Third, Defendants allege that the Government failed to
allege with requisite particularity the fraud, coercion or conspiracy counts. Id. Finally, Defendants
assert a number of other defenses related to the probate proceedings and administrative remedies.
Id.
The Government filed a Motion for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. The
Estate has not opposed this Motion. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) adds
several new defendants, including Estate Co-Executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in
their individual capacities, as well as Epstein-owned entities Cypress, Inc., Maple, Inc., and Laurel,
Inc. The Government added these persons and entities as Defendants based upon substantial
evidence it has obtained through extensive third-party subpoena discovery, interviews with
witnesses, and obtaining access to previously-sealed court filings, which have revealed new facts
pertaining to:
• the Epstein Enterprise’s criminal sexual trafficking and abuse conduct,
including the use of forced-arranged marriages among Epstein’s young female
victims to fraudulently preserve the immigration status and, thus, the
availability of several victims;

2
 • the involvement of Defendants Indyke and Kahn in their individual capacities
with the Epstein Enterprise’s conduct;

• the creation of additional Epstein-owned entities (Defendants Cypress, Maple,

and Laurel) for the sole purpose of placing ownership in the Virgin Islands of
Epstein’s properties located elsewhere in the United States; and

• Epstein’s acts taken to conceal the Enterprise’s criminal conduct from

discovery by public law-enforcement authorities.

The Government’s newly-acquired evidence supports new causes of action, expansion of

existing claims to cover new parties, and new allegations in support of existing claims, all related
to the Epstein Enterprise’s criminal trafficking and sexual abuse conduct.
Defendants again deny many of the allegations made in the proposed SAC, including the
allegations relating to the Estate’s Co-Executors. Defendants and the proposed defendants dispute
the characterization of the purported newly-discovered evidence, specifically that it shows any
involvement of proposed defendants Indyke and Kahn in any of the alleged Epstein Enterprise
conduct. Further, despite the Government’s proposed amendments, the proposed SAC does not
address the legal deficiencies of the Government’s earlier pleadings. If the proposed SAC is
accepted for filing, Defendants and the proposed defendants will move to dismiss the pleading on
essentially the same grounds as Defendants have moved already, and potentially additional
grounds that were not applicable to the First Amended Complaint.

II. IMPLEADING AND/OR INTERPLEADING PARTIES

While the Government’s investigation of potential additional participants in the Epstein
Enterprise remains ongoing, the Government does not currently contemplate adding additional
defendants to the instant action. The parties do not anticipate impleading or interpleading
additional parties or filing third- or fourth party complaints.

III. PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

1. Discovery.

a. The Government proposes: The Government believes that discovery is needed on

all matters raised in the parties’ pleadings, including, but not limited to, the
allegations and claims asserted by the Government and all denials and defenses
asserted by the Defendants. While the Government has conducted extensive
discovery of third parties, the Estate has not cooperated with any discovery or
subpoenas issued by the Government. This case has been pending since January
2020, and to date, the Estate has not responded to pending discovery. The

3
 Government believes that discovery must begin immediately and, given its
importance, that the litigation proceeds as expeditiously as possible.

Defendants propose: Defendants believe that all discovery should be stayed until
the Court decides the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Defendants maintain that the Government incorrectly asserts that the Estate has not
“cooperated” with discovery or otherwise responded to its discovery demands. On
April 8, 2020, the Estate moved to stay all discovery, which motion remains
pending, and on April 14, 2020, the Parties jointly filed a Rule 26(f) with competing
proposals for a case management schedule and limitations on certain forms of
discovery, which Report has not been addressed by the Court. Notwithstanding the
pendency of the motion to stay discovery and the fact that the Court has not adopted
a case management schedule or ruled on the parties’ competing proposals for
discovery limitations, the Estate has served written responses to each discovery
request served on Defendants, negotiated an agreed upon protective order to govern
discovery should discovery proceed, and permitted the Government to inspect both
Little St. James and Great St. James Islands pursuant to Rule 34. All issues
discussed below are subject to Defendants’ position that, in the first instance, any
additional discovery should be stayed.

b. The parties discussed disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information.

The parties will work together to provide information about electronically stored
information.

c. The parties will circulate and agree to an order regarding claims of privilege or of
protection, if needed.

d. The parties’ proposals as to completion of discovery are as follows:

i. Disclosures pursuant to V.I. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):

1. The Government’s proposal: Disclosures thirty (30) days after
entry of the Proposed Scheduling Order.
2. Defendants’ proposal: Disclosures to be served thirty (30) days
after the Court decides the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery if
the Court denies such motion, or, if the Court grants such motion,
thirty (30) days after the Court decides the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss.

ii. Fact discovery:

1. The parties agree that they shall provide timely notice of all third-
party subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4).
a. Defendants propose that, to the extent not provided to all
Parties by the subpoena recipient, the Party receiving third

4
 party discovery will forward such discovery to the other
Parties.

2. The parties agree that each deposition shall be limited to a maximum

of seven (7) hours unless extended by agreement of the parties.

3. The Government’s proposal: Fact discovery to commence

immediately and to be completed within nine (9) months of entry of
this Order.
a. The Government proposes the following limitations upon
each party:
i. Sixty (60) interrogatories in total may be propounded
by the Government and by the collective Defendants;
ii. Sixty (60) requests for admission in total may be
propounded by the Government and by the collective
Defendants;
iii. Requests for Production of Documents by each party
will not be limited.
iv. Written responses to Interrogatories, Requests to
Produce and Requests to Admit shall be due thirty
(30) days after service.
v. A maximum of forty (40) depositions, exclusive of
expert depositions, may be taken by the Government
and the collective Defendants.

4. Defendants’ proposal: Discovery should be stayed. Absent a stay,

if the Court orders that each side can take no more than twenty (20)
depositions, then fact discovery to be completed within fifteen (15)
months of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion to stay
discovery, if the Court denies that motion, or fifteen (15) months of
the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, if the Court
denies that motion, whichever is earlier; or, if the Court orders that
each side can take more than twenty (20) depositions, then fact
discovery to be completed within twenty-one (21) months after the
earlier of any denial of Defendants’ motion to stay discovery or any
denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss,.
a. If the Court denies the motion to stay, Defendants propose
the following limitations:
i. Twenty-five (25) total interrogatories propounded by
the Government and twenty-five total by the
Defendants;

5
 ii. Twenty-five (25) requests for admission in total may
be propounded by the Government and twenty-five
(25) total by the Defendants;
iii. Requests for Production of Documents by each party
will not be limited;
iv. Written responses/objections to document requests
shall be due thirty (30) days after service. Written
responses/objections to interrogatories and requests
for admission shall by due sixty (60) days after
service;
v. A maximum of twenty (20) depositions, exclusive of
expert depositions, may be taken by the Government
and a maximum of twenty (20) may be taken by the
Defendants, but any party may seek to take
additional depositions if that party can show the
Court good cause for taking them;

iii. Discovery motions:

1. The parties agree that motions to compel, for protective orders or
other discovery motions shall be filed within thirty (30) days of
service of the discovery response from which the motion arises or
the date by which such response was due if no such response was
served. All discovery motions shall be filed no later than 30 days
from the close of fact discovery, absent a showing of good cause for
later filing.

iv. Expert Discovery:

a. The Government proposes:
i. The Government’s expert reports to be served forty-
five (30) days after the end of fact discovery.
ii. Defendants’ expert reports to be served forty-five
(30) days after the disclosure.
iii. Expert depositions to begin fourteen (14) days after
the disclosure of Defendants’ expert reports and
conclude within forty-five (45) days of the disclosure
of Defendants’ expert reports.
b. The Defendants propose:
i. The Government’s expert reports to be served forty-
five (45) days after the end of fact discovery.
Depositions of the Government’s experts to be
completed forty-five (45) days after service of the
Government’s expert reports.

6
 ii. Defendants’ expert reports to be served forty-five
days after the disclosure and depositions of the
Government’s experts. Depositions of Defendants’
experts to be completed forty-five (45) days after
service of Defendants’ expert reports.

v. Dispositive Motions:
1. The Government proposes: summary judgment motions to be filed
within forty-five (45) days of the close of expert discovery, or March
30, 2023. Responses to those motions will be due thirty (30) days
from the filing of the motions. Replies will be due within fourteen
(14) days.
2. Defendants propose: summary judgment motions to be filed within
sixty (60) days of the close of expert discovery, with sixty (60) days
for response and thirty (30) days to reply.

vi. Pretrial Submission

1. The Government proposes: Within forty-five (45) days following
the determination of dispositive motions, the Parties shall file a
pretrial submission providing exhibit lists, and witness lists (live and
by designation), proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict
form. Deposition designations shall be provided to the Defendants
ten (10) days prior to the proposed date on which they would be
played, and counter designations or objections to designations, if
any, shall be exchanged five (5) days thereafter. The Parties shall
exchange exhibit lists thirty (30) days before the trial date, along
with any exhibits not produced by the parties. Motions in limine are
to be filed thirty (30) days before the trial date, with responses filed
seven (7) days after the filing of the motions, and replies to be filed
three (3) days thereafter. Motions in limine shall be heard at a
Pretrial Conference set by the Court based on the trial docket.

2. Defendants propose: Rule 26(a)(3) requires pretrial disclosures to

be made “at least 30 days before trial,” unless otherwise ordered by
the Court. This requirement expressly applies to “the designation of
those witnesses whose testimony the party expects to present by
deposition.” V.I. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(ii). Defendants proposed
schedule is consistent with the Rule and is intended to avoid trial
delays by including deposition designations as part of all other
pretrial disclosures. It eliminates uncertainty and trial delays that
are inherent in variable disclosure dates that are based on the
anticipated progression of the trial. Defendants therefore propose as
follows: If the summary judgment motions are denied in whole or

7
 in part, the Parties shall file with the Court at least forty-five (45)
days before the scheduled trial date a detailed pretrial submission
that includes: a witness list; a list of non-impeachment exhibits
(excluding demonstrative exhibits); a listing of the claims and
defenses on which the Parties intend to proceed; deposition
designations, counter-designations, and objections to designations
and counter-designations (the parties shall agree upon reasonable
dates for the exchange of deposition designations, counter-
designations, and objections); proposed jury instructions; and a
proposed verdict form. The Parties shall exchange electronic copies
of all non-impeachment exhibits (excluding demonstrative exhibits)
forty-five (45) days before the trial date. Motions in limine are to
be filed thirty (30) days before the trial date. Responses to motions
in limine to be filed seven (7) days after the filing of the motions,
and replies to be filed three (3) days thereafter. The Court shall hold
a final pretrial conference to address any motions in limine or other
outstanding items at its convenience before trial.

vii. Trial:
1. The Government proposes: the case should be ready for trial by
July 1, 2023. The case is expected to take four weeks.
2. Defendants propose: If the summary judgment motions are denied
in whole or in part, the case should be ready for trial 90 days after
the Court rules on such motions. The Defendants believe it is
premature to estimate the length of trial at this early date because (i)
the Court has not yet ruled on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which ruling can have a significant impact on
the scope of this case; and (ii) Defendants do not have any insight
into the number of fact and/or expert witnesses the Attorney General
intends to call at trial.

8
 viii. Mediation: Mediation to be conducted at a mutually agreeable time by the
parties within thirty (30) days of the close of all discovery or such earlier
time as may be set by the Court or agreed to by the parties.

Respectfully Submitted,

DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Dated: January 27, 2022 /s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs

CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQUIRE
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Virgin Islands Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
3438 Kronprindsens Gade
GERS Complex, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
(340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
Email: carol.jacobs@doj.vi.gov

Dated: January 27, 2022 /s/ Christopher Allen Kroblin

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN KROBLIN, ESQ.
SHARI N. D’ANDRADE, ESQ.
V.I. Bar Nos. 966 & 1221
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Royal Palms Professional Building
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802
Telephone: (340) 779-2564
Facsimile: (888) 316-9269
Email: ckroblin@kellfer.com
sdandrade@kellfer.com