← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Leon Black's Battle To Sanction Wigdor And His Accuser (5/5/26)
00:47:11
Leon Black became embroiled in a high-stakes legal fight stemming from his financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein, facing allegations that he was connected to Epstein’s trafficking operation—claims he has strongly denied. As part of his defense, Black...
Loading summary
Transcript9 lines
- [00:00]
A
Save on family essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or Melon Medley Bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and Wild Caught Lobster Tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, Sun Chips and Kettle cooked chips are $1.99 each. Limit four member price. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways
- [00:29]
B
to save what's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back in to those Leon Black core documents in his lawsuit against the Jane Doe who is suing him for allegedly assaulting her after being trafficked to Leon Black By Jeffrey Epstein, case number 123cv06418 Jane Doe v. Leon Black Defendant Leon Black's memorandum of law in support of his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and Jean Christensen Defendant Leon Black respectfully submits this memorandum in support of his motion for sanctions against Wigdor and Jean Christensen, Counsel for Plaintiff the Preliminary Statement this is a textbook case for the imposition of sanctions. The to put it plainly, the complaint in this action is made up out of whole cloth stitched together by Plaintiff and her lawyers at Wigdor for a sole transparent purpose to inflict maximal reputational and other harm on someone in means of hopes of extracting a major and totally undeserved payday. Plaintiff, whose own immediate family members have consistently acknowledged has a long history of dreaming up alternate realities, concocted the entire story, and her lawyer is at Wigdor now pursuing their third utterly frivolous sexual assault litigation against Mr. Black, the first of which has now been dismissed and the second of which will be hotly contested, knowingly aided and abetted their client's delusions without doing even the most basic due diligence into the facts, and indeed deliberately turned a blind eye to an overwhelming body of evidence squarely contradicting the allegations in the complaint. Sanctions here are not only warranted, but compelled in order to vindicate the Court's authority the whole Wigdor to account for their egregious misconduct and to dissuade prospective copycats from charting the same wayward course that Wigdor has pursued. Plaintiff's complaint spins a dramatic tale of a young girl with a supposed developmental and congenital disability, abandoned by her parents and then lured into the orbit of a cheerleading coach named Elizabeth. In the complaint, one who purportedly subjected her to physical abuse and then trafficked her to notorious pedophile jeffrey epstein and many others. As relevant here, wigdor alleges that during an extended period when she was shipped off on a weekly basis to epstein's properties in new york, the u. S. Virgin islands and florida, she was sexually assaulted, including allegedly being raped by Mr. Black more than 22 years ago. Everything the complaint says about Mr. Black is utterly and demonstrably false. Mr. Black has never met or even heard a plaintiff, much less raped her, a fact Mr. Black is fully prepared to establish should this matter proceed. But the complaint here is a sham, the direct product of obvious lies by plaintiff, squarely enabled by a law firm that not only failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry but that in fact has ignored objective evidence, casting a serious palliative on their clients bonafides and directly disproving key allegations in the complaint. After getting word of the complaint, Mr. Black retained professional investigators to investigate plaintiff and her allegations and swiftly learned facts that the most basic inquiry, had wigder done, one would have been unearthed. The investigation, entailing, among other things, discussions with plaintiff's family, friends and acquaintances, raises serious doubts about the allegations and that the plaintiff has autism and that she has mosaic down syndrome. Putting aside the fact that these allegations, if believed, would compel a diligent lawyer to be on heightened alert and to make additional inquiries before accusing anyone of heinous crimes decades in the past, Mr. Black's investigation showed that, according to plaintiff's own family, redacted has a history of making up alternate realities and never claimed to have autism or or mosaic down syndrome until well into adulthood. Plaintiff's family confirmed that plaintiff studied the behavior of people with autism and intentionally mimicked that behavior starting in her 20s. Her family said she claimed to have mosaic down syndrome only when she was in her 30s after a cousin posted on social media about her child with down syndrome and received positive support and attention. And far from suffering from learning or other significant intellectual challenges, plaintiff graduated from high school and college and is now believed to be studying law. Mr. Black's investigation also found that plaintiff did not join the cheerleading squad coached by elizabeth until plaintiff was in her senior year of high school, not when she was 15, as the complaint complains. It also showed that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff lived with her parents throughout high school and moved in with elizabeth for a short time only after she graduated and started college because elizabeth's home was closer to her college campus. Indeed, plaintiff drove redacted to and from school nearly every day during Plaintiffs redacted. Plaintiff did not, as she say and Wigdor now claim, missed countless Fridays and Mondays from her junior year of high school due to trips to Epstein's properties. Her parents, sister and friends all do not recall her missing any significant time from school other than a single period of inpatient hospitalization. In fact, none of the individuals contacted recall Plaintiff ever making any trips to New York, Florida or the US Virgin Islands. Instead, they recalled only a single trip abroad to the Bahamas with Elizabeth, Elizabeth's young son and Elizabeth's female friend after Plaintiff had graduated high school. On top of all of this, there is not one reference to Plaintiff's actual name in the the multitude of materials available in the public domain in connection with the various investigations and lawsuits connected to Epstein over the years. Plaintiff has not made any claims against Epstein's estate, never retained any of the lawyers representing groups of victims, nor joined any of the many public lawsuits. It blinks reality to suggest that Plaintiff had been regularly trafficked by the world's most notorious pedophile, and yet her name has never surfaced anywhere at any time until now, that is, and only against Mr. Black. Moreover, the complaint allegations purporting to reference facts about Epstein simply repeat information that is readily available through an Internet search. Had Wigdor conducted any inquiry at all, and at a minimum a reasonable inquiry, it would have discovered any and all of the facts Mr. Black so quickly identified that disprove her made up claims. But regardless, Wigdor was on notice that Plaintiff's claims should be investigated because it was expressly told prior to filing the complaint that Plaintiff's allegations were false, uncorroborated, and likely fabricated. Her family and friends and contemporary photographs of plaintiff in high school confirmed the falsity of her allegation that she physically presented as a young child at the time. Wigdor's response was to disregard the notice, refused to investigate the facts, and file a complaint accusing Mr. Black and others of some of the most despicable acts one could imagine. And worse, Wigdor still refused to lift a FINGER Even after Mr. Black sent it a Rule 11 letter detailing these facts and the results of Mr. Black's preliminary investigation, even though more shockingly, Wigdor has evidently been in contact with Plaintiff's family, Elizabeth and others only after the filing of the complaint and undoubtedly either heard and ignored or simply turned a blind eye to what plaintiff family has told them. Although Plaintiff's name has been anonymous in the case, Mr. Black's name has not. And true to form, Wigdor has whipped up yet another media frenzy surrounding these unimaginably lurid and disgusting allegations for the consumption of Mr. Black's family, friends, business associates and the public. One reason the law requires attorneys to investigate claims is is to avoid the untoward ruination of putative Defendant's name. Wigdor failed to uphold its duty to investigate Plaintiff's claims, choosing instead to blindly accept her spacious allegations at face value. Because Wigdor did not do so and has refused to withdraw or modify the complaint's allegations in the face of the evidence Mr. Black has advanced, sanctions should be imposed. The Background 1. Plaintiff's Allegations On July 25, 2023, Wignor filed a complaint on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe. Commencing the instant proceeding, the complaint tells a lurid story of abuse, grooming and sex trafficking, starring Epstein and his cohort of notorious associates, culminating in the heinous sexual assault of Plaintiff allegedly at the hands of Mr. Black. The complaint is replete with specific, detailed allegations about Plaintiff and the circumstances that led her to the alleged introductions to Epstein and Defendant. Nowhere did Wigdor specifically identify that there were any allegations that it believes will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity to further investigate discovery. In other words, it made representation to the Court that the complaints factual contentions had evidentiary support. Fedar Civ. P. 11B Mr. Black's attorneys understand that Wigdor was expressly warned prior to filing the complaint that Plaintiff's allegations regarding Epstein and Leon Black were false, uncorroborated, and likely fabricated. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that when she was 15 she participated in a county cheerleading program for 8 to 12 year old girls. She specifically alleges that she was allowed to participate despite being much older than the other girls because she could fit into the child size uniform. She then alleges that she was groomed by the adult who ran the program, whom Plaintiff refers to as Elizabeth, and soon began living at Elizabeth's house while still a high school student. Plaintiff claims that she did not have her own bed there, much less a bedroom. According to Plaintiff, Elizabeth subjected Plaintiff to horrific physical, psychological and sexual abuse, including punching, kicking, dragging Plaintiff up the stairs, depriving her of food and water, making her dress in small children's clothing, forcing her to exercise to exhaustion, threatening to kill her, and forcing her to watch Elizabeth and her male friend Charlie have sex. Plaintiff next alleges that in the late summer of 2001 when she was 15, Elizabeth and Charlie took her to an adult party in a suburb outside of D.C. where she was introduced to Ghislaine Maxwell. The very next week. Plaintiff alleges Elizabeth put plaintiff on a private plane from Virginia to Palm beach, where plaintiff was introduced to Epstein and brought into his fold. Plaintiff alleges that she was thereafter shipped out to Epstein's homes in Palm beach and US Virgin Islands most weekends and as a result missed countless Fridays and Mondays from her junior year of high school, almost causing her to fail. Plaintiff also alleges that Epstein began handing plaintiff off to other men, which would ultimately lead to the alleged rape by defendant. That forms the basis of plaintiff's putative claim. All right, we're going to wrap up right here and then the next episode we'll pick up with part two. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up with Jane Doe's lawsuit against Leon Black and Leon Black's motion to sanction Jane Doe and her lawyers. Three Defendants investigation Immediately uncovers evidence disproving these allegations soon after Wigdor filed the complaint, Mr. Black began investigating the outlandish, salacious and sensational allegations in the complaint. The story began to unravel immediately with a modicum of inquiry. Indeed, Defendant's initial preliminary investigation gives the lie the plaintiff's entire narrative and has failed to uncover even a shred of evidence supporting plaintiff's account.
- [12:44]
A
Save on Family Essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or melon medley bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and wild card hot lobster tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, sun chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit for member price. Hurry in these deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [13:16]
B
His investigators easily obtained evidence that either refuted key details in the complaint or or showed them to be patently and unequivocally false. A the cheerleading program, for example, plaintiff alleges that as a 15 year old high school student she participated in a cheerleading program for 8 to 12 year old girls and that she was allowed to participate because she could not fit into a child sized uniform. This hyper specific allegation, no doubt included to make plaintiff's allegations of underage sex trafficking seem even more heinous, is demonstrably false. Witness statements, including signed sworn declarations and photographic evidence prove that Plaintiff participated in a recreational cheerleading program called redacted that was open to high school age girls. Melendez Declaration 13, Exhibit B. Furthermore, plaintiff physical development was normal and she could not have fit into a uniform for an 8 to 12 year old child. Melendez Declaration 11 and 13. Numerous photographs of plaintiff from the period alleged in the complaint confirmed that she was at least normal size and development. Indeed, a dated official photograph of plaintiff and her cheerleading team, which Mr. Black's investigators were able to easily obtain during their preliminary inquiry, shows that plaintiff was of normal size and development for her age. Living with Elizabeth. As another example, plaintiff alleges that she began living nearly full time with her cheerleading coach Elizabeth while plaintiff was still in high school. Plaintiff's family, however, stated unequivocally that plaintiff lived at home throughout high school. Indeed, plaintiff stated that she drove her to school nearly every day during plaintiff's redacted. Plaintiff's family members and high school classmates deny that plaintiff ever lived outside of her home during high school. Nor do any of them recall plaintiff missing school for any significant amount of time other than when plaintiff was redacted. Mr. Black's investigators were able to quickly determine that plaintiff did in fact live with her former cheerleading coach for a brief period of time after plaintiff graduated from high school. After graduating, plaintiff enrolled at Ms. Redacted, lived closer to redacted than plaintiff's family, and and so, as a favor, offered to let plaintiff live with her while she attended College. Plaintiff was 18 years old at the time and contrary to allegations in the complaint, had her own bedroom. Plaintiff's family, Ms. Redacted, Ms. Redacted's son and Ms. Redacted's then boyfriend who lived with Ms. Redacted at the time, all confirmed that plaintiff was a freshman in college during the brief period when she lived with Ms. Redacted, and the plaintiff did not live with Ms. Redacted by while she was in high school. In addition, contrary to plaintiff's allegations about being trafficked around the country and the u. S. Virgin islands, all of the interviewees stated that plaintiff never traveled out of the state, let alone out of the country, other than for her hospitalization and a trip to the Bahamas that she took with Ms. Redacted, Ms. Redacted's teenage son and a female friend of Ms. Redacted, which occurred after plaintiff graduated high school. Plaintiff's history concerning mental health issues, in addition to evidence refuting and indeed outright disproving key allegations in plaintiff's complaint, Mr. Black's investigation revealed that, among other things, members of Plaintiff's family stated that she has assumed a series of different names and Personas, has a history of making up alternate realities, and frequently invents things that, in their words, become her reality. Plaintiff's family members and Ms. Redacted and plaintiff's high school classmates all stated that Plaintiff did not display any symptoms or characteristics of autism while in high school, and indeed, Plaintiff's family confirmed that she was not diagnosed with autism during her childhood or while she lived home throughout high school. Plaintiff's sister, who now works with autistic children, stated that Plaintiff only began displaying such behaviors in her 20s and did so intentionally in order to present herself as a person with autism. For example, Plaintiff once noted that people with autism don't look other people in the eye and therefore began to avoid looking people in the eye, a behavior she has never before displayed. Plaintiff's family members also noted that Plaintiff first claimed to have Mosaic down syndrome when she was in her 30s after a cousin posted on social media about her child with down syndrome and received positive support and detention. D. Absolutely no Evidence Connecting Plaintiff to Epstein or his associates Mr. Black's investigation has not turned up even a shred of evidence connecting Plaintiff to Epstein. Investigations concerning Epstein have been ongoing for many years, led by numerous criminal, civil, and other regulatory authorities as well as civil litigants and the innumerable law firms representing them. Many of the women actually associated with Epstein have been identified, yet no one has ever identified Plaintiff, either directly or indirectly, as having any connection to Epstein. Significant materials concerning Epstein have been made public through judicial proceedings and multiple databases, but not one contains any direct or indirect reference to plaintiff. 3. Mr. Black serves a Rule 11 warning letter Wigdorfels to meaningfully respond. On August 25, 2023, counsel for defendants served Wigdor with a warning letter pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this Rule 11 letter, counsel raised many of the investigative findings cataloged above and put Wigdor on notice that Defendant would seek sanctions under Rule 11 based on Wigdor's apparent failure to conduct any investigation, let alone reasonable inquiry, prior to filing the complaint. On September 7, 2023, Wigdor served its response to the Rule 11 letter. In response, Wigdor stated only, we're fully confident in our investigation and inquiry that was more than reasonable of our clients claims. However, Wigdor did not identify any investigative steps it took prior to filing Plaintiff's complaint, nor did Wigdor address any of the investigative findings discussed above or or explain why it had either failed to discover those facts during its supposed investigation or why it proceeded to file plaintiff's complaint despite having learned them. Nowhere in Wigdor's response did it explain why, in light of the facts uncovered by Mr. Black's investigators, it nevertheless believed that the factual contentions in the complaint had evidentiary support. Fedarsiv. P11B3 ESTRICH DECLARATION Nor did after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. RSIV. P11B3. The Legal Standard Rule 11 requires an attorney who files a pleading to certify, among other things, that all factual contentions made within those pleadings have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. RSIV. P11 requires lawyers to think first and file later on pain of personal liability. Accordingly, Rule 11 imposes a duty upon counsel to undertake a reasonable inquiry into the factual validity and legal viability of their pleadings. Fed. Rsiv. P11B. By presenting to the court a pleading, an attorney certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, the formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances that the pleading is valid and properly brought before the court. See Cooter vs. Jell vs. Hartmax Corporation. Rule 11 directs counsel to stop, think and investigate carefully before serving and filing papers. Under Rule 11, an attorney has an affirmative duty to make reasonable inquiry under the facts and the law. An attorney can violate Rule 11 by either failing to make a reasonable pre filing inquiry and into the basis for her client's allegations or filing a paper that no competent attorney could believe after reasonable inquiry is well grounded in fact. Attorneys are entitled to rely on their clients factual representations only if those representations are objectively reasonable. Whereas here the claims involve allegations of serious wrongdoing against others, counsel should conduct a thorough investigation before filing. See Anderson vs. County of Montgomery. Before alleging what actually amounted to criminal wrongdoing by various court officers, attorney should have conducted a serious investigation. O' Rourke vs. Dominion Voting System, Incorporated, 552 F. Cup. 3d 1168, 1203. Colorado. In light of serious nature of allegations, the required degree of due diligence in pre filing investigation was heightened. Kleppen's blind reliance on his client was especially unreasonable given the nature of Khan's charges. The affidavit caused plaintiff for bribery, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and subordination of perjury serious criminal conduct under any circumstances but extraordinary charges in the context of otherwise ordinary litigation. Coseckin vs. Exxon. The court cautions that great care ought to be exercised in filing a complaint, particularly where serious allegations of racial discrimination are being alleged against a publicly recognized corporation, an attorney should not file a complaint based on assumption of facts. He must first conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts. The key element of a claim should be examined with special scrutiny, particularly where an inquiry would reveal a lack of factual basis for the allegations. Where redacted, a client's redacted may affect their perception or ability to discern or tell the truth. Their attorney has a heavy burden to investigate the foundation and the details of their claim. An attorney also has a continuing duty to reassess the validity of his or her client's claim. A litigant's obligation with respect to the contents of these papers are not measured solely of the time they are filed with or submitted to the court by, but include reaffirming to the court and advocating positions contained in those pleadings and motions. After learning that they ceased to have any merit in Perry, the court sanctioned plaintiff's counsel where a reasonable inquiry would have made it patently clear that the claims had absolutely no chance of success and explained that was the case regardless of when the facts that would have invalidated the claims were discovered. Even if counsel's initial interview with the client might have suggested a good faith basis for filing this suit, defendant's proffer of plumbing receipts and all the above information revealed in motions would have prompted an objectively reasonable attorney to make a more thorough examination of his client. Under Rule 11, the court may impose an appropriate sanction for violation of Rule 11B, which may include monetary directives in order to pay a penalty into the court or if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, and an order directing payment to the movement of part or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation. Christensen signed the complaint on behalf of Wigdor pursuant to Rule 11. Wigdor and Christiansen thus certified that plaintiff's claims were based on factual allegations corroborated by a reasonable pre filing inquiry. Either they did not perform such an inquiry or decide to pursue plaintiff's claim despite the blatant inconsistencies in her story and with at least indifference to easily discoverable contradictory facts. After they were placed on notice of the fact and were provided with sworn statements that disprove many of the key allegations in the complaint, they refused to retract those obviously false statements. This conduct violates Rule 11 and the court should sanction Wigdor and Christensen for their repeated failures to make reasonable inquiries into the facts. All right, we're going to wrap up episode two here and and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we'll pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to continue taking a look at the lawsuit between Jane Doe and Leon Black. This time we're going to look at Leon Black's reply Memorandum of Law in further support of his Motion for Sanctions against Wigdor LLP and Gene Christensen. Case number one 23cv06418 Jane Doe vs Leon Black defendant Leon Black's Reply Memorandum of Law in further support of his motion for sanctions against Wigdor LLP and Gene Christensen, defendant Leon Black respectfully submits this reply Memorandum of Law in further support of his motion for sanctions against Plaintiff's Counsel Wigdor LLP and Jean Christensen ECF document number 49 preliminary statement this is as black and white a case warranting the impositional rule 11 sanctions as
- [26:37]
A
there can be Save on Family Essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or Melon Medley Bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and Wild Caught Lobster Tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, Sun Chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit for member price. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways
- [27:07]
B
to save as Defendants moving papers conclusively showed the Wigdor Law Firm and its lead lawyer in this matter, Ms. Christensen have engaged in flagrant and egregious litigation misconduct. The record before the court on that point is robust and not seriously disputed. Long standing law and professional responsibility obligations absolutely required Wigdor and Christianson to conduct an adequate investigation concerning their client's purported claims. And when they put their first signatures on their client's complaint, they certified to the court that that they had in fact done just that. They professed certification. However, that was a total sham. To be clear, Wigdor and Christensen did no honest diligence into Plaintiff's claims as defendant post complaint investigation has proven. And even when they cannot point to any work they did to assure themselves of their clients bonafides, this is not a case of simple mistake or oversight on their part. To the contrary, Defendants preliminary investigation has already adduced mountains of evidence completely discrediting the entirety of Plaintiff's made up story and at a bare minimum has cast a shadow over her narrative so as to compel Wigdor and Christensen to tell this court in no uncertain terms what inquiry, if any, they made, as well as to rebut or at least attempt to rebut the definitive evidentiary showing defendant has made. They have not bothered to do either, instead studiously avoiding saying they made any inquiry at all to validate plaintiff's allegations. In fact and in yet another instance of independently sanctionable behavior, Wigdor and Christiansen are utterly unrepentant, apparently content to file and now to continue to prosecute bad claims alleging a grievous and brutal sexual assault against an allegedly incapacitated victim. A shocking accusation of such consequence that the law not surprisingly mandates heightened scrutiny by the lawyers pursuing it before they proceeded with a public lawsuit. Unable or unwilling to either meaningfully answer the results of defendants investigation or identify for the court what specific steps were taken before the complaint was filed, in effect an admission of guilt, Wigdor and Christensen attempt to deflect by advancing a grab bag of technical arguments that are as irrelevant as they are substantively misguided. They protest, for instance, that an award of sanctions here would be premature at this point, misinterpret the Federal Rules, disregard governing precedents and the Advisory Committee's notes to Rule 11 and desperately invoke New York's anti slap statute where it clearly does not apply. None of these contentions authorize Wigdor and Christiansen to manufacture false and reputationally ruinous claims predicated on decades old purported events lacking a chintilla of contemporaneous confirmation, and to do so exclusively in blind reliance on a client with an established history of mendacity and invention and in the face of reams of red flags and direct contradictions, sanctions are appropriate and warranted. Given these extreme and unusual circumstances. The argument Wigdor has failed to provide information about whatever inquiry it made, including whether it made any inquiry. The law is crystal clear that attorneys may rely on their clients representations only when they are objectively reasonable. Jeffries vs Rossi, 275 F. Supp. 463, 480 SDNY 2003 See also Craig vs City of New York. If all the attorney has is her client's assurance that facts exist or do not exist when a reasonable inquiry would reveal otherwise, she has not satisfied her Rule 11 obligations. Wigdor has come nowhere close to meeting the objective reasonableness standard here. To the contrary, any reasonable observer and certainly licensed lawyers with decades of specialized experience would have sensed real trouble here and seriously scrutinized Plaintiff's apparent description of of the events at issue before going ahead with litigation. Plaintiff's complaint makes allegations of horrific crimes that happened more than 20 years ago against the now very public backdrop of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes, some of which were allegedly committed by non parties such as Elizabeth, Plaintiff's cheerleading coach. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is developmentally about 12 years old, experiences the world, is in a childlike way, and is extremely trusting, does as she is told by authority figures, and does not question them. Remarkably, Wigdor's opposition is completely silent as to what, if any, inquiries it may have made before filing the complaint when it had been explicitly warned that the allegations regarding Leon Black were false, uncorroborated, and likely fabricated. Memorandum at 5 Wigdor does not and could not deny that that it received such warnings, including before defendant's Rule 11 letter. Wigdor is also silent as to any inquiries it made after it received Defendant's Rule 11 letter. It thus appears clear that the only source for the complaint's allegations is the plaintiff herself and her attorneys. Despite these pre and post filing warnings and the ocean of red flags calling attention to her lack of credibility in the Rule 11 letter attached as Exhibit 1, defendant expressly told Wigdor, among other things, that Plaintiff's family and others close to her believe that 1. Plaintiff frequently creates realities for herself that are not grounded in fact, and then believes them, particularly where these alternative realities help her gain attention. 2. She never displayed any symptoms of either Mosaic Down Syndrome or autism, nor was she diagnosed with either condition during her childhood. She lived with her parents the entire time that she attended high school. None of her family or acquaintances recalled her missing significant time from school. She only traveled out of the home state on one occasion. She did not live with Elizabeth during high school or as a minor, and her physical development and maturity were normal in high school. These circumstances mandated more than mindless reliance on a client's statements. Against this backdrop, Wigdor tries to defend itself by arguing that Defendant's motion for sanctions is based entirely on Defendant's denial of the allegations against him and that is improper for the Court to resolve contested factual disputes on Rule 11 motions. That is inaccurate. Defendant's motion does not seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims and the allegations underlying it. Defendant does, of course, adamantly deny those allegations, as he made clear in in his memorandum, he will establish their falsity at the proper time. Defendant's motion only addresses whether Wigdor willfully failed to investigate as Rule 11 requires before it filed the complaint and then in the face of contradicting evidence after receipt of the Rule 11 letter. Wigdor also quibbles with the quality, the admissibility and the self serving nature of the evidence presented in the Rule 11 letters and argues that Defendant is prematurely seeking early discovery. Incredibly, Wigdor does not put any flesh on the bones of that argument by explaining, for instance, what it thinks is problematic about that evidence. Wigdor seems to be suggesting, but notably not saying outright, that every other person in the world, including Plaintiff's family, friends and acquaintances, none of whom have any stake or interest in this lawsuit or any connection to Defendant, is a liar. The Rule 11 letter placed Wigdor on notice that additional evidence was available to it and it was no longer reasonable, if it ever was, for Wigdor to rely exclusively on the equally self serving allegations from the plaintiff. Defendant seeks no discovery from Plaintiff at this point, but Rule 11 requires the plaintiff to explain the inquiry it made in order to determine if that inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances. Wigdor's failure to do so subjects it to sanctions. Wigdor also represents that it will produce the relevant documents in her possession, such as medical records and school attendance records. But Wigdor does not say that such records are actually in Plaintiff's possession, let alone that it has reviewed them. If it had such records, Wigdor could have responded to the Rule 11 letter or could have represented a proper declaration that it had reviewed the plaintiff's school attendance andor medical records and was therefore comfortable that specific allegations in the complaint were in fact accurate. Wigdor's silence on this point again leads inexorably to the conclusion that no investigation was done. 2. Defendant is authorized to Seek Sanctions now, not Later Wigdor argues that Defendant's motion is untimely pointing to decisions in which it says courts have denied or declined to rule on Rule 11 motions based on their timing. Wigdor repeatedly claims that it's well settled law that defendants filing of this motion is a blatant abuse and improper opposition. At 2 and 3 and 6. Wigdor is mistaken. For starters, nothing in the text of Rule 11 or elsewhere in the Federal Rules precludes a sanctioned motion at this stage, nor suggests that such a motion must await some future milestone. That alone forecloses Wigdor's timing defense. Because Ms. Christensen's declaration, document 61 and 62 was not made under penalty of perjury, the court should disregard it. US Code 28 Section 1746 Edwards vs Orocho 2022 WL 294067@1N2SDNY February 2, 2022 all right, we're going to wrap up part one right here and then the next episode dealing with the topic. We'll pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with Leon Black and his lawsuit with Jane Doe. In any event, the case law and the Advisory Committee's notes to the 1993amendments to Rule 11. 1993 notes which added the safe harbor provision make clear that not only is it proper for a party to file a motion for sanctions promptly after the filing of the inappropriate paper, but also that the failure to do so could subject the party to a finding that the motion is untimely. The 1993 notes directly address this issue. The revision leaves for the resolution on a case by case basis and, considering the particular circumstances involved, the question as to when a motion for violation of Rule 11 should be served and when, if filed, it should be decided. Ordinarily, the motion should be served promptly after the inappropriate paper is filed and if delayed too long, may be viewed as untimely. Despite the clarity of the 1993 notes, Wigdor relies on case law. It claims holds that the pleadings sanctions under Rule 11 will normally be determined at the end of the litigation opposition at three. Wigdor cites two cases as the source for this quote, but disregards that. The quote comes from the Advisory Committee's notes to the 1993amendments to Rule 11, a fact noted in both cases, and addresses the timing of the Court's decision, not the timing of the motion. The notes to the 1993amendment, which added the safe harbor provision, directly contradict Wigdor's assertion. The Committee explained there that given the safe harbor provisions discussed below, a party cannot delay serving its Rule 11 motion until conclusion of the case or judicial rejection of the offending contention. Wigdor's end of the litigation contention is thus based on an outdated law. Defendant explained this very point in the memorandum and at 21 and 22, and Wigdor is simply elected to disregard it. In particular, defendants cited this Court's decisions in Safestrap Co. Vs. Koala Corp. 270 F. Supp. 2d 407 SDNY 2003 and AJ Energy LLC vs. Warri Bank, 2019 WL 46, 88, 629 SDNY September 26, 2019. AJ Energy has decided pre discovery and Safestrap was decided prior to a motion to dismiss. Indeed, in safestrap, the Court expressly held, contrary to Wigdor's arguments, that efforts to pursue sanctions at this early stage in the litigation, atypical though they may be, would not without more justify the denial of Defendant's motion. The Court proceeded to engage in a lengthy discussion in a footnote and as to why this was the case, relying heavily on the 1993 notes as defendant explained as Wigdor ignored in its opposition despite quoting the case opposition at 3 and 4, the safest strap Court cited series of cases in which delayed Rule 11 motions that were denied untimely. 270 F. Sup. 2d at 413 and 3. The court explained that when the challenge filing is a complaint, all parties should move for sanctions promptly after the complaint is filed. It also explained that the addition of the safe harbor provision changed the dynamic of Rule 11 by acting as a practical time limit since the opportunity for Plaintiff to correct and withdraw the pleading required and timely submission of the Safe harbor letter. SafeStrap also explained the distinction that the opposition completely disregards There's a difference between when a party should file the motion and when the Court should consider it. Most of the cases cited for Wigdor by the principles that the motion is premature or improper stand only for the proposition that the courts may defer consideration of a Rule 11 motion until the facts have been further developed. CEG Sangland, First Time Warner, Inc. 2015 WL 446, 98382 SDNY July 13, 2015 Declining to consider sanctions motion until a full evidentiary record is developed. While the Court may consider this issue at its discretion, it need not wait here because Wigdor's complete failure to conduct any inquiry is inherently unreasonable. It's not only the falsity of Wigdor's allegations that is at issue and sanctionable it is their abject failure to conduct any investigation at all or before publicly filing such horrific allegations against the defendant. 3 Wigdor was required to do more than blindly accept Plaintiff's purported account throughout the opposition. Wigdor accuses Defendant of attempting to discredit, shame, malign, and denigrate Plaintiff by referring in his sanctions motion to Plaintiff's alleged mental and developmental status. Wigdor is unfairly attempting to use Plaintiff's alleged mental status as as both a sword and a shield. Wigdora put Plaintiff's mental capacity at issue in the first place, alleging that developmentally she is about 12 complaint at 12. It is difficult for her to understand social cues based on the behavior of people she encounters. Plaintiff experiences the world in a childlike way and is extremely trusting. These allegations were no doubt included to make Plaintiff's account of abuse and and trafficking sound even more heinous. But if Wigdor believed these allegations without any investigation as to their veracity, they bear strongly on Plaintiff's ability to discern reality from fiction and increase the potential for her allegations to be inaccurate. In addition, in the Rule 11 letter, Wigdor was told that Plaintiff's family and others believe that she frequently creates realities for herself that are not grounded in fact and then acts as if she believes them. These specific allegations require Wigdor's inquiry consists of more than blind acceptance of the Plaintiff's story in order to be reasonable and acceptable under Rule 11, attorneys have a heightened duty to investigate when a client presents with issues like those described in the complaint memorandum at 1618. Defendant was not and is not trying to shame or denigrate this anonymous plaintiff and raised these developmental issues responsively only to show that based on what Wigdor said about Plaintiff, there would have been reason to question Plaintiff's ability to provide accurate information. The additional information included in the Rule 11 letter only reinforces those questions. Wigdor cannot introduce information about Plaintiff's mental status when it is convenient to tar Defendant with atrocious allegations while claiming that Plaintiff's mental status insulates her and it from the requirements of Rule 11.
- [44:19]
A
Save on family Essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or Melon Medley Bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and Wild Caught Lobster Tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos Lays, Cheetos, Sun Chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit for member price. Hurry in these deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [44:50]
B
4. Defendant's Rule 11 letter was procedurally proper in yet another effort to circumvent any reckoning for its actions, Wigdor makes a fleeting argument near the end of its brief that Defendant did not comply with Rule 11 because he served a boilerplate notice and three page letter with supporting affidavits which Wigdor asserts were not the same as the Memorandum of Law and supporting affidavits Defendant ultimately filed in support of his motions for sanctions. That argument fails for at least two reasons. First, Wigdor misstates Rule 11c2, which does not require the pre motion service of a memorandum of Law or affidavits, nor does it use the words formal fully supported motion. Starmark Management, Inc. First Kunchon Heng Ki Soi and Sauce Factory Ltd. 682 F.3d 170, 176 Second Circuit 2012. Rather, Rule 11 requires only service of the motion, I.e. the notice of motion, as well as providing the subject with notice of the specific conduct or omission from for which the sanctions are being considered. Idaho 175 as star mark, the case on which wigdor relies explains Rule 11 is satisfied where, as here, the letter described the specific conduct that allegedly violated Rule 11B, 682F.3d at 175. As for any differences between the previously filed Melendez declaration that accompanied the Rule 11 letters and the Melendez declaration submitted in support of Defendant's motion, Wigdor points to no requirement that the warning letter must be accompanied by the precise supporting materials ultimately accompanying the motion. Nor does Wigdor explain what additional information and defamatory accusations were added to the Melendez declaration. Nor could Wigdor plausibly do so given that the two are substantially similar and the few differences or are of facts referenced in the Rule 11 letter. Second, Wigdor misrepresents the content and length of the defendant's Rule 11 letter. That detailed four page letter identified the precise conduct justifying sanctions, the failure to investigate notwithstanding multiple red flags supported by evidence casting serious doubt on numerous allegations in the complaint and on Plaintiff's credibility which Wigdor would have discovered and had it conducted even a cursory investigation, Wigdor was clearly on notice of the grounds for sanctions and cannot credibly complain that it was unable to prepare a defense. 5 Wigdor's anti slap argument is meritless. Finally, Wigdor makes a last ditch effort to evade sanctions by arguing, without citing any legal authority that defendants motion is a transparent attempt to circumvent New York's anti slap statute. This argument is meritless. Defendant for his part has not found any case in which a court is held that a motion for sanctions could somehow constitute a claim for purposes of New York's anti slap statutes. Nor does Wigdor cross move for sanctions pursuant to New York's anti slap statutes seek leaves to amend Plaintiff's complaint to add a claim under the New York anti slap statutes or seek any other relief based on Defendants alleged violations or of the spirit but not the actual letter of New York's anti slap laws. Wigdor's contention that Defendant's request for sanctions is just a defamation claim in disguise is premised on a blatant mischaracterization of Defendant's motion, which is about Wigdor's duty to conduct an inquiry. Had Wigdor undertaken even a perfunctory inquiry, it would have quickly discovered evidence that cast serious doubt on Plaintiff's account and that raises serious questions about her credibility. Wigdor's failure to do so, or its reckless decision to file the complaint despite having uncovered such information, is what warrants sanctions here. Conclusion for the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and impose appropriate sanctions against Wigdor and Christensen. This document was dated October 30, 2023 and and it was signed by Susan Estrich. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box.
- [49:14]
A
Save on Family Essentials at Safeway and Albertsons this week at Safeway and Albertsons, Fresh cut cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple or Melon Medley Bowls 24 ounces are $5 each and Wild Caught Lobster Tails are $4.99 each. Limit eight member price plus selected sizes and varieties of Doritos, Lays, Cheetos, Sun Chips and Kettle cook chips are $1.99 each. Limit for member price. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.