← Back to home

Document 20-00184-DG

AI Analysis

Summary: The document discusses Maxwell's request for a stay of the court proceedings until the conclusion of her pending criminal case, to which the Co-Executors consent and the Plaintiff vigorously opposes. The Co-Executors argue that a partial stay would prejudice their ability to defend against the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff contends that Maxwell's detention should not impede her defense and that Maxwell is seeking an unfair advantage.
Significance: This document reveals the parties' positions on a stay of the court proceedings due to Maxwell's pending criminal case and highlights the potential implications for the Co-Executors and the Plaintiff.
Key Topics: request for stay of court proceedings pending criminal case against Maxwell potential prejudice to Co-Executors
Key People:
  • Maxwell - defendant requesting stay due to pending criminal case
  • Plaintiff - opposing the stay requested by Maxwell
  • Co-Executors - consenting to the stay and joining Maxwell's request
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
2020
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES007

Full Text

Case 1:20-cv-00184-DG Document 60 Filed 08/28/20 Page 2 of 13 2020, Maxwell filed the letter motion that is now before this Court, requesting a stay of this action until the conclusion of her pending criminal case. (See 8/19/20 Menninger Ltr.) In her motion, Maxwell set out the factors relevant to a stay analysis, and argued that not only her own interest, but also the interests of the courts, the public, and the other parties would be best served by the requested stay. (See generally id.) On August 27, 2020, the Co-Executors submitted a letter consenting to the entry of a stay and joining in Maxwell's request that the stay apply to the entire proceeding. (See Letter to the Court from Bennet J. Moskowitz, Esq., dated Aug. 27, 2020 ("8/27/20 Moskowitz Ltr.") (Dkt. 77).) The Co-Executors principally argued that this Court should not consider a partial stay of this case (i.e., a stay that would apply solely as to Plaintiff's claims against Maxwell), as a partial stay would unduly prejudice the Co-Executors' ability to defend against Plaintiff's claims and would add unnecessary cost to the litigation. (See id., at 1-2.) The Co-Executors also pointed out that, if this matter were stayed, Plaintiff would still be able to pursue a resolution of her claims through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (the "Compensation Program") that has been independently instituted, and that has led numerous other plaintiffs in similar cases before the Court to seek voluntary stays of their lawsuits. (See id., at 2-3.) By letter dated August 27, 2020, Plaintiff vigorously opposed the requested stay, arguing that the relevant factors weigh against granting the requested relief. (See generally Letter to the Court from Robert Glassman, Esq., dated Aug. 27, 2020 ("8/27/20 Glassman Ltr.") (Dkt. 78).) In her opposition, Plaintiff contended, inter alia, that Maxwell's detention should pose no real impediment to her defense of this action, suggesting that Maxwell, who filed her motion for a stay only after she had first sought discovery from Plaintiff in this case, "appear[ed] to want to gain an unfair advantage by acquiring as much information as she [could] about Plaintiff without