By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Vlog
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 25 – Prince Andrew was sued on August 9 by Virginia Giuffre, under the New York State Child Victims Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where Inner City Press found it that day in the docket).
On September 13, a proceeding before SDNY Judge Lewis A. Kaplan largely about service of process, but also the settlement agreement the sealing of which is being challenged before SDNY Judge Loretta Preska. Inner City Press live tweeted the September 13 proceeding, here and below (podcast here)
On October 6, Judge Preska so-ordered the release of the Epstein deal to Prince Andrew. The request from David Boies (who also represented Harvey Weinstein, and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos): "We write in our capacity as counsel to Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, 1:21-cv-06702-LAK, pending before Judge Lewis Kaplan, to follow up on our letter dated September 23, 2021. ECF No. 344. Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate has now consented to Ms. Giuffre providing a copy of the confidential agreement at issue to Prince Andrew. We thus request permission from the Court pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order to furnish a copy of the release to Prince Andrew’s counsel."
On October 25, Judge Kaplan set a (long) schedule for Giuffre v. Prince Andrew: "CONSENT SCHEDULING ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED as follows: Amended Pleadings due by 12/15/2021. Joinder of Parties due by 12/15/2021. Deposition due by 7/14/2022. Discovery due by 7/14/2022. Pretrial Order due by 7/28/2022. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/25/21)." Watch this site.
On September 24 Prince Andrew's lawyer Andrew B. Brettler signed an agreement that Andrew "will not challenge service of process."
On September 28 Judge Kaplan docketed this: "ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, It is hereby, ORDERED as follows: Counsel for both parties promptly shall confer regarding an agreed scheduling order. If counsel are able to agree on a schedule and the agreed schedule calls for filing of the pretrial order not more than six (6) months from the date of this order, counsel shall sign and file within twenty-one (21) days from the date hereof a consent order in the form previously attached to Dkt. 7 for consideration by the Court. If counsel are unable to agree on such a scheduling order, plaintiff and defendant each shall file with the Court, on or before October 22, 2021, a letter setting forth that party's proposed schedule, the rationale for its proposal and any objections to its adversary's proposal, and a description of the discovery that it proposes to conduct, including proposed depositions. 2. Regardless of whether a proposed consent scheduling order is filed on or before October 22, 2021, a video or teleconference will be held on November 3, 2021 at 11 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time." Watch this site.
On the evening of September 16, Judge Kaplan approved Guiffre's motion for alternative service. Game on.
Past 8 pm on September 13, Guiffre's counsel David Boies filed a letter with SDNY Loretta A. Preska opposing what he called Alan Dershowitz' attempt to disclose confidential discovery material to Prince Andrew.
On September 16, Judge Preska denied Dershowitz' motion: "There is no basis for Mr. Dershowitz’s requesting a document subject to the protective order for use in another case to which he is not a party. To the Court’s knowledge, Mr. Dershowitz has not been commissioned as a roving ethics monitor. The Court notes, however, that parties who have standing (here, for example, Ms. Giuffre (who, as noted, is opposed) and perhaps Prince Andrew, who has not been heard from) may seek to lift the protective order for valid reasons, and, as Ms. Giuffre’s counsel noted, Prince Andrew is likely to seek to obtain the settlement agreement in discovery in Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, Duke of York in any event. Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, Mr. Dershowitz’s request to permit disclosure of the settlement agreement (dkt. nos. 334, 335) is denied." On Patreon here.
From September 10 before Judge Kaplan: Deputy / clerk: Case of Virginia Guiffre versus Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Counsel for defendant?
A: This is Andrew Brettler, specially appearing for Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Judge Kaplan: Mr. Boies, please bring me up to date on service.
Boies: We served Prince Andrew under Article 10 of the Hague Convention, under the laws of England and Wales - to the usual, last known address and by Royal mail. It is clear Prince Andrew has actual notice of this proceeding. We filed proof of service last Friday
Judge Kaplan: Do you intend to ask the court to ask the UK authorities to do anything more? Boies: We think that is not necessary. We think we have served him. I understand Prince Andrew may challenge our service. If he does, we might ask for alternative service.
Judge Kaplan: What about service under Federal rule 4(f)(3)?
Boies: Yes, we make a request under that section. Judge Kaplan: Why don't I set a date for a request to be made or not made?
Boies: How about a week. Brettler: The Duke has not been properly served.
Brettler: The High Court in the UK will have to determine if The Duke has been service. We believe this is an illegal action - there is a settlement that releases The Duke for all liability -- Judge Kaplan: Let's stick to service. Brettler: OK, set the deadline.
Judge Kaplan: OK, Mr. Boies, you have a week. We are in a holding pattern at least for the week. Anything more? Brettler: Senior Master Fontain (sp) in the UK says she will provide further direction. She has been on vacation.
Judge Kaplan: We have two different things going on here. Mr. Boies says he has accomplished service. If you say different, you'll have to make a motion here.
Brettler: I want to make sure the Senior Master has ample time. We believe the Senior Master must weigh in, if you says service has been effected.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Boies, do you wish to weigh in? Boies: We believe Prince Andrew must make a motion to quash here.
Boies: I'm sorry, my office is announcing a fire drill. [Same Hudson Yards office outside of which Avenatti got arrested?]
Boies (continuing) - Prince Andrew needs to contest it now. Under Rule 4(f)(3) it's entirely for this court. Prince Andrew can't wait.
Brettler: There are rules under the Hague Convention that must be followed. Judge Kaplan: The Hague Convention is supplemental. Unless you tell me something I have missed in the last 50 years, I'll tell you there is going to be 4(f)(3) service authorized
Judge Kaplan: So if Mr. Boies is to make any request, he is to do it within a week of today. For me to make a request will take only a few day if I do not change my mind, which I will tell you is unlikely.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Brettler, you have to Sept 23. Then replies and I'll hear arguments on October 13. Mr. Brettler, you're in LA, what time?
Brettler: I get up early. Judge Kaplan: In person. Brettler: I'll be there. Judge Kaplan laughs.
Brettler: We'd like a copy of the secret settlement agreement. There's an application before Judge Preska to have it unsealed. Boies: If you're challenging service, discovery requests are a bit premature.
Brettler: The Central Authority's view will be impacted.
Judge Kaplan: Special appearances were abolished 50 years ago. [Inner City Press: That's not what Turkey's Halkbank argued to SDNY Judge Richard M. Berman]
Boies: If he makes an appearance, that provides a basis for personal jurisdiction
Boies: If he wishes to make a formal discovery request we'll respond promptly.
Brettler: I am asking in connection with our challenge to service. Other defendants have been dismissed based on this document.
Boies: That's not a fair characterization.
Judge Kaplan: It's under a court sealing order that has not been varied. Mr. Brettler, I understand your point to be, if there is a document out there that would provide an affirmative defense or help you in England, there's a lot to be said for that point of view.
Judge Kaplan: Mr. Brettler, you have a high degree of certainly that your client can be served, eventually. The sealing, it's up to Judge Preska. She's in charge. Adjourned.
Back on September 10 in the docket, an affidavit of service by Cesar Augusto Sepulveda that he served The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park - to a Metropolitan Police Officer then by mail.
SDNY Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, to whom the case has been assigned, scheduled a September 13 proceeding, regardless: "ORDER FOR INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/13/2021 at 04:00 PM before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan via teleconference. Counsel receiving this order shall promptly mail and email copies hereof to all other counsel of record or, in the case of any party for whom no appearance has been made, to such party and to all counsel, foreign or domestic, known or believed to be acting on behalf of such party. Counsel for both parties are directed to confer regarding an agreed scheduling order. If counsel are able to agree on a schedule and the agreed schedule calls for filing of the pretrial order not more than six (6) months from the date of this order, counsel shall sign and file within twenty-one (21) days from the date hereof a consent order in the form annexed for consideration by the Court. Regardless of whether such a consent order is filed within the time provided, a teleconference will be held on September 13, 2021 at 4 p.m."
Guiffre, represented by Boies Schiller, states that Giuffre "was regularly abused by Epstein and was lent out by Epstein to other powerful men for sexual purposes. One such powerful man to whom Plaintiff was lend out for sexual purposes was the Defendant, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York."
The Complaint contains a map of flights from London to Tangier to Teterboro to Santa Fe. It cited Ghislaine Maxwell, who after press conferences in the United Nations is in the MDC awaiting trial in the SDNY.
It has the famous photo, with Prince Andrew with his arm around Giuffe's waist and Maxwell in the background. The first cause of action is Battery.
Then, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and damages. Inner City Press will follow and report on the case.
The case is Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 21-cv-6702 (Kaplan).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
