# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files
# Bates number: EFTA00672335
# Title:        From: Darren Indyke <
# Dataset:      9
# Pages:        5
# Images:       5 detected
# Tags:         epstein, doj, dataset-9, image-described
# Source PDF:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00672335/download
# Doc viewer:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00672335
#
# Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF.
# 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages.
# Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b).
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

=== SUMMARY ===
From: Darren Indyke < To: "Miller, Michael" Cc: Jeffrey Epstein < >, Justin Chu < Subject: Re: Epstein - Update Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:22:22 +0000 Also, as I am thinking about this, is there anyway to highlight the conflict of interest of her own lawyer who have an outstanding claim against JE in order to introduce the possibility of other motives for this case? DARREN K. INDYKE DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: Telecopier: Mobile: emai


=== EXTRACTED TEXT ===
From: Darren Indyke < 
To: "Miller, Michael"
Cc: Jeffrey Epstein < >, Justin Chu < 
Subject: Re: Epstein - Update 
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:22:22 +0000 
Also, as I am thinking about this, is there anyway to highlight the conflict of interest of her own lawyer who 
have an outstanding claim against JE in order to introduce the possibility of other motives for this case? 
DARREN K. INDYKE 
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone: 
Telecopier: 
Mobile: 
email: 
**** Please note that my mobile telephone number has changed to the new number provided above. *" 
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client 
privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Darren K. Indyke, PLLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication 
or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this 
communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 
Copyright of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC - 2017 Darren K. 
Indyke, PLLC — All rights reserved. 
On Apr 3, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Miller, Michael - wrote: 
Jeffrey and Darren -- I have no problem with that edit assuming we don't create any problems by 
acknowledging that we are in receipt of the transcript. Mike 
Michael C. Miller 
Partner 
www.steptoe.comimmiller 
Steptoe 
direct Steptoe & Johnson LLP 
fax 1114 Avenue of the Americas 
cell New York, NY 10036 
www.steptoe.com 
EFTA00672335
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe 84 Johnson LLP that may be confidential andfor privileged. If 
you are not the intended recipient. please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. 
From: Darren Indyke mallto 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 1:39 PM 
To: Jeffrey Epstein 
Cc: Miller, Michael 
Subject: Re: Epstein - Update 
Can we insert in the Section relating to Epstein's and Groff's Statement of the Discovery Plan, just after the 
clause"and her departure from the United States of her own volition." something the following: 
"what damages Plaintiff claims to have incurred when she has already testified recently under oath that she is 
not seeking money damages." 
DARREN K. INDYKE 
DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone: 
Telecopier: 
Mobile: 
email: 
**** Please note that my mobile telephone number has changed to the new number provided above. *** 
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client 
privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
Darren K. Indyke, PLLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication 
or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this 
communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 
Copyright of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC - C) 2017 Darren K. 
Indyke, PLLC — All rights reserved. 
On Apr 3, 2017, at 1:12 PM, jeffrey E. < > wrote: 
why not highlight the fad that under oath she said she is not seeking money damages. but only wants me in jail 
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Miller, Michael <MM.'S wrote: 
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION 
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Dear Jeffrey and Darren: 
Further to our March 30, 2017 email to you, please see the following recap of issues on which we would 
appreciate your input. 
EFTA00672336
Rule 26(f) Report 
Attached is a draft Rule 26(0 report which is required to set forth the parties' positions on the Jane Doe matter, 
a general plan for discovery in this case, and an overview of any unique issues which will require the Court's 
consideration. This report must be agreed to by the parties and then submitted to the Court before the initial 
case management conference scheduled for April 6. Given the timing, your thoughts on these issues on 
Monday would be helpful. 
One potential "unique issue" which we might choose to highlight in the Rule 26(f) report is the potential for 
Jeffrey and Lesley to assert their Fifth Amendment privileges in this case. We recommend that we do not 
highlight the potential for a Fifth Amendment invocation in this report. 
Please note, however, that when we represent a client who is under indictment or is the target and/or subject of 
a criminal investigation, we are more inclined to mention the client's potential invocation of his Fifth 
Amendment rights. We do this so that there is no ambiguity about our plans to seek this protection and no 
suggestion that we have intentionally waived the client's Fifth Amendment rights. As a practical matter, civil 
cases proceeding parallel to criminal prosecutions are stayed so that the prosecution's witnesses are protected 
from civil discovery. In this scenario, the invocation of Fifth Amendment is a bit of a place holder and can be 
revisited after the criminal proceedings have concluded. Where civil discovery proceeds in tandem with 
criminal proceedings, it is typically limited to paper discovery and we can usually revisit the invocation of the 
Fifth Amendment with respect to depositions after the criminal proceedings have resolved. 
We are unaware of any criminal proceeding or investigation targeting Lesley or you. In light of this, we think it 
makes sense to refrain from referencing your Fifth Amendment rights in the Rule 26(0 report. We avoid 
inviting the Court to speculate about why Lesley and you are invoking your Fifth Amendment rights, avoid the 
efforts of plaintiff's counsel to link an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights to other proceedings, past and 
present, and retain the ability to invoke that protection at a later stage of the case (e.g., in response to demands 
for document production and/or deposition testimony). 
To ensure that we do not inadvertently or intentionally trigger a waiver of your Fifth Amendment rights in the 
Rule 26(f) report, we have crafted our portions of the report so that we are emphatic about the legal 
deficiencies in this case as plead, but do not make factual statements which might be viewed by the Court as a 
waiver of your protections. We cannot, of course, guarantee that the Court will agree with our analysis and 
conclusion about waiver, but it is our considered judgment that there is no waiver in submitting the Rule 26(f) 
report in the form attached here. 
Anonymous  Proceeding
We believe there are substantial grounds to challenge Jane Doe's efforts to proceed with this case using her 
pseudonym. 
The basic principle in this regard is that judicial proceedings are presumed to be conducted in the open. Rule
10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  requires that "[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the 
parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). "This requirement, though seemingly pedestrian, serves the vital purposes of 
facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly." Sealed Plaintifaz 
Sealed Defendant 537 F.3d 185,  188-89 (2d Cir.2008).  The use of pseudonyms is not allowed except in limited 
circumstances, balancing the interests of the party seeking anonymity, the public interest to know and the 
opposing parties' right to confront the accuser. 
Courts have required an anonymous plaintiff to proceed in her own name under similar circumstances. In Doe 
v. Shakur, 164 FRD 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), the plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by the rapper 
Tupac Shakur. The Court denied the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously, explaining: 
First, plaintiff has chosen to bring this lawsuit. She has made serious charges and has put 
her credibility in issue. Fairness requires that she be prepared to stand behind her 
EFTA00672337
charges publicly. 
Second, this is a civil suit for damages, where plaintiff is seeking to vindicate primarily 
her own interests. This is not a criminal case where rape shield laws might provide some 
anonymity to encourage victims to testify to vindicate the public's interest in 
enforcement of our laws. 
Third, Shakur has been publicly accused. If plaintiff were permitted to prosecute this 
case anonymously, Shakur would be placed at a serious disadvantage, for he would be 
required to defend himself publicly while plaintiff could make her accusations from 
behind a cloak of anonymity. 
Finally, the public has a right of access to the courts. Indeed, "lawsuits are public events 
and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the facts involved in them. Among 
those facts is the identity of the parties. 
Id. at 36. Similarly, a plaintiff who alleged sexual molestation and abuse cannot proceed anonymously without 
a sufficient showing of particularized harm to the plaintiff if anonymity is not allowed. Doe v. Smith, 189 FRD 
239 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (anonymous action alleging sexual molestation against psychiatrist not allowed), vacated 
on reconsideration based on newly admitted evidence, in the form of a psychiatric report, that "revelation of 
the plaintiff's identity will likely cause psychological and emotional pain so intense that it would threaten her 
stability, her safety, and even her life," such that "plaintiff will be unable to pursue this action should she not be 
allowed to proceed anonymously." Doe v. Smith, 105 FRD 40, 43-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Doe v. Del Rio, 241 
FRD 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (plaintiff alleging sexual abuse by police required to proceed in her actual name, in 
that her therapist report fails to establish a link between public disclosure of plaintiff's name and alleged harm, 
and distinguishing Doe v. Smith). 
Even if a party is permitted to proceed anonymously during pre-trial proceedings, that party will often be 
precluded from remaining anonymous at trial. In Doe v. Delta Airline, Judge Englemayer held that a plaintiff 
who had proceeded anonymously cannot continue to do so at trial. Judge Englemayer held that doing so at trial 
would give plaintiff unfair advantages, such as providing her with an aura of stature and legitimacy, and 
prejudice the defendant in not allowing the defendant to confront the plaintiff in open court. 310 FRD at 225 
(S.D.N.Y. 2015). 
We have reserved our rights in the Rule 26(f) report to seek an order from the Court requiring our plaintiff to 
proceed in her actual name. 
Confidentiality Order 
We have a right to seek the issuance by the Court of a confidentiality order which would, to varying extents, 
preclude both parties from sharing publicly (or in other proceedings) confidential information gathered in this 
case. Such an order might also limit the ability of the parties to speak to the press about this litigation. Both 
aspects of a typical confidentiality order is a mixed bag for us — we may want the ability to share what we learn 
in this case publicly or use it in other litigation, and we may want to be able to speak to the media about this 
case and your perspective. The Court may raise this issue on April 6, 2017, so we should discuss in advance 
your preferences. 
Chronology and Background of Other Matters 
We recommend that Justin and Mike Keough meet with Darren to expand our knowledge about other 
proceedings, past and present, which might have a bearing on our case. We believe that this approach will be 
relatively quick and efficient. We will undertake this approach in an effort to minimize a risk that information 
shared by Darren somehow undermines any claim of privilege or work product protection attached to the work 
in his files. We believe that this meeting take place as an adjunct to online research that we recommend you 
authorize us to conduct. 
Coordination Between Defense Counsel 
As we noted in our prior email, we have spoken with Johnny Stephenson, counsel for We 
suggest that we coordinate with him in the defense of this matter. In particular, we believe it will be useful to 
let him know about our approach to the Rule 26(f) report, potential motions to dismiss, and his plans for the 
EFTA00672338
defense of . Johnny would like to us work together and is generally in accord with our view of the 
case. 
Call in Preparation for the Court Conference 
It would be helpful to have a conference call with you in advance of the April 6, 2017 court appearance to 
discuss our plans for the appearance. In particular, we would like to agree on talking points about the merits of 
this case. We will review the allegations over the next two days and send you some preliminary thoughts on 
talking points. Please let me know if a call on April 5, 2017 would be convenient for you. 
We would appreciate your input on all of the above. 
All the best. 
Mike 
Michael C. Miller 
Partner 
www steptoe.com/mmiller 
Steptoe 
direct Steptoe & Johnson LLP 
fax 1114 Avenue of the Americas 
cell New York, NY 10036 
www.steotoe.com 
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please do not read. copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error. please notify the sender immediately by 
reply e-mail and then delete this message. 
please note 
The information contained in this communication is 
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may 
constitute inside information, and is intended only for 
the use of the addressee. It is the property of 
JEE 
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notif us immediate] by 
return e-mail or by e-mail to , and 
destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 
EFTA00672339



=== IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS ===
[Image 1] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a letter or report. The document is titled "Rules Report" and includes a date and a reference number. The text discusses rules and regulations, mentioning the Fifth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. There are also references to a "Rules Committee" and a "Rules Report." The document is addressed to someone named "Judge," and it mentions a "R

[Image 2] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be a letter or an email. The text is partially obscured by a red rectangle, indicating that some information is being withheld. The visible text includes the sender's name, the recipient's name, and a date. The document mentions a "damage claim" and refers to a "damage report." There is also a reference to a "liability insurance policy." The doc

[Image 3] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be an email. The sender's name is redacted, and the recipient's name is visible as "Darren K. Kyle." The email is dated "April 10, 2017" and is from an email address that is redacted. The subject line of the email is redacted. The body of the email contains a message that is redacted. The email includes a disclaimer stating that the information 

[Image 4] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a letter or a report. The text is written in English and discusses legal matters, specifically related to a case involving a sexual assault. The document mentions a plaintiff, a defendant, and a court case number. It also refers to a settlement agreement and mentions a confidentiality clause. The document is dated and signed by an individua

[Image 5] The image shows a document that appears to be a letter or an email. It contains text and a signature at the bottom. The visible text includes a salutation, a body with a request for a meeting, and a closing. The document is addressed to a person named "Jimmy" and mentions a specific date and time for a meeting. The sender's name is not visible in the image. The document has a header with a logo an