arrow left
arrow right
  • Cheri Pierson v. Leon Black, Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 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, The 1953 TrustTorts - Adult Survivors Act document preview
  • Cheri Pierson v. Leon Black, Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 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, The 1953 TrustTorts - Adult Survivors Act document preview
  • Cheri Pierson v. Leon Black, Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 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, The 1953 TrustTorts - Adult Survivors Act document preview
  • Cheri Pierson v. Leon Black, Estate Of Jeffrey E. Epstein, 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, The 1953 TrustTorts - Adult Survivors Act document preview
						
                                

Preview

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 EXHIBIT 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/06/2023 07:10 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/06/2023 Jeanne M. Christensen jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com October 25, 2021 VIA EMAIL E. Danya Perry, Esq. Perry Guha LLP 35 E. 62nd Street New York, New York 10065 Re: Ganieva v. Black; Index No. 155262/2021 Dear Danya: We write in connection with the dilatory tactics by Black concerning discovery. Clearly this conduct is intentional. On September 22, 2021, after numerous requests by Black, the Court agreed to a conference. During that conference, several times, you represented to the Court that you would not produce critical evidence in this matter absent an order of confidentiality. In response, I represented to the Court, several times, that we would not agree to a confidentiality order.1 We discussed specific items, including, inter alia, the audio files Black claims he has, as well as the “agreement.” Based on this, the Court said in sum and substance that he expects “another motion” on his desk. Rather than timely filing your motion, as of today, nothing has been filed. Contrary to the multitude of representations you made to the Court about the “urgency” of discovery, Black is doing nothing. Because of this, any claim by Black that our client is not in compliance with agreed upon internal dates for discovery, outside of a Court order, is meritless. We agreed to dates believing that Black would actually be producing discovery. As your responses on October 18, 2021 make obvious, the last thing Black intends to do is produce relevant information. Sincerely, Jeanne M. Christensen 1 Our objection was detailed to you in correspondence dated September 23, 2021.