After Prince
Andrew Contested Service of Giuffre Suit
He Agrees To It, Oct 29 to Respond
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Vlog
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 24 – 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)
Now on September
24 Prince Andrew's lawyer
Andrew B. Brettler has signed
an agreement that Andrew "will
not challenge service of
process" and will have until
October 29 to file a response
to the complaint." It's up to
Judge Kaplan to sign off on
it.
On the evening of
September 16, Judge Kaplan
approved Guiffre's motion for
alternative service, photo
here. 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.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|