Jane Doe 3 v. Indyke

Background

The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter responding to defendants’ motion to quash third-party subpoenas served on HBRK Associates, Inc., and Bella Klein. The letter also referenced a related case, Bensky v. Indyke, et al., and an earlier order directing the parties to proceed with discovery-related tasks, including negotiating electronic-discovery and confidentiality orders, serving discovery demands, negotiating search terms and custodians, and collecting documents for production.

The plaintiffs represented that they were seeking responses and objections to the subpoenas, rather than production of documents at that stage. The subpoenas concerned HBRK and Bella Klein. The letter described HBRK as an entity owned by Richard Kahn and stated that Bella Klein was employed by HBRK. The plaintiffs argued that responses were needed so the parties could confer about the objections and begin addressing whether relevant documents were within the possession, custody, or control of the defendants or the subpoena recipients.

Parties’ arguments

The plaintiffs argued that quashing the subpoenas would limit discovery into Richard Kahn’s documents because, according to the letter, defendants’ counsel had previously stated that Kahn’s relevant documents were HBRK documents. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendants had not adequately supported their claim that responding to the subpoenas would impose undue burdens or costs. They pointed to prior subpoena responses involving HBRK, Bella Klein, Kahn, Indyke, and other Epstein-related entities.

The opinion text provided consists largely of the plaintiffs’ letter and does not clearly set out the defendants’ full arguments beyond the plaintiffs’ description of their burden objections and request to quash the subpoenas.

Court’s action

Judge Arun Subramanian stated that the plaintiffs were seeking only responses and objections, not document production. The court clarified that the subpoena recipients did not need to produce documents until a further court order. The court expected experienced counsel to work together to resolve the remaining issues and stated that they could seek the court’s guidance if they could not do so. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion. In the provided text, the court does not expressly state that the motion was granted or denied.