DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 172 of 197 2713 LCHVMAX6 1 Street documents we've been talking about, in that the legal 2 documents describing when Mr. Epstein abandoned this property 3 does not reflect where Mr. Epstein was living. As the defense 4 knows, one of the defense witnesses, who they ultimately 5 decided not to call, would have testified that Epstein was 6 living on East 7Jlst Street prior to 1996. 7 And so if the Court admits this -- this is the reason 8 this has to go first in the remaining issues. If the Court 9 admits this, the government would put on rebuttal evidence 10 showing that, in fact, Mr. Epstein lived on 7lst Street before 11 he says he abandoned the property in 1996. 12 So that's sort of a substantive background point. 13 Moving through the documents, your Honor, Judge Chin's 14 opinion is a summary judgment opinion. So I think it's quite 15 clear actually that the facts can reasonably be disputed. The 16 summary judgment standard, as the Court well knows, is that the 17 Court -- is that Judge Chin had to take all facts in the light 18 most favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was 19 not the United States. So I think it very much can be 20 controverted that the fact in -- the statement in the 21 background section of Judge Chin's opinion is not a factual 22 finding about when Mr. Epstein abandoned —-- 23 THE COURT: Can see it? 24 MS. MENNINGER: What's that, your Honor? 25 THE COURT: Can see the document? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212%) 805-0220 DOJ-OGR-00016901