Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 62 KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Filed 04/29/20 350 FIFTH AVENUE Page 1 of 4 SUITE 7110 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10118 TEL (212) 763-0883 I FAX (212) 564-0883 WWW.KAPLANHECKER.COM DIRECT DIAL 212.763.0884 DIRECT EMAIL [email protected] April 29, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Doe v. lndyke et at, No. 19-cv-8673-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Failla: We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Rule 2(B) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, we write in response to Defendants' letter (Doc. No. 61) regarding Judge Engelmayer's recent opinion in Mary Doe v. Indyke et at, 19 Civ. 10758 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020) (Doc. No. 38) ("Mary Doe Op.") submitted by Defendants to the Court yesterday. For the following reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Judge Engelmayer's decision in Man• Doe incorrectly concludes that punitive damages are not available against Defendants under United States Virgin Islands ("USVI") law. First, while correctly acknowledging that the law of the jurisdiction with the greater interest in applying its punitive damages provision should control, the Mary Doe Opinion concludes that the plaintiff in that case failed to articulate "any concrete interest" that the USVI has in applying its punitive damages law to Jeffrey Epstein's Estate. (Mary Doe Op. at 11.) To the contrary, as Plaintiff in this action has made clear, the USVI has a strong interest in (1) applying its own law to its domiciliaries and (2) ensuring that estate of an individual who chose to probate his estate under USVI law is subject to that law's burdens along with its benefits. (Doc. No. 51 at 9-10.) The Mary Doe Opinion does not appear to consider the former interest, a salient oversight given that the domicile of defendants is a centra