EFTA00079152.pdf

From: (USANYS)" ctl To: "Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey" czi Cc: 'aSANYS)" k Subject: Re: Subpoena CRIM 1031692 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 00:04:42 +0000 (USANYS)" Thanks. Let's plan to speak at 1:30 PST tomorrow. I can be reached at Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey <1 > wrote: H1, I can now also speak tomorrow at 2:00 PT. From: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 11:31 AM To: (USANYS)' Cc: (USANYS) tc > (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM1031692 I+, I can do 1:00, 1:30, or 2:30 PT. Would any of those times work for you, and if so do you have a preference? Thanks, From: (USANYS) [mailto: Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 5:55 AM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > Cc: (USANYS) c M> (USANYS) Subject: Re: Subpoena CRIIVI Thanks. What time on Friday should we plan to speak? Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2019, at 1:02 AM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey scl > wrote: Hi,_. I'm tied up tomorrow (Thursday) and traveling all next week, so I'll call this Friday. Thanks, EFTA00079152 From: (USANYS) (mailto: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:30 PM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > Cc: (USANYS) `: >; (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM I'm following up on our conversation from last month—I think you were going to get back to us about the issues we had discussed, and I wanted to check in. Our subpoena remains outstanding. Thanks, From: Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:37 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM Of course. How about sometime between 12:30 and 1:45 PT? Thanks, (USANYS) From: (USANYS) [mar Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:39 AM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey Cc: (USANYS) `: ;"; (USANYS) Subject: Re: Subpoena CRIM Thanks- can you let us know your availability for a call on Monday? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey <- > wrote: Thanks, I just left you a voice message saying your suggestion makes sense. Are you free for a two-minute return call to at least confer on your availability? I'll be at until 1:30 ET. Thanks, From: (USANYS) [matito Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:05 AM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > Cc: (USANYS) (USANYS) Subject: Re: Subpoena CRIM EFTA00079153 I should add: if you think it would be productive to review those issues before we talk, let us know if you'd like to reschedule the call. Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > wrote: I look forward to speaking with you tomorrow (Thursday). Unless you'd prefer another number, I'll plan to call you at Also, ashindicated I promised to provide some more information on how Amazon approaches the issues we've been discussing. I'm hopeful that this information will help provide a common baseline for further consideration of your request for expressive materials. I've attached several cases that discuss the need for a heightened showing of relevance and need before a bookstore, video provider, or library can be compelled to reveal expressive choices of its patrons. In our experience, prosecutors and government agencies typically are not permitted access to records of bookstores and libraries unless (1) a compelling need exists for the requested information, (2) a substantial nexus is demonstrated between the information sought and the subject of the criminal investigation, and (3) the government has exhausted other avenues to obtain the information in ways that do not burden First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (W.D. Wash. 2010); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, 706 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com 246 F.R.D. 570 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwards Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1599 (D.D.C. 1998); Tottered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002) (en banc). I'm obviously not privy to the details of your investigation. And, to be clear, we don't rule out the possibility either that the subjects here do not have a protectable privacy interest or that sufficient grounds exist to compel production of the expressive materials you seek. I also want to assure you that we do not seek to interfere with your investigation in any way in expressing these concerns. Amazon routinely cooperates with law enforcement on a number of levels, and we will secure and not destroy any information we determine is responsive to your request. As I discussed with M , if your office ultimately decides to continue to pursue the expressive materials at issue, we might seek to enlist the assistance of the court with a motion to quash, preferably based upon a stipulated briefing schedule, to determine whether the requisite legal standards have been satisfied in this instance. But again, we don't not ruling out the possibility that sufficient grounds exist in this instance to compel production. Thanks, From: (USANYS) [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:51 PM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey Cc: (USANYS) (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM EFTA00079154 Thanks, Thursday at 1:30 our time sounds good. We'll plan to speak with you then. Thanks, From: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey a> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:49 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM Hi, I have conflicts early and late tomorrow, but perhaps we could speak Thursday morning? Would 10:30am PT (1:30pm ET) on Thursday work for you? Thanks, From (USANYS) [mailto Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:10 AM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey a> Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM S Is there is a good time for a call tomorrow to discuss? I'm tied up between 2 and 5 EST, but otherwise available. Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:43 PM To: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey a> Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Subpoena CRIM le with apologies for shuttling you back and forth, due to my upcoming trial my colleague copied, will be in a better position to follow up with you. I updated her on our conversation, in particular that you expected to send us some authority for Amazon's prior position, and also that you were in the process of evaluating whether any First Amendment considerations were still active given the death of Mr. Epstein. I've also conveyed to her the issue you raised of the overbreadth of any request for all information for all accounts having ever shipped to, or billed in connection with, the listed addresses, and our interest in at the very least getting account information for any accounts that include those addresses—and, more generally, the records of items shipped to those addresses, to the extent all such records were not included in the first production. Again, sorry to be switching given our lengthy conversation, but will better be able to be in touch with you in the coming days. thanks, EFTA00079155 From: Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 201902:09 To: (USANYS) Subject: Subpoena CRIM1031692 It was good speaking to you yesterday. Are you available tomorrow (Wednesday) or Thursday for a follow-up call? My schedule is quite tight tomorrow so happy to do it Thursday, if you'd prefer. Thanks, Jeffrey A. Goldberg Associate General Counsel, Litigation & Regulatory eattle, WA 98121 <Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (W.D. Wash. 2010).pdf> <In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 USC § 1461 et seq. (D.D.C. 2009).pdf> <In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com Dated August 7, 2006, 246 F.R.D. 570 (W.D. Wis. 2007).pdf> <In re Grand Jury Subpoena to ICramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., No. 98-135 (NHJ) & 98-138 (NHJ) (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998).pdf> Clattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (2002).pdf> EFTA00079156