EFTA00179447.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 10-800I5-CR-Marra/Hopkins UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE, SPEEDY TRIAL. AND PRETRIAL MATTERS 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for the Government and the Defense appear before NIA for STATUS CONFERENCE to resolve pre-trial motions and discovery problems. All counsel are directed to read carefully the Standing Discovery Order which clearly delineates the parties' discovery obligations, including the materials sought by the vast majority of the standard pre-trial motions. Routine filing of "Boilerplate" motions covered by the Standing Discovery Order, as well as repeated failure to timely provide discovery has substantially contributed to the backlog of criminal cases in this District. Accordingly, all counsel are hereby advised that this Court will recommend the imposition of sanctions against attorneys who persist in these practices. Where the parties are able to resolve pretrial matters prior to the date of the above scheduled status conference, they should so notify the Court, in writing, and will be excused from attendance at the conference. 2. Under Rule 88.5 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida it is the duty of counsel to provide the Court with written reports setting forth the speedy Trial status of each case pending before the Court. Such report shall be submitted to the United States Attorney pursuant to that Rule. Such report shall set forth: EFTA00179447 A. All excusable time on which there is agreement, including the applicable statutes; B. All excusable time as recorded on the docket on which there is a conflict, including the applicable statutes; C. i. Computation of the gross time; ii. Excusable time; iii. Net time remaining; iv. The final date upon which the defendant(s) may be tried in compliance with the speedy trial plan of this Court; and D. Any agreement by the parties as to excusable time which exceeds the amount recorded on the docket shall have no effect unless approved by the Court. Failure to timely file such reports may result in sanctions being imposed. 3. The United States Attorney shall provide discovery to the defendant(s) within the time provide under the Standing Discovery Order. Failure to timely provide such discovery absent prior approval of the Court for an extension of time, may result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court. 4. The defendant(s) shall file all motions on a timely basis within the period provided in the Standing Discovery Order. Failure to timely provide such discovery absent prior approval of the Court for an extension of time, may result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court. A. Any extension of time for filing defensive motions must be requested at the time of arraignment. B. Any motion untimely filed will be denied unless good cause is shown for the delay, except as justice requires or as otherwise provided by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5. Counsel shall abide by Local Rule 88.9 which states: Motions in criminal cases shall be accompanied by a written statement certifying that counsel for moving party, or the moving party if not represented by counsel, has conferred with opposing counsel or party as the case may be, in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the subject matter of any motion, but has not been able to do so. In addition, the written statement shall specify the information EFTA00179448 that has been made available to opposing counsel or parties in lieu of filing motion. 6. Pursuant to Amendment to General Local Rule 7, Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered July 17, 1984, counsel must attach a copy of each pleading, motion, and/or other papers tendered for filing with the original document. Both the original and the copy will be filed together with the Clerk of Court. Please attach your envelopes to the copy not the original. 7. Motions to travel must set forth: A. The date the defendant desires to leave the area permitted under the bond; B. The date of his/her return; C. The address where the defendant will be staying; D. The telephone number at the place where the defendant will be staying; E. The method of travel to be used by the defendant; F. Whether the United States Attorney has no objection to such travel; and G. The name of the Magistrate Judge who originally set the conditions of release. DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 1st day of February, 2010. 7S/ ANN E. VITUNAC ANN E. VITUNAC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE c: All Counsel of Record EFTA00179449 3AtiINN .3 11MA EFTA00179450 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10-80015-CR-Marra/Honkins UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant, STANDING DISCOVERY ORDER The above-named defendant(s) having been arraigned this date in open Court, it is thereupon ORDERED and ADJUDGED that on or before fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall confer and the following shall be accomplished: A. The Government shall permit the defendant(s) to inspect and copy the following items or copies thereof, or supply copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the Government, the existence of which is known or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the Government: 1. Written or recorded statements made by the defendant(s). 2. The substance of any oral statement made by the defendant(s) before or after his/her/their arrest(s) in response to interrogation by a then known-to-be Government agent which the Government intends to offer in evidence at trial. 3. Recorded grand jury testimony of the defendant(s) relating to the offenses charged. 4. The defendant's(s') arrest(s) and conviction record(s). 5. Books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense, or which the Government intends to use as evidence at trial to prove its case in chief, or were obtained from or belonging to the defendant(s). 6. Results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments, made in connection with this case. EFTA00179451 B. The defendant(s) shall permit the Government to inspect and copy the following items, or copies thereof, or supply copies thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the defendant(s), the existence of which is known or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the defendant(s). 1. Books, papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects which the defendant(s) intend(s) to introduce as evidence in chief at trial. 2. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with this case which the defendant(s) intend(s) to introduce as evidence in chief at trial, or which were prepared by a defense witness who will testify concerning the contents thereof. 3. If a defendant intends to rely upon the defense of insanity at the time of the alleged crime, or intends to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease, defect or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged, he shall give written notice thereof to the government. C. The Government shall reveal to the defendant(s) and permit inspection and copying of all information and material known to the Government which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilt or punishment within the scope of Brady I. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States'. Azurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). D. The Government shall disclose to the defendant(s) the existence and substance of any payments, promises of immunity, leniency, preferential treatment, or other inducements made to prospective Government witnesses, within the scope of Giglio vs. United States 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Napue vs. Illinois 360 U.S. 264 (1959). E. The Government shall supply the defendant(s) with a record of prior convictions of any alleged informant who will testify for the Government at trial. F. The Government shall state whether defendant(s) was/were identified in any lineup, show up, photo spread or similar identification proceeding, and produce any pictures utilized or resulting therefrom. G. The Government shall advise its agents and officers involved in this case to preserve all rough notes. H. The Government shall advise the defendant(s) of its intention to introduce extrinsic act evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence. The Government shall EFTA00179452 provide notice regardless of how it intends to use the extrinsic act evidence at trial, i.e. during its case-in-chief, for impeachment, or for possible rebuttal. Furthermore, the Government shall apprise the defense of the general nature of the evidence of the extrinsic acts. I. The Government shall state whether the defendant(s) was/were an aggrieved person(s), as defined in Title 18 United States Code Section 2510(11), of any electronic surveillance, and if so, shall set forth in detail the circumstances thereof. J. The Government shall have transcribed the grand jury testimony of all witnesses who will testify for the Government at the trial of this cause, preparatory to a timely motion for discovery. K. The Government shall, upon request, deliver to any chemist selected by the defense, who is presently registered with the Attorney General in compliance with 21 U.S.C. Section 822 and Section 823, and 21 C.F.R. Section 101.22(8), a sufficient representative sample of any alleged contraband which is the subject of this indictment, to allow independent chemical analysis of such sample. L. The Government shall permit the defendant(s), his/her/their counsel and any experts selected by the defense to inspect any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft allegedly utilized in the commission of any offenses charged. Government counsel shall, if necessary, assist defense counsel in arranging custody of the thing to be inspected that such inspection has been ordered by the Court. M. The Government shall provide the defense, for independent expert examination, copies of all latent fingerprints or palm prints which have been identified by a Government expert as those of the defendant(s). N. The Government shall, upon request of the defendant, disclose to the defendant a written summary of testimony the Government reasonably expects to offer at trial under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This summary must describe the witnesses' opinions, the bases and the reasons therefor, and the witnesses' qualifications. If the defendant seeks and obtains discovery under this paragraph, the defendant shall, upon request by the government, disclose to the Government a written summary of testimony the defendant reasonably expects to offer at trial under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, describing the witnesses' opinions, the bases and the reasons therefor, and the witnesses' qualifications. EFTA00179453 O. The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth and existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will expedite the trial. P. The parties shall collaborate in preparation of a written statement to be signed by counsel for each side, generally describing all discovery material exchanged, and setting forth all stipulations entered into at the conference. No stipulations made by defense counsel at the conference shall be used against the defendant(s) unless the stipulations are reduced to writing and signed by the defendant(s) and his/her/their counsel. This statement, including any stipulations signed by the defendant(s) and his/her/their counsel, shall be filed with the Court within five (5) days following the conference. Q. Timing of all discovery shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Paragraph Q of Local Rule 88.10. It shall be the continuing duty of counsel for both sides to immediately reveal to opposing counsel all newly discovered information or other material within the scope of this Standing Order. Upon a sufficient showing, the Court may at any time, upon motion properly filed, order that the discovery or inspection provided for by this Standing Order be denied, restricted or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate. It is expected by the Court, however, that counsel for both sides shall make every good faith effort to comply with the letter and spirit of this Standing Order. All motions concerning matters not covered by this Standing Order must be filed pursuant to Local Rule 88.9 within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order. DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, FL thisiL day of February, 2010. ANN E. VITUNAC ANN E. VITUNAC U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE EFTA00179454 3AllUTIV .3 MIA EFTA00179455 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. ( — eoo 5 -CR-1411/4ga / floptZ(id 5 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. FILED by JAN 2 9 2010 Mt VW M. LARIMOrtE GLUM U.5. DILI' cl 51) Ci FLA.. P0: INFORMATION The United States Attorney charges that: From at least as early as January 18, 2007, through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, did corruptly conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding, that is proceedings before a federal grand jury, and otherwise corruptly obstructed and impeded said official proceeding; in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 1 1 . J FFREY H. SLOMAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00179456 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 2 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 10 - TOO (5 `Cr-- t-itcgtik (go pgiik.6 vs. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. / Court Division: (sew one) Miami Key West FTL WPB_ FTP I do hereby certify that: 1. CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY* Superseding Case Information: New Defendant(s) Yes — Number of New Defendants Total number of counts No _ I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexlties of the Indictmentrinformation attached hereto. 2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 LES.C. Section 3181. 3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) No List language and/or dialect 4. This case will take 4 days for the parties to try. 5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below: tot only an) (Cheek only one) I 0 to 5 days —X-- Petty II 6 to 10 days Minor III 11 to 20 days Misdem. IV 21 to 60 days Felony V 61 days and over 6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No If yes: Judge Case No. (Attach copy of diapositive order) Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) Yes If yes: Magistrate Case No. noanna-r ri I Related Miscellaneous numbers: Defendant(s) in federal custody as of Defendant(s) in state custody as of Rule 20 from the District of Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorneys Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes X No 8. °Penalty Sheet(s) attached REV. VIVO EFTA00179457 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 3 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENALTY SHEET Defendant's Name: ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ Case No.: I O — (5 -- C War212A/ Nona NJ Count 1: 18 U S 1512(c) Obstruction of Justice 'Max. Penalty: 20 veers Imprisonment: 3 years Supervised Release: $250.000 Fine Count : 'Max. Penalty: Count : *Max. Penalty: •Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, special assessments, parole terms or forfeitures that may be applicable. ner IVIZNO EFTA00179458 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 4 of 4 AO 455 (Rev 01/09) Wilmer of an Indictment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fur the Southern District of Florida United States of America Alfredo Rodriguez Agendum Case No. IC ....VW( 5 scr_ Fun/ korcein/S WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. I was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by information. Date: lkfindant's signature Signature oldefendant's attorney DAVE LEE BRANNON, AIN) Printed name of delindont's attorney Judge's slgnandre Judge's printed name and title EFTA00179459 tase 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. ( b — 'SOD 5 -Cg- 1-thge.A ffloWN 5 IS U.S.C. § 1512(c) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. / FILED by JAN 2 9 2010 %TIAN NI onward CUSS U.S. Do.. . S n or FLA W pa. JNFORMATION The United States Attorney charges that: From at least as early as January 18, 2007, through on or about November 3, 2009, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, did commtly :conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding, that is proceedings before a federal grand jury, and otherwise corruptly obstructed and impeded said official proceeding; in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c). J FFREY H. SLOMAN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EFTA00179460 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 2 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. to - To0( 5 -CI-- MtvegA(14oFVOJS vs. CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY- ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. / Superseding Case Information: Court Division: (soma( one) Miami Key West FTL _X_ WPB_ FTP I do hereby certify that New Defendant(s) Yes No Number of New Defendants Total number of counts 1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto. 2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3181. 3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) No List language and/or dialect 4. This case will take 4 days for the parties to try. 5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below: pack any ono) (ChMonly ow) I 0 to 5 days _X__, Petty II 6 to 10 days Minor III 11 to 20 days Misdem. IV 21 to 60 days Felony V 61 days and over 8. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No If yes- JuiJge. Case No. (Attach copy of dispositive order) Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) Yes If yes: Magistrate Case No. no.anna.t ri Related Miscellaneous numbers: Defendant(e) in federal custody as of Defendant(s) in state custody as of Rule 20 from the District of Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No 8. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to September 1, 2007? Yes X No *Penalty Sheet(s) attached REV 478/Da EFTA00179461 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 3 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENALTY SHEET Defendant's Name: ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ Case No.: t 0 - TOO (5 -CC - Varn2A/ Herta. 11/4.) s Count 1: 18 U.S.0 § 1512(cl Obstruction of Justice •Max. Penalty: 20 years Imprisonment: 3 veers Supervised Release: $250.000 Fine Count : *Max. Penalty: Count : *Max. Penalty: •Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, special assessments, parole terms or forfeitures that may be applicable. ILLY 12/11,0 EFTA00179462 Case 9:10-cr-80015-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2010 Page 4 of 4 AO 455 I Fin 014)91 Walser of an Indictment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fur the Southern District of Florida United States of America Alfredo Rodriguez Orient/ant Case No. (O 4300(6-Cr- 'WA/ HOPIC‘NiS WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. I was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by information. Date: Defendant's signature Signature uf defendant's attorney DAVE LEE BRANNON, AFP0 Proved mune ul <Mentions 's attorney Judge's signature Judge's printed mime and title EFTA00179463 At) ISt IRes VI 09) %\., cr of an Inklictment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Florida United States of America v. Alfredo Rodriguez Defendant Case N„ -`&3015 'at - ) WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. I was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by information. Date: Defendant's signature Signature of defendant's attorney DAVE LEE BRANNON, AFPD Pruned name of defendant's attorney Judge's signature Judge's printed name and tale EFTA00179464 Memorandum Subject Prosecution Memorandum In re Operation Stolen Globe: Request to Issue Subpoena to Cooperating Attorney Date October 28, 2009 To Jeffrey Sloman Acting U.S. Attorney Acting First Assistant U.S. Atto e , Acting Chi Criminal Division Deputy Chief Criminal Division Chief Northern Division From Assistant U.SLMItifipi v This memorandum seeks permission to issue a subpoena to attorney Brad Edwards ("Edwards") for records relating to the investigation Operation Stolen Globe. Edwards is willing to produce all of these items voluntarily. For liability reasons, his firm prefers that we issue a subpoena. Likewise, I would prefer to proceed by subpoena to maintain the formality and secrecy of the grand jury procedures. Background of the Investigation As I have previously discussed with some of you, this investigation arises from obstruction of the Operation Leap Year investigation. Alfredo Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") was considered a significant witness in that investigation. Rodriguez had been employed by the target of the Operation Leap Year investigation and had worked in the home in Palm Beach where the criminal sexual activity had taken place. Rodriguez admitted seeing underage girls in the home, paying money to them, and delivering flowers to girls at one of the local high schools. Rodriguez was interviewed by the Palm Beach Police Department and was asked to produce documents. Rodriguez turned over some documents. When the case was adopted for federal investigation, he was interviewed again by the FBI in January 2007. He was cooperative with the agents and was not, therefore, subpoenaed to the grand jury. EFTA00179465 As you all know, the Operation Leap Year investigation ended with the Non- Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. No federal charges were filed against Epstein or any of his co- conspirators. While there were a multitude of reasons for that decision, one sentiment was that federal nexus was not as strong as it normally is because there was no evidence of e-mail contact or interstate travel by victims. Moving forward more than two years to the present day, Brad Edwards is currently representing a few of the victims who were identified by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI during Operation Leap Year.' Edwards has filed individual lawsuits against Epstein — some in state court and some in federal court. Other identified victims have also filed suit, and a number of those lawsuits are consolidated in front of Judge Marra in the U.S. District Court. In connection with those federal civil suits, a subpoena was issued to Alfredo Rodriguez to appear for a deposition and to produce documents.' Rodriguez appeared for deposition and produced documents as an unrepresented party on July 29 and August 7, 2009. Edwards was one of the attorneys present who questioned Rodriguez. Edwards reports that Rodriguez was very forthcoming about the criminal sexual activity that was occurring at Epstein's home.' After the deposition, Rodriguez sent an email to Brad Edwards asking to speak with him. Rodriguez then called Edwards and told him that he had the "holy grail" of information regarding all of the sexual activity that Epstein had been engaging in. Rodriguez claimed to have a list of more than 500 names of young girls who had been to Epstein's houses in Palm Beach, New York, Paris, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands. Rodriguez also claimed to have emails and evidence that the girls had been transported interstate by Epstein. If Rodriguez does have this evidence, it would have been relevant and highly material to the Operation Leap Year grand jury investigation. Edwards asked Rodriguez for the evidence. Rodriguez said that he would give the 'It should be noted that Edwards filed suit against the United States on behal fof these victims asserting claims that the Office violated their statutory victims' rights by not providing them with notice and an opportunity to be heard before entering into the Non-Prosecution Agreement. That case remains open but dormant. 'This subpoena, the deposition transcript, and the documents Rodriguez produced are the bulk of what is sought by the proposed subpoena to Attorney Edwards. 'From the description, it appears that he disclosed far more during the deposition than he did to the Palm Beach Police and the FBI, but I cannot make that determination without reviewing the actual deposition. -2- EFTA00179466 evidence to Edwards, but only if Edwards would pay him $50,000 cash. Edwards refused. This was in approximately mid-August 2009. At that time, Edwards called me and presented this to me as a "hypothetical" scenario without disclosing who the witness was. I told him that, if the witness really had withheld that information, it was obstruction of justice and we would want to do an undercover operation to obtain the evidence and prosecute him for obstruction. Edwards said that he would think about it and get back to me, but I never heard any more. On October 22nd, I heard again from Edwards. He disclosed that the witness was Rodriguez, and that he had received several more calls from him. During those calls, which were witnessed by one of the law firm's private investigators, Rodriguez again offered to provide the evidence to Edwards in exchange for $50,000. Edwards repeatedly advised Rodriguez that it was illegal to buy evidence and tried to convince Rodriguez to turn it over without payment in accordance with the subpoena. Rodriguez reportedly referred to the information as his "insurance policy" and said, "I didn't turn it over to the police when they asked, or to the FBI, but I will give it to you because you touched my heart during the deposition." Edwards asked him why Rodriguez hadn't turned the information over to law enforcement and Rodriguez said that he had worked to compile the information and it was his "property" and he wasn't going to give it away for nothing. Edwards reported that, during the last conversation, when he told Rodriguez again that he wouldn't buy the evidence because it was illegal, Rodriguez said that he understood that Edwards wouldn't pay for it, so he was willing to deal with any "third party" that Edwards wanted him to. Edwards said that he realized that he would never be able to convince Rodriguez to turn the evidence over in accordance with the subpoena, and re-approached law enforcement. FBI agents who were not involved in Operation Leap Year and I met with Edwards, his investigator, and another attorney from their firm and did a debriefing. Today, Edwards made a controlled call to the target and introduced the undercover agent. It is not expected that Edwards will be further involved in the investigation, except to turn over the items that I am seeking in the subpoena. ITEMS CALLED FOR BY THE SUBPOENA The subpoena seeks three items: 1. The subpoena duces tecum that was issued to Rodriguez for his deposition. 2. The videotape of the deposition, transcript, and documents produced in -3- EFTA00179467 response to the subpoena. 3. The email correspondence between Edwards and Rodriguez. The first two items are necessary to determine what was asked for and received and to see whether Rodriguez made statements contrary to what he told federal agents. The email correspondence is needed to see the beginning of the contact between Edwards and Rodriguez and to defeat any claim of "entrapment." None of the items contain any privileged information. The first item is a subpoena issued on behalf of the U.S. District Court and served by an attorney upon a non-party witness. The second items are a deposition that was attended by a number of attorneys representing parties and our target, who was the witness. There was no attorney-client relationship between any of the persons present at the deposition and no private privileged conversation. The documents produced by Rodriguez also are not privileged because he produced them to attorneys for a number of different parties in response to a lawfully issued subpoena. The third item also is not privileged because it involves correspondence between an attorney and a third party. Edwards has expressed his willingness to produce all of these items and is not asserting any claim of privilege or confidentiality. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, I recommend the issuance of the attached subpoena. -4- EFTA00179468 Resource Manual No. 264 Form — Request for Authorization To Issue A Subpoena To An Attorney for Information Relating To Representation of a Client To: From: Southern District of on a Criminal Division 1301 New York Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 PHONE No. (202) PHONE No. TELEFAX No. FAX No. 1) Name of Attorney Witness: Brad Edwards. Eso., Law Firm of Rothstein Rosen feldt Adler PLEASE NOTE: THE ATTORNEY IS COOPERATING WITH THE AUTHORITIES IN INVESTIGATING A CRIME THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CLIENT AND HE IS WILLING TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED ITEMS. HIS FIRM HAS REQUESTED THAT WE PROCEED VIA SUBPOENA. 2) District: Southern District of Florida 3) Date by which subpoena needed: October 30 2009 4) Nature of Subpoena: ( ) Trial (X) Grand Jury 5) Name of Case or Investigation: Operation Stolen Globe 6) Nature of Case: False Statements to Federal Agent, Obstruction of Justice; Misprision of a Felony (X ) Criminal ( ) Civil Tax Forfeiture Other 7) (a) Name of Client: (b) Status of Client: &a ( ) Defendant in Criminal Case () Defendant in Civil Case () Subject ( ) Target of Grand Jury Investigation (X ) Other Identified Victim of a Closed Federal Grand Jury Investigation EFTA00179469 8) Relationship of attorney witness to subjects or defendants or targets (specifically indicate whether the witness currently represents any defendants or subjects in the matter in which the subpoena is to be issued): None. Attorney approached the government because a witness who had been interviewed by the FBI in connection with the federal grand jury investigation (which is currently closed) had approached the attorney to "sell" him information related to civil suits that have arisen from the criminal activity underlying the grand jury investigation. The attorney's client was an identified victim in the underlying criminal investigation. The attorney represents the victim in a civil suit seeking damages for sexual exploitation. She is not a subject, defendant, or target or any open investigation. And the subpoena does not seek any privileged information. 9) Information sought by the subpoena (if subpoena calls for testimony, indicate the nature of the anticipated testimony): At this time, the subpoena seeks only: 1. A copy of the deposition of the target of the investigation, Alfredo Rodriguez, and any materials that Rodriguez produced pursuant to the civil subpoena. 2. A copy of the civil subpoena duces tecum. 3. Copies of any emails between the attorney and the target. 10) Summary of case or proceeding (include a citation to the charges pending or under investigation in a criminal case): The investigation arose from the tip received from the attorney. We are arranging to make controlled calls with the target and plan to do a meeting to do an undercover "purchase" of this evidence. The target was interviewed by state law enforcement who asked him to turn over relevant documents and then was interviewed by FBI who also asked for all relevant information. The target never produced this information to law enforcement. The information also was called for by the federal civil subpoena duces tecum and was not produced. Crimes under investigation are 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 402, 1001, 1501, and 1512. 11) Relevancy of the information sought to the case or proceeding: The civil subpoena duces tecum, deposition transcript, and materials produced in response to the subpoena are necessary to determine whether they contain evidence ofobstruction of the federal grand jury investigation separate and apart from the evidence that he intends to 2 EFTA00179470 "sell." They also are necessary to show that the target was served with a legitimate legal command to produce the materials that he is now attempting to "sell." The e-mail between the attorney and the target are necessary to establish the initial contact and overture to "sell" the evidence to the attorney. 12) Factual statement of the need for the information to the successful completion of the case or proceeding: The requested e-mail information is necessary to show a jury how the crime first came to light, and how the target began making overtures to sell what he knew was information relevant to the criminal investigation to the person he thought could be the highest bidder. The requested deposition, documents, and subpoena are evidence of prior false statements of the target and the target's response to legal process. 13) Are there alternative sources for the information? (X)Yes (X)No There are no other sources for the emails. There are other sources for the civil subpoena, deposition, and documents produced pursuant to subpoena. 14) I f there are alternative sources for the information, have attempts been made to obtain information from them: ( ) Yes, but with no success. ( ) Yes, with success. Explain below why the subpoena is necessary. ( X ) No. Explain below why the alternative sources have not been pursued. The other sources for the information would be other attorneys in the same set of civil lawsuits, all of which raise the same issues raised herein. Also, disclosure to them could compromise the undercover operation. It is possible that a court reporter would have a copy of the deposition transcript, but not the documents produced in response to the subpoena. It is possible that the target was provided with a copy of his deposition transcript, but providing him with a subpoena would inform him that he is the subject of an investigation and disclose the undercover operation. 3 EFTA00179471 15) Statement as to adverse impact on attorney client relationship: (a) Has the witness been asked to supply the requested information voluntarily? (X ) Yes ( ) No Explain: The attorney's firm is concerned about liability issues and feels that the most prudent approach is to produce the documents in response to a subpoena. (b) Will witness be disqualified from representation of the client as a result of the subpoena being issued and enforced? ( ) Ycs ( X) No Explain: Not applicable. The target is not the attorney's client. (c) Is witness a target or subject of any investigation or is there a basis to believe that witness will become one: ( ) Yes ( X) No If yes, Explain: 16) Basis for belief that information is not privileged: The items sought do not contain any attorney-client communications. They all involve communications between the attorney and a third party (our target). 17) Requestor has considered applicable rules of professional conduct (X ) Yes ( ) No 18) Attach copy of subpoena. mmr-v Signature of Requesk)r n Signature of United States /Attorney Revised September 2007 4 EFTA00179472 %AO! 10 (Rev 04/07) Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: Bradley Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 E Las Olas Blvd Ste 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 08-1103(WPB) #0SG-001 SUBPOENA FOR: O PERSON g DOCUMENT(S) OR OBJECT(S) YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below. PLACE United States District Court 701 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 COUR I ROOM Grand Jury Room DA 'I£ AND TIME 11/5/2009 10:30 am YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the fbllowing document(s) or object(s):• 1. All subpoenas duces tecum issued by any party to Alfredo Rodriguez in connection with any civil suit pending against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 2. All recordings of the deposition(s) of Alfredo Rodriguez in connection with any civil suit pending against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court (or the Southern District of Florida, including transcripts, videorecordings, and audiorecordings. 3. All documents produced by Alfredo Rodriguez in response to all subpoenas duces tecum or other verbal or written requests in connection with any civil suit pending against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 4. All e-mail or other correspondence between Brad Edwards and Alfredo Rodriguez. 0 Please see additional information on revers This subpoena shall remain in ell behalf of the court. (D) Deputy Clerk part by the court or by an officer acting on 10/22/2009 This subpoena is issued on application • If not applicable. enter "none". NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Assistant U.S. Attorney IIPIRIPPHsral•venue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach,Elorida 33401-6235 EFTA00179473 NOV-05-2009 14:24 CRM DIV KEENEY 202 307 0677 P.02 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.0 10530 N0V - 5 2009 Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Miami, Florida 33132 Attention: Re: Subpocna to Brad Edwards, Esq., Law Finn of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler Dear Mr. Sloman: Assistant United States Attorney I received your request to issue the above-referenced subpoena related to Operation Stolen Globe. After review, I authorize you to issue the subpoena as set out in your request in this matter and in any further proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto as outlined in U.S.A.M. 9-13-410. Sincerely, Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General DeputyAssistant Attorney emend Criminal Division TOTAL P.02 EFTA00179474