EFTA00179613.pdf
Extracted Text (OCR)
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING,
INC., Crime Victim.
STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS
VEGAS,
Respondent,
DEBORAH A. DIFRANCEScO,
Defendant-Real Party in Interest,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest.
No. 13-73267
D.C. No.
2: 13-cr-00089-
JCM-GWF-1
OPINION
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
EFTA00179613
2
IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC.
Submitted September 20, 2013*
Filed September 26, 2013
Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Milan D. Smith, Jr.,
and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
SUMMARY**
Criminal Law
A motions panel issued a per curiam opinion denying a
crime victim's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking
reversal of the district court's denial of the victim's motion
for forfeiture under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
The panel explained that the Crime Victims' Rights Act
and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act give victims a
right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The
panel also explained that the Crime Victims' Rights Act
expressly does not impair the government's broad discretion
to seek forfeiture of assets implicated in an offender's wire
fraud.
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
EFTA00179614
IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC.
3
COUNSEL
Kenneth P. Childs, Stake Center Locating, Inc., Salt Lake
City, Utah, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Olson White, Appellate Chief and Assistant United
States Attorney, District of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, for
Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest.
Mark B. Bailus, Bailus Cook & Kelesis, Ltd., Las Vegas,
Nevada, for Defendant-Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Stake Center Locating, Inc. ("Stake Center")
petitions for a writ of mandamus reversing the district court's
denial of its motion for forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the
Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA").1
In the underlying criminal action, Deborah DiFrancesco,
a former employee of Stake Center, was charged with crimes
stemming from her embezzlement of funds from Stake Center
and other victims, and pleaded guilty to one count of tax
evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Pursuant to her plea
agreement, DiFrancesco agreed to make restitution to Stake
' Stake Center previously petitioned this court for mandamus, and we
denied this petition as premature. See Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc. v. U.S.
Dist. Court (lit re Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc.), 717 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.
2013) (per curiam). The district court has now completed sentencing
DiFrancesco, and Stake Center's renewed petition is properly before us.
EFTA00179615
4
IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC.
Center in the amount of $763,846. Stake Center moved the
district court to compel the government to institute criminal
forfeiture proceedings and to obtain property allegedly
traceable to DiFrancesco's crimes and thus subject to
forfeiture from third parties. The district court denied this
motion.
We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). In
reviewing a CVRA mandamus petition, we need not balance
the usual factors under Bauman v. United States District
Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977), but rather "must
issue the writ whenever we find that the district court's order
reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error." Kenna v. U.S.
Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion or
commit a legal error in denying Stake Center's motion for
forfeiture.
First, the CVRA and Mandatory Victim
Restitution Act ("MVRA") give victims a right to restitution,
not a right to criminal forfeiture. The CVRA provides that a
crime victim has the "right to full and timely restitution as
provided in law." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). The Mandatory
Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA") requires that a "defendant
make restitution to the victim" of certain offenses. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3663A(a)(1). Criminal forfeiture is not, as petitioner
contends, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . .
separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different
purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241
(9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution
and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to
restitution, not third parties. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1),
(b)(1) (requiring that "defendant make restitution" and
"defendant" return property).
EFTA00179616
IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC.
5
Nor did the district court err in declining to order the U.S.
Attorneys' Office to commence criminal forfeiture
proceedings against the Internal Revenue Service and other
non-parties alleged to possess assets implicated in
DiFrancesco's criminal activities. Contrary to Stake Center's
argument, forfeiture is mandatory for wire fraud only if the
government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United
States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d
1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for
forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to
whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598,
607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does
not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6)
("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the
prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer
under his direction.").2
Accordingly, Stake Center's petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DENIED.
2 Because we decide this issue on these grounds, we do not reach the
other arguments advanced by the government why forfeiture proceedings
cannot be commenced in this case.
EFTA00179617
EFTA00179618
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
v.
UNITED STATES
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO
PRIVLEGE LOG
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and
through undersigned counsel, to give notice of their filing of objections to the Government's two
privilege logs (DE 212 and DE 216). The objections are attached hereto. The victims are filing
these objections concurrently with a motion to compel production of the materials at issue.
DATED: August 16.2013
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad©pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
1
EFTA00179619
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 3
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: eassellp©law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
2
EFTA00179620
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following
using the Court's CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafafia
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: Dexter.Lee®usdoj.gov
E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoi.gov
Attorneys for the Government
Roy Black, Esq.
Jackie Perezek, Esq.
Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Email: pleading®royblack.com
(305) 37106421
Jay P. Leflcowitz
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
(212) 446-4970
Martin G. Weinberg, P.C.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Email: owlmgw®att.net
(617) 338-9538
Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
3
EFTA00179621
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70
EXHIBIT A
PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS
EFTA00179622
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08116/2013 Page 2 of 70
PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS
Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Privileged)
Objection
General Objections —
Inadequate Privilege Log
Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim
Waiver of Confidentiality
Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege
Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered
Factual Materials Not Covered
Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation
Attorney Client Objections -
Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered
Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established
Deliberative Process Objections -
Privilege Not Properly Invoked
Final Decision Exempted from Privilege
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents
Investigative Privilege -
Privilege Not Properly Invoked
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents
Work Product Doctrine
No Work Product Doctrine in the Context of a Claim Against Public Prosecutors
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents
Work Production Privilege Does No Apply When the Attorney's Conduct is at Issue
Rule 6(e)
Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule 6(eX3)(E)
The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury Materials
Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Grand Jury
The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Materials
Page 1 of 69
Abbreviation
Inadequate Log
No Factual Underpinnings
Waiver
Fiduciary Duty
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct
Factual Materials
Not in Anticipation of Litigation
Ordinary Government Communication
No Attorney-Client Relationship
Improper Invocation
Final Decision
Overriding Need
Improper Invocation
Overriding Need
Claims Against Public Prosecutor
Overriding Need
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E)
Court Inherent Power to Release
Proper Victim's Petition
CVRA-authorized release
EFTA00179623
ease 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 70
Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials
The Privacy Rights of Other Victims
Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns
No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims
Privacy Act
The Privacy Act Does Not Apply to Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery
Material Severable
Redaction
No Assertion by Victims
Court-Compelled Disclosure
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-000001
SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence
Work Product
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
thru
related to various grand jury subpoenas and
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
P4)00039
attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Overriding Need
Box #1
Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-000040
containing subpoenas OLY-01 through
Work Product
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
thru
OLY-81, correspondence and research
Contains documents
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P-000549
related to enforcement of same, documents
subject to investigative
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
produced in response to some subpoenas;
privilege
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes
Also contains documents
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims; Overriding Need
Page 2 of 69
EFTA00179624
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-000550
thru
P-000621
File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash
SW" containing copies of a sealed search
warrant
application,
warrant,
and
supporting documents
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P-000622
thru
P-000693
File folder entitled "PNY Technologies
Compact Flash SW" containing copies of a
sealed search warrant application, warrant,
and supporting documents
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy tights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P-000694
thru
P-000781
File folder entitled "JE Corporations"
containing attorney research on Epstein-
owned corporations and prior litigation
Work Product
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Overriding Need
Box #1
P-000782
thru
P-000803
File
folder
entitled
"Capital
One"
containing subpoena and correspondence
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Page 3 of 69
EFTA00179625
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 70
Bates Range Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-000804
thru
P-000854
File
folder
entitled
"DTG
Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car" containing
subpoena and responsive documents
6(e)
Contains documents and
information subject to
investigative privilege
Also contains documents
and information subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P-000855
thru
P-000937
File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase"
containing subpoena, correspondence, and
responsive documents
6(e)
Contains documents and
information subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-000938
thru
P-000947
File folder entitled "Washington Mutual"
containing subpoena, correspondence, and
responsive documents
6(e)
Contains documents and
information subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victiit's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-000948
thru
P-000982
File folder entitled "Computer Search &"
containing legal research on computer
search and handwritten notes on indictment
preparation
Work Product
Attorney-Client
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege. Also contains
information subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Page 4 of 69
EFTA00179626
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1612013 Page 6 of 70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-000983
thru
P-001007
File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from
Document Review" containing typed and
handwritten attorney (Villafaila) notes,
target letters, correspondence re grand jury
subpoena
Work product
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege. Also contains
information subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-001008
thru
P-001056
File folder entitled "Notes from Fed Ex
Records" containing handwritten and typed
attorney (Villafaila) notes and screen shots
of FedEx subpoena response electronic file
Work Product
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege. Also contains
information subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P401057
thru
P-001959
File
folder
entitled "Colonial
Bank
Records" containing records received in
response to grand jury subpoena
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Page 5 of 69
EFTA00179627
_
L./own-tent a4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 70
Bates Range Description
PrivideRe(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-001960
Thru
P-002089
File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log
Vol 2: OLY-51 THROUGH" containing
subpoenas numbered OLY-51 through
OLY-81 with related correspondence
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege. Also contains
information subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P402090
Thru
P-002169
File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate
Records:
OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53,
OLY-54" containing subpoenas, records
received in response to subpoenas, and
related correspondence
6(e)
Contains information and
documents subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-002170
Thru
P402246
File folder entitled "Colonial Bank"
containing
subpoenas,
correspondence
related to subpoenas, records received in
response to subpoenas
6(e)
Contains information and
documents subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition: CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-002247
Thru
P-002265
File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion
from Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47"
containing documents received in response
to subpoenas
6(e)
Contains information and
documents subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Page 6 of 69
EFTA00179628
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
Indictment preparation binder containing:
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-002266
Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity
6(e)
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Thru
summary chart, witness/victim names and
Contains information and
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P-002386
contact
list,
attorney
(Villafafia)
documents subject to
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state
investigative privilege.
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
investigative
file, attorney (Villafafia) Also contains information Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
typed notes, of individuals listed as
and documents subject to
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
"Additional victims"
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
Box #1
Indictment preparation binder containing:
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-002387
Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity
6(e)
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Thru
summary chart, witness/victim names and
Contains information and
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P-002769
contact
list,
attorney
(Villafafta)
documents subject to
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state
investigative privilege.
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
investigative
file, attorney (Villafafia) Also contains information Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
typed notes, relevant pieces of grand jury
and documents subject to
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
materials, telephone records/flight records
privacy rights of victims
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
analysis
charts,
victim/witness who are not parties to this release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
photographs, DAVID records, NCICs, and
related materials for persons identified as
litigation
Assertion by Victims
Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Past
Employees, Misc. Witnesses
Page 7 of 69
EFTA00179629
Labe v.vo-CV-ou db-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
Indictment preparation binder containing:
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-002770
witness/victim
list
with
identifying
6(e)
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Thru
information, sexual activity summary,
Contains information and
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P-003211
telephone call summary chart, attorney
documents subject to
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
(Villafazia)
handwritten
notes,
302s,
portions of state investigative file, attorney
(Villafiula) typed notes, relevant pieces of
grand
jury
materials,
telephone
records/flight records
analysis charts,
victim/witness
photographs,
DAVID
records, NCICs, and related materials for
persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7,8
investigative privilege.
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Box #1
Indictment preparation binder containing
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-003212
meta-analysis
charts
of
6(e)
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Thru
telephone/flight/grand jury information for Contains information and
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P-003545
a number of
• •
•
Nadia
documents subject to
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Marcinkova, and
investigative privilege.
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 8 of 69
EFTA00179630
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of
70
Bates Range
Box #1
P-003546
Thru
P-003552
Box #1
P-003553
Thru
P-003555B
Description
FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of
additional witness/victim located in New
York
Printout of filenames from Federal Express
subpoena response with Attorney notations
Privilege(s) Asserted
Work product
6(e)
Contains information and
documents subject to
investigative privilege.
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Work product
6(e)
Victims' Objections
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Box #1
P-003556
Thru
P-003562
Document entitled "Identified Numbers"
with accompanying handwritten attorney
list compiled from grand jury materials and
attorney analysis of records
Work product
6(e)
Contains information
subject to investigative
privilege
Page 9 of 69
EFTA00179631
Lase sus-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of
70
Bates Range Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box # I
P403563
Thru
P-003629
Folder
entitled
"Flight
Manifests"
containing manifests received pursuant to
grand jury subpoena
6(e)
Contains information and
documents subject to
investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-003630
Thru
P-003633
File folder entitled "Recent Attorney
Notes" containing handwritten attorney
(Villafalla) notes regarding document
review and case strategy
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Box #1
P-003634
Thru
P-003646
File folder bearing victim name containing
FBI interview report from May 2008,
telephone activity report with attorney
(Villafanafia) handwritten notes, related
grand jury material
Work product
Attorney-client privilege
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Page 10 of 69
EFTA00179632
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box III
P-003647
Thru
P-003651
File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual
Activity"
containing
chart
bearing
handwritten title "Sexual
Activity
—
Summary"
with
meta-analysis
of
information, sorted by name of each
victim/witness,
including
name
and
identifying
information
of
each
victim/witness
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Deliberative process
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-003652
Thru
P-003663
File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits"
Not privileged.
Produced to counsel for
Petitioners
N/A
Box #1
P-003664
Thru
P-003678
File folder entitled "Research re JE
Websites" containing attorney research
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-003679
Thru
P-003680
File folder entitled "Serene Cano (N.Y.
AUSA)" containing attorney (Villafafia)
handwritten notes
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-003681
Thru
P-003687
File folder entitled "Dr. Anna Salter"
containing attorney (Villafafla) memo to
expert witness and handwritten attorney
notes
Work product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 11 of 69
EFTA00179633
too-KARA Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-003688
Thru
P-003693
File folder entitled "ID GO Interview"
containing attorney handwritten notes of
interview, and attorney handwritten notes
regarding potential charges
Work product
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-003694
Thru
P-003711
File folder entitled "Research re Travel for
Prostitution"
containing
attorney
(Villafafta) handwritten notes regarding
grand jury presentation, chart entitled
"Brought to Epstein's House" with
handwritten notes, Message Pad meta-
analysis chart, summary of evidence
related to one victim/witness, and relevant
grand jury information
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-003712
Empty file folder bearing name of
victim/witness
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victim who is not a party
to this litigation
N/A
Box #1
P-003713
Thru
P-003746
File folder entitled "TO MO" containing
grand jury subpoenas, motion and order to
compel testimony, and correspondence
regarding same
6(e)
Documents under seal
pursuant to court order
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-003747
Thru
P-003751
File folder
entitled
containing subpoena and correspondence
regarding same
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Page 12 of 69
EFTA00179634
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-003752
Thru
P-004295
File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative
File" obtained via subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3XE);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P-004296
Thru
P404350
File folder bearing name of victim/witness
containing meta-analysis chart showing
telephone calls, travel, and grand jury
materials relevant to possible charges
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-004351
Thu
P-004381
File folder entitled "Daniel Gonzalez
Documents
53909-004"
containing
attorney research related to bias issue
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-004382
Thru
P-004478
File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing
documents obtained via subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3XE); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Page 13 of 69
EFTA00179635
air
VO-CV-dU fib
-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-004479
Thru
P404551
File Folder entitled "State of Delaware
Records" containing documents obtained
in preparation for indictment
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Work product
Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Box #1
P-004552
Thru
P-004555
File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records"
containing
documents
obtained
via
subpoena
6(e)
Work product
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-004556
Thru
P-004560
File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT
RECORDS" containing FDLE records on
targets and witnesses obtained at attorney
request
Investigative privilege
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-004561
Thru
P-004565
Filed
folder
entitled
"JANUSZ
BANASIAK"
containing
attorney
(Villafafla) handwritten notes of interview
Work product
Investigative privilege
•
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 14 of 69
EFTA00179636
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-004566
Thru
P-004716
File folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK
RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-"
containing
documents
obtained
via
subpoena
6(e)
Work product
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-004717
Thru
P-004722
File folder entitled "IGOR ZINOVIEV"
containing attorney research regarding
witness
Work product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-004723
Thru
P-004725
File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS
RESEARCH" containing attorney research
regarding potential witness and subpoena
recipient
Work Product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-004726
Thru
P-004819
File
folder
entitled
"LAWSUITS
INVOLVING
EPSTEIN
CORP'S"
containing attorney research regarding
Epstein's past personal and business
litiLative practices
Work Product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-004820
Thru
P-004959
Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS"
containing attorney research regarding
Epstein financial relationships
Work Product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 15 of 69
EFTA00179637
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-004960
Thru
P-005059
File folder entitled "Message Pads"
containing selected items from evidence
obtained via subpoena
Work Product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-005060
Thru
P-005081
File folder bearing name of victim/witness
containing correspondence with counsel
for victim/witness, attorney witness outline
with attorney handwritten notes, attorney
handwritten
notes
regarding
witness
reports and case preparation
Work Product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-005082
Thru
P-005083
File folder entitled "New York Trip"
containing attorney notes re witness
interview
Work product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
P-005084
thru
P-005107
are
non
responsive documents and have been
removed
N/A
Page 16 of 69
EFTA00179638
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-005108
Thu
P-005193
File folder entitled "ANNA SALTER"
containing attorney research on select
expert, use of experts at trials in child
exploitation cases, and additional research
materials on offenders and victims
Work product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; Fiduciary Duty; Factual
Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation;
Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims
Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct
at Issue
Box #1
P-005194
Thru
P-005300
File
folder
entitled
"Extra
Copies"
containing meta-analysis chart and 302's of
victim/witnesses
used
in
preparing
indictment package
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-005301
Thru
P-005331
File folder entitled "JUAN ALESSI
STATEMENT"
containing
transcript
obtained via subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3XE); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-005332
Thru
P405341
File folder entitled "KEN LANNING"
containing attorney research on select
expert, including attorney handwritten
notes
Work product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 17 of 69
EFTA00179639
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-005342
Thru
P-005387
File folder entitled "Info re Planes"
containing
correspondence
regarding
subpoenas and documents received in
response to subpoenas
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Box #1
P-005388
Thru
P-005442
File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC
Affidavit" containing portions of police
reports with attorney notes, related phone
records, a list entitled "Victims" with
identifying
information
and
attorney
handwritten
notes,
photographs
and
DAVID
information,
and
additional
attorney research regarding Epstein sexual
activity
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #1
P-005443
Thru
P-005496
File
folder entitled "[Victim name]
Transcript of Interview & G.T Transcript"
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #1
P-005497
Thru
P-005556
File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena
Resp." containing material received in
response to subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Page 18 of 69
EFTA00179640
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #1
P-005557
Thru
P-005576
U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File
Jacket containing file opening documents,
expert witness payment documents
Work product
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-005578
Thru
P-005583
U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture
Case File Jacket containing file opening
and file closing documents
Work product
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #1
P-005584
Ulm
P-005605
File folder entitled "6001 Immunity
Request" containing internal memoranda
seeking
witness
immunity
and
correspondence with counsel for witness
regarding same
6(e)
Work product and
deliberative process (as to
internal memoranda)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable;
Redaction; No Assertion by
Victims
Box #2
P-005607
Thru
P-005914
File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE
RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of
all phone, travel, and grand jury data for all
victim/witnesses for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 19 of 69
EFTA00179641
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-005915
Thru
P-005977
File folder bearing name of victim/witness
containing meta-analysis of all phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-005978
Thsu
P-006050
File folder bearing name of victim/witness
containing meta-analysis of all phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-006051
Thru
P-006065
File folder bearing name of victim/witness
containing meta-analysis of all phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 20 of 69
EFTA00179642
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-006066
Thru
P-006220
File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4"
containing meta-analysis of all phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-006221
Thru
P-006222
File folder entitled ""JANE DOE #12"
containing meta-analysis of all phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-006223
Thru
P-006522
File
folder
entitled
"CORRECTED
PHONE RECORDS 5/31/0? containing
meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and
grand
jury
data
related
to
all
victims/witnesses
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 21 of 69
EFTA00179643
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-006523
Thru
P-006802
File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone
Records" containing telephone records
received in response to subpoena
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-006803
Thru
P-006860
File folder entitled "Lists of Identified
Phone Numbers" containing charts of
information
culled
from
grand jury
materials,
interviews,
and
other
investigation, with attorney handwritten
notes, and information to issue follow-up
grand jury subpoena
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-006861
Thm
P-007785
File folder entitled "EPSTEIN/KELLEN
CELL PHONE RECORDS" containing
documents received via subpoena with
attorney
handwritten
notes
and
highlighting
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 22 of 69
EFTA00179644
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-007786
Thru
P-008120
Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY
LOG:
OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50"
containing
subpoenas,
correspondence
regarding same, 6(e) letters, attorney
handwritten
notes
regarding
records
received in response to subpoenas
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008121
Thru
P-008139
Handwritten
flight
logs
received
in
response to subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #2
P-008140
Thru
P-008298
Grand jury presentation folder containing
attorney handwritten notes, typed outline
with
additional
handwritten
notes,
complete
indictment
package
dated
2/19/2008, victim list with identifying
information, photographs, and summary of
activity
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 23 of 69
EFTA00179645
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
File
folder
entitled
"FINAL
P-008299
Thru
AGREEMENTS"
containing
subfolder
entitled "Agrmts Filed in State Court" (P-
N/A
P-008363
008300-P-008327 [not being withheld as
privileged
— have been produced to
opposing
counsel]);
signed
Non-
Prosecution Agreement, Addendum, and
operative portion of 12/19/2007 Sanchez-
Acosta letter (P-008328-P-008343 [not
being withheld as privileged — have been
produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder
entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr"
containing unredacted copies of that letter
(P-008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's
Order, not being withheld as privileged —
will be produced to opposing counsel upon
lift of stay by 11th Circuit])
Box #2
File folder entitled "Lacerda Immunity
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-008364
Thru
Request" containing internal memoranda,
Justice Department documentation, and
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
P-008382
subpoena regarding immunity request
Investigative privilege
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Page 24 of 69
EFTA00179646
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-008383
Thru
P-008516
File folder containing March 18, 2008
grand jury presentation materials, including
"Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment
Summary Chart (by victim)," grand jury
materials,
draft
indictments,
victim
reference list, grand jury subpoena log
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Deliberative process
Also contains information
and documents subject to
privacy rights of victims
who are not parties to this
litigation
Inadequate Log, No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008517
Thru
P-008535
6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to
Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie
[pursuant to Court's Order, not being
withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by
11th Circuit]
N/A
Box #2
P408536
Thru
P408542
Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for
interview of Jane Doe #2
Work product
Investigative Privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008543
Thru
P408549
Handwritten attorney notes regarding May
8, 2007 grand jury presentation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 25 of 69
EFTA00179647
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-008550
Thru
P-008615
File
folder
entitled
"Most
Recent
Indictment & Good Cases" containing draft
indictment and legal research
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Deliberative process
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008616
Thru
P-008686
File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts"
containing chart prepared at direction of
AUSA,
containing
victim
names,
identifying
information,
summary of
activity, and other information relevant to
indictment
Work product
Attorney-Client Privilege
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable ; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #2
P-008687
Thru
P-008776
File folder entitled "[Victim name)/Jane
Doe #4" containing phone records and
meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and
grand
jury
data
related
to
that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information and
documents subject to
privacy tights of victims
who are not parties to this
suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 26 of 69
EFTA00179648
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P408777
Thru
P408808
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #5" containing handwritten notes and
meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and
grand
jury
data
related
to
that
victim/witness for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008809
Thru
P408847
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #6" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008848
Thru
P-008862
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #7" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 27 of 69
EFTA00179649
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of
70
Bates Range Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-008863
Thru
P-008890
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #8" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-008891
Thru
P-009103
File folder entitled "Certified Copy of State
Case" containing certified copy of Epstein
state criminal cases and change of plea
transcript [not being withheld as privileged
— copy provided to opposing counsel]
N/A
Box #2
P-009104
Thru
P-009111
File folder entitled "Meeting Timeline"
containing
Villafaria
typed
notes
summarizing meetings
with
opposing
counsel
prepared
at
request
of R.
Alexander
Acosta,
with
handwritten
correction and typed guideline estimate
Work product
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in
Anticipation
of Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009112
Thru
P-009113
11/26/2008 Email from Roy Black to A.
Marie Villafaria and Karen Atkinson re
Jeffrey Epstein (work release)
[pursuant to Court's Order, not being
withheld as privileged — will be produced
to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by
Il th Circuit]
N/A
Page 28 of 69
EFTA00179650
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P409114
Tint
P-009115
7/3/2008 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to
Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work
release
with
attachment
[not
being
withheld as privileged — produced to
opposing counsel]
N/A
Box #2
P409116
Thu
P-009125
12/6/2007 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to
Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim
notification) [pursuant to Court's Order,
not being withheld as privileged — will be
produced to opposing counsel upon lift of
stay by 11th Circuit])
N/A
Box #2
P-009126
Thru
P-009134
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #9" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-009135
Thru
P409141
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #13" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 29 of 69
EFTA00179651
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-009141A
Thru
P-009141C
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #12" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-009142
Thru
P-009152
•
lder entitled
containing me -anaysis o
a
p one, travel, and grand jury data related to
that individual for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-009153
Thru
P-009156
File folder entitleatiall
containing meta-
ysis o
phone,
travel, and grand jury data related to that
individual for indictment preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 30 of 69
EFTA00179652
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-009157
Thru
P-009208
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #1" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P409209
Thru
P409213
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #2" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #2
P-009214
Thru
P-009271
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane
Doe #3" containing meta-analysis of all
phone, travel, and grand jury data related to
that
victim/witness
for
indictment
preparation
Work product
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this suit
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 31 of 69
EFTA00179653
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLED Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-009272
Thru
P-009354
File folder entitled "Purpose of Travel
Cases" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009355
Thru
P-009403
File folder entitled "Interstate Commerce
Cases" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009404
Thru
P-009536
File folder entitled "Attorney Conflict
Research" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009537
Thru
P-009574
File folder entitled "Mann Act/Travel to
Have Sex w/Minor" containing attorney
research and handwritten notes
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009575
Thru
P-009603
File folder entitled "Travel Act" containing
attorney research and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009604
Thru
P-00971I
File
folder
entitled
"Florida
Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes" containing
attorney research and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-009712
Thru
P409819
Booklet
entitled
"Attorney
General
Guidelines for
Victim
and
Witness
Assistance" [not
being
withheld
as
privileged — produced to opposing counsel]
N/A
Box #2
P-009820
Thru
P-009965
File folder entitled "Corporate Liability
Rsrch" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 32 of 69
EFTA00179654
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08(16/2013 Page 34 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-009966
Thru
P410096
File
folder
entitled
"Research
re
Knowledge
of
Age
Unnecessary"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes and copy of grand jury
subpoena
Work Product
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
Box #2
P-010097
Thru
P410276
File folder entitled "Money Laundering"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010277
Thru
P410394
File
folder
entitled
"1960
&
Aiding/Abetting"
containing
attorney
research and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P410395
Thru
P-010488
File folder entitled "18 USC § 2255 Cases"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P410489
Thru
P-010509
File folder entitled "Research re Overt Acts
& Witness Testimony" containing attorney
research and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P410510
Thru
P410525
File
folder
entitled
"Extradition"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 33 of 69
EFTA00179655
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-010526
Thru
P-010641
File folder entitled "Rsrch re Crime
Victims
Rights"
containing
attorney
research, handwritten notes, draft victim
notification
letter,
and
draft
correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz
(Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter
from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher, and
a November 29, 2007 letter Erom Jay
Lefkowitz to IL Alexander Acosta (P-
010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru
P-010559). Pursuant to the Court's Order,
these will be produced to opposing counsel
upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit)
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010642
Thm
P-01650
File folder entitled "Immunity" containing
attorney research on granting immunity to
witnesses
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010651
Thru
P-010659
File folder entitled "Research re G.J.
Transcript" containing attorney research
and
draft
pleadings
re
compelling
production of grand jury transcript with
subpoena
Work Product
6(e)
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Page 34 of 69
EFTA00179656
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-010660
Thm
P410757
File folder entitled "Research re GJ
Transcript"
containing
grand
jury
subpoena, 6(e) letters, attorney research
and correspondence related to subpoena
Work Product
6(e)
.
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
Box 42
P-010758
Thru
P-010793
File folder entitled "Original Proposed
Ind." containing draft indictment
Work Product
6(e)
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Box #2
P-010794
Thru
P-010829
File folder entitled "Epstein" containing
sample indictments and attorney research
re potential charges with attorney notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010830
Thru
P-010853
File folder entitled "1591 & Money
Laundering" containing attorney research
and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010854
Thru
P410876
File folder entitled "18 USC 2425"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 35 of 69
EFTA00179657
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-010877
Thru
P-010920
File folder entitled "Knowledge of Age"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-010921
Thru
P-011049
File
folder
entitled
"2423(b)
Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-011050
Thru
P-011212
File folder entitled "Mistake not a
Defense" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-011213
Thru
P-011237
File
folder
entitled
"Research
re
`Pandering'" containing attorney research
and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-011238
Thru
P-0I 1319
File folder entitled "Research re Grand
Jury Instructions" containing attorney
research and handwritten notes
Work Product
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
Box #2
P-011320
Thru
P-011361
File folder entitled "Telephone = Facility
of
Commerce"
containing
attorney
research and handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-011362
Thru
P-011374
File folder entitled "Def of Prostitution"
containing
attorney
research
and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 36 of 69
EFTA00179658
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 2241 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #2
P-011375
Thru
P411456
File folder entitled "Relevant Florida
Statutes" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #2
P-011457
mm
P411626
File folder entitled "Unit of Prosecution
Research" containing attorney research and
handwritten notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #3
P-011627
Thm
P411662
File folder entitled "Attorney Notes"
containing attorney handwritten and typed
notes
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #3
P411663
Thm
P-011698 and
P-012189 thru
P-012361
(gap was
scanning
error)
File folder entitled "Drafts" containing
draft indictments with attorney handwritten
notes, draft internal memoranda, relevant
witness interview reports and grand jury
material and attorney handwritten notes
6(e)
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Investigative Privilege
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #3
P411699
Thru
P-011777
File
folder
entitled
"6/9/09
Signed
Indictment" containing signed indictment
package dated 6/9/2009 with corrections
6(e)
Work product
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials;
Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3XE); Court
Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's
Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material
Severable
Page 37 of 69
EFTA00179659
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 39 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-011778
Thru
P-011788
File folder entitled "6/12/09 Victim Notil
Log" containing chart with victim contact
information and attorney notes regarding
dates and type of contacts
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #3
P-011789
Thru
P-011879
File folder entitled "Breach Memo"
containing memorandum analyzing breach
of Non-Prosecution
Agreement
with
attachments
Work product
Deliberative process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials
Box #3
P-011880
Thru
P-011922
File folder entitled "Overt Act Lists"
containing
handwritten
notes
cross-
checking all overt acts alleged in draft
indictment by victim and typed overt act
summary charts for indictment preparation
Work product
Attorney-client privilege
Deliberative process
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable
Page 38 of 69
EFTA00179660
CasP 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments
Work product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
P-011923
from JE Counsel" containing:
Deliberative process
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-
Thru
■ 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann
6(e)
Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation;
P-011966
Sanchez to Andrew Lourie with
handwritten
attorney
(Lourie)
notes;
Attorney-Client Privilege
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
■ 6/25/2007
letter
from
Gerald
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Lefeourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and
6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Marie Vi Ilafarla with handwritten
attorney (Villafarla) notes;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable
■ 6/25/2007 email from Andrew
Lourie to Matt Menchel and Marie
Villafafia entitled "Thoughts on
Lefcourt's letter"
Handwritten and typed attorney (Villafinia)
notes regarding main themes raised by
Epstein counsel
Box #3
Composition book entitled "Operation
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-011967
Leap
Yea?'
containing
attorney
Investigative privilege
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Thru
handwritten notes regarding investigation
6(e)
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
P412016
and case strategy
Contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 39 of 69
EFTA00179661
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-012017
Thru
P-012055
Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and
to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Box #3
P-012056
Thru
P-012088
Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of
Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and
to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Box #3
P-012089
Tin
P412129
United States' Response to Motion of
Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash
Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion
to Compel
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court
Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent
Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition;
CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable
Box #3
P412130
Thru
P412150
Declaration of Joseph Recarey
6(e)
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty
Box #3
P-012151
Thru
P-012167
Ex Parte Declaration Number One in
Support of United States' Response to
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
6(e)
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Page 40 of 69
EFTA00179662
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1612013 Page 42 of
70
Bates Range
Descrietion
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-012168
Thru
P-012170
Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in
Support of United States' Response to
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
6(e)
Investigative Privilege
Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Box #3
P-012171
Thru
P-012173
Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration
Number One in Support of United States'
Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas
6(e)
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #3
P-012174
Thru
P-012176
Draft of September 2009 letter from Marie
Villafalia to Roy Black regarding breach of
Non
Prosecution
Agreement
with
handwritten attorney (Villafafta) notes
Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Box #3
P412177
Thru
P-012178
Undated handwritten attorney (Villaftula)
notes
regarding
negotiations
and
allegations
Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 41 of 69
EFTA00179663
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-012179
Thm
P4I2188
File Folder entitled "FBI GJ. Log"
containing copy of FBI grand jury
subpoena log with attorney (Villafafia)
handwritten notes
6(e)
Work Product
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #3
P-012362
Thru
P-012451
File folder entitled "Key Documents"
containing correspondence between AUSA
and case agent regarding indictment prep
questions,
victim
identification
information,
corrections
to
draft
indictment,
indictment
preparation
timeline, key grand jury material
6(e)
Work Product
Attorney-Client privilege
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #3
P412451
Thru
P-012452
File
folder
entitled
"Victim
List"
containing list of victims with dates of
birth and age information
Work Product
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Page 42 of 69
EFTA00179664
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-012453
Thru
P-012623
Complete indictment package marked
"Originals 12/12/07"
Work-product
Deliberative process
6(e)
Also contains documents
subject to investigative
privilege
Also contains documents
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation;
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(6);
Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper
Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release;
Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion
by Victims
Box #3
P-012624
Thru
PA12653
Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional
302's" containing reports of interviews
conducted in June 2007, October 2007, and
March 2008.
Investigative Privilege
Also contains documents
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Box #3
P-012654
Thru
P-012864
3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A
Behavioral
Analysis"
with
attorney
(Villafafia) handwritten notes
Work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Overriding Need
Box #3
P412865
Thru
P413226
Indictment preparation binder containing:
witness/victim
list
with
identifying
information, sexual activity summary,
telephone call summary chart, attorney
(Villafafia)
handwritten
notes,
302s,
portions of state investigative file, attorney
(Villafafia) typed notes, relevant pieces of
grand
jury
materials,
telephone
records/flight
records analysis charts,
victim/witness
photographs,
DAVID
records, NCICs, and related materials for
persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14
Work Product
Deliberative Process
6(e)
Also contains documents
subject to investigative
privilege
Also contains documents
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under
6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release;
Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized
release; Material Severable; Redaction; No
Assertion by Victims
Page 43 of 69
EFTA00179665
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-013227
April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Stoma
to Office of Professional Responsibility re
Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the
previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter
to OPR
Privacy Act
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual
Materials;
Court
Compelled
Disclosure; Waiver
Box #3
P-013226
Thru
P-013230
April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman
to Office of Professional Responsibility re
Self Reporting
Privacy Act
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure;
Factual Materials; Waiver
Box #3
P-013231
Thai
P-013239
April 22, 2008 Letter from A. Marie
Villafafia to
Office
of Professional
Responsibility re Self-Report of Allegation
of Conflict of Interest
Privacy Act
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Factual Materials; Fiduciary Duty; Court
Compelled Disclosure; Waiver
Box #3
P-013240
Thru
P-013247
April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman
to Office of Professional Responsibility re
Self Reporting with attachments
Privacy Act
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure;
Factual Materials; Waiver
Box #3
P-013248
Thru
P-013251
Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and Benjamin
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Southern District of Florida, regarding
Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of
Southern District of Florida dated August
24 and August 29, 2011
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver
Box #3
P-013252
mm
P-013253
Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and Benjamin
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Southern District of Florida, regarding
Recusal matter, dated July 28, August 3,
and August 24, 2011
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver
Page 44 of 69
EFTA00179666
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLED Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-013254
Thru
P-013257
Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and Benjamin
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Southern District of Florida, regarding
Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of
Southern District of Florida dated August
24 and August 29, 2011
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver
Box #3
P-013258
Thru
P-013259
Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and Benjamin
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Southern District of Florida, regarding
Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of
Southern District of Florida dated July 28
and August 3, 2011
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver
Box #3
P413260
Thru
P-013262
Email from Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, to Wifitdo Ferrer
(U.S. Attorney, SDFL), Robert O'Neill
(U.S.
Attorney,
MDFL),
Benjamin
Greenberg, (FAUSA, SDFL), and Lee
Bentley
(FAUSA,
MDFL)
regarding
Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of
Southern District of Florida dated August
24, 2011. CC's David Margolis (ODAG),
Jay Macklin (USAEO), Thomas Anderson
(USAEO), Michelle Tapken (USAEO),
James Read (USAEO)
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver
Page 45 of 69
EFTA00179667
case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 47 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Box #3
P-013263
Tluu
P-013271
Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant
General Counsel, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, and Benjamin
Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Southern District of Florida, regarding
recusal of Southern District of Florida,
dated July 29, 2011, with attached
memorandum from A. Marie Villafafla to
Benjamin Greenberg summarizing Jeffrey
Epstein Investigation
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process
Work Product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Box #3
P-013272
Thru
P-013278
Emails between Peter Mason, Executive
Office for United States Attorneys, and
Dexter Lee, Southern District of Florida,
seeking advice
regarding office-wide
recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010,
with attached letter from Paul Cassell to
Wifiedo A. Ferrer, dated December 10,
2010
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Factual
Materials; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013279
Thru
P-013280
8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and
A. Marie Villafafia, R. Senior, D. Lee
and
K.
Atkinson
re
proposed
correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box :13
Handwritten note re Epstein investigation
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Page 46 of 69
EFTA00179668
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013281
parties to this litigation
Prosecutor;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue;
Redaction; No Assertion by Victims
Suppl. Box #3
P-013282
Thm
P-013283
7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafiula to
A. Acosta, J. Sloman, IC Atkinson, and
FBI re proposed response to Goldberger
letter re victim notification
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work product
Deliberative Process
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-
Misconduct; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Factual
Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013284
7/10/08 Emails between J. Sloman and
A. Marie Villafafia, K. Atkinson, and FBI
re proposed response to Goldberger's
letter e victim notification
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P413285
Thru
P-013289
File folder entitled "8/5/08 AMCV e-
mail re correct agrmt" containing 8/5/08
email from A. Marie Villafarla to A.
Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K.
Atkinson re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement"
discussing 6/24/08 email from A. Marie
Villafafia to R. Black and J. Goldberger
concerning the binding nature of the
Agreement
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-
Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 47 of 69
EFTA00179669
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of
70
Bates Range Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Suppl. Box #3
P-013290
Thru
P-013292
File folder entitled "8/14/08 E-mail from
Left to AMCV" containing (undated)
emails from A. Marie Villafafla to R.
Senior, J. Sloman, A. Acosta, K.
Atkinson, D. Lee re draft response to
8/14/08
email
from J. Lefkowitz
regarding "the December 2007 proposal"
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013293
Thru
P-013299
File folder entitled "8/15/08 AMCV e-
mail re Agape" containing 8/15/08 e-
mails from A. Marie Villafafla to A.
Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K.
Atkinson, D. Lee re follow up on
Agreement and from A. Acosta to Ann
Marie Villafana on issue of Special
Master with attached 8/15/08 emails from
A. Marie Villafafla to A. Acosta, J.
Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee
re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J.
Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K.
Atkinson, IL Black, M. Weinberg re
Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A.
Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K.
Atkinson, R. Black re interpretation of
Agreement; email from J. Lefkowitz to
A. Marie Villafafla, K. Atkinson re
questions re Agreement; email from A.
Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K.
Atkinson re production of Agreement to
victims
Attorney-Client Privilege
•
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013300
Thou
File folder entitled "8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr
to
AMCV"
containing
A.
Marie
Villafafia's handwritten draft notes for
Attorney-Client Privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Page 48 of 69
EFTA00179670
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-0133303
proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e-
mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J.
Sloman, A. Marie Villafafta re meeting
with G. Lefcourt with attached email from
G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings
Work Product
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013304
Thin
P413325
File folder entitled "6/25/07 Lefcourt to
Sloman & Lourie containing 6125/07 letter
(with handwritten notes by A. Marie
Villafafia) from G. Lefcourt to J. Sloman,
M. Menchel, A. Lourie, A. Marie
Villafafia addressing reasons for not
prosecuting Epstein; handwritten outline
by A. Marie Villafarla of possible
response to letter
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not
in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship
Suppl. Box #3
P-013326
Tin
P413329
File folder entitled "9/17/07 Villafafla
Lefkowitz containing 9/17/07 e-mail from
A. Marie Villafaha- to IL Garcia, A. Lourie
and from R. Garcia to A. Marie Villafaela
concerning status of plea negotiations
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Ordinary Government
Communication; No Attorney-Client
Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013330
Thru
P-013333
File folder entitled "11/8/07 Lefkowitz
Sloman" containing 11/8/07 letter from
J. Lefkowitz re issues arising during
pendency
of
matter
with
attorney
handwritten notes
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Ordinary Government
Communication; No Attorney-Client
Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013334
Thru
File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to
Leflcowitz (was this sent?)" containing
draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman
Attorney-Client Privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Ordinary Government
Page 49 of 69
EFTA00179671
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P413337
responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter
Work Product
Communication; No Attorney-Client
Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P413338
Thru
013341
File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to
Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter
w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J.
Lefkowitz to A. Acosta
[Not considered
privileged. Will be
produced to opposing
counsel upon lifting of
stay
N/A
Suppl. Box #3
P413342
Thru
P413350
File folder entitled "12/05/07 Starr to
Acosta" containing drafts of 11/30/07
letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and
from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re
performance and victim notification with
handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie
Villafaila
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-13351
Thru
P-013361
File folder entitled "12/21/07 Lefkowitz
Acosta" containing handwritten notes by
A. Marie Villafaila,
12/21/07
letter
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Factual
Materials; Attorney Conduct at Issue
ftom J. Leflcowitz to A. Acosta re
performance of NPA and appeal to
Washington with attorney
handwritten
notes
Suppl. Box #3
P-013362
Thm
P413366
File folder labeled "12/26/07 Le&owitz
to Acosta" containing 2 copies of draft
letter from A. Acosta to J. Lefkowitz
(with 12/28/07 fax header)
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
File folder labeled "Draft hr from
Attorney-Client Privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Page SO of 69
EFTA00179672
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013367
Tim
P-013372
Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination"
containing draft letter dated "April ,
2008" from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz
concerning the compliance with the
Agreement
Work Product
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P413373
Thru
P-013503
File folder labeled "6/3/08 Sloman
Submission to the DAG" containing
6/3/08 letter from J. Sloman to Mark
Filip, Office of the DAG, cc'd to R.
Senior, A. Marie Villaftula, K. Atkinson,
re Jeffrey Epstein, detailing events
concerning the Agreement and thereafter
and with relevant attachments
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process
Work Product
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P413504
Thru
P413507
File folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr,
RAA, JS, Drew" containing handwritten
notes by A. Marie Villafttfla
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013508
Thru
P-013514
File folder labeled "Internal Corr."
containing 11/28/07 e-mails from J.
Sloman to A. Marie Villaftula re
responding to 11/28/07 e-mail from J.
Lefkowitz to J. Sloman regarding victim
notification with attachments
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013515
Thru
Draft 11/30/07 letter from A. Acosta to
K. Starr cc'd to J. Sloman and A. Marie
Villafafta re compliance with Agreement
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not
in
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Page 51 of 69
EFTA00179673
case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege® Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013525
and internal emails from J. Sloman, A.
Acosta, and A. Lourie re items to
address in letter
Deliberative Process
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Attorney
Conduct
at
Issue;
Waiver; Factual Materials
Suppl. Box #3
P-013526
Thru
P-013527
5/23/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia
to K. Atkinson re draft proposed internal
e-mail about handling of case and
attached email correspondence between
Andrew Lourie and G. Lefcourt
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials
Suppl. Box #3
P-013528
Thru
P-013530
P-013532
Thru
P-013537
Handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafana
dated 9/21 re telephone conference with
possible victim representative, conflict
check with names and email listed, list of
names of potential victim representatives,
payment
discussion,
and
guideline
calculation, email containing contact info
for potential victim representative, draft
Non
Prosecution
Agreement
dated
9/10/07 4:17 pm
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013531
Typed note addressed to "Dear David" re
response to grand jury subpoena
6(e)
Investigative privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Suppl. Box #3
P-013538
Thru
File folder labeled "Notes Re Post-
Agreement Communications" containing
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Page 52 of 69
EFTA00179674
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013553
handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia
Deliberative Process
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials
Suppl. Box #3 File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea
Attorney-Client Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
P-013554
Negotiations" containing:
Work Product
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not in Anticipation
Thru
Deliberative Process
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to
Investigative Privilege
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan,
IL
Garcia re non-prosecution
agreement,
with
attached
correspondence;
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final
Decision
■ 9/19/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Lourie, It. Garcia, K.
Atkinson re negotiating strategy, with
attached correspondence;
■ 9/18/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Acosta, A. Lourie, R.Gar
■ 9/17/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Acosta re negotiation;
■ 9/17/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafaila to R. Garcia, A. Acosta, A.
Lourie, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re
negotiations;
■ 9/17/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to R. Garcia, A. Lourie re
negotiation strategy;
■ 9/14/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to L Simian, A. Acosta, R.
Garcia, A Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball
re proposed plea agreement and
Information
Page 53 of 69
EFTA00179675
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
■ 9/14/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafaiia to J. Sloman, A. Acosta, A
Lourie, R Garcia, K. Atkinson, J.
McMillan, S. Ball re plea negotiations
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to J. Atkinson, S. Ball, J.
McMillan it indictment package;
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust
agreement
with
attached
correspondence
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust
agreement
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to R. Garcia, J. Sloman re
conference call with J. Lefkowitz;
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Lourie re plea
negotiations
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A. Marie
Villafafia to A. Lourie re charging
strategy
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to K. Atkinson, S. Ball, J.
McMillan re indictment package;
■ 9/13/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R.
Garcia, K. Atkinson, A. Lourie re plea
negotiations;
Page 54 of 69
EFTA00179676
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of
70
Bates Range Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
■ 9/11/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Lourie re meeting w/
G.
Lefcourt
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/11/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to A. Lourie re revised
Agreement
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/11/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to J. Sloman re non-
prosecution agreement edits with
attached correspondence;
■ 9/11/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafarla to A. Oosterbaan re status of
negotiations
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/10/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to J. Sloman re negotiations;
9/10/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafafia to J. Sloman, J. McMillan re
state grand jury proceedings;
■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Acosta to A.
Marie Villafafia, R. Garcia, A. Lourie,
K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re draft
Agreement
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/14/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A.
Marie Villafalla, A. Acosta, R Garcia,
A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball, re
finalizing documents;
■ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A.
Marie Villafafia re charging strategy
Page 55 of 69
EFTA00179677
case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
with attached correspondence;
■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to
A. Marie Villafaila re setting up trust
fund;
■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A.
Marie Villafaila re final negotiations
with attached correspondence;
■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A.
Marie Villafaiia re
scheduling a
meeting
regarding
finalizing
the
agreement
with
attached
correspondence;
■ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A.
MarieVillafaiia re non-prosecution agree
■ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A.
MarieVillafafia re non-prosecution agree
■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to
A. Marie Villafalia re negotiations
with attached correspondence;
■ 9/17/07
e-mail
from
A.
Marie
Villafaiia to R. Garcia A. Lourie re
negotiation strategy
Suppl. Box #3
P-013609
Thru
P-013615
File folder entitled "[j Target Letter"
containing copy of signed letter and
contact info for counsel for target
6(e)
Investigative Privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized
Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to
Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-
authorized release; Material Severable
Suppl. Box #3
P-013616
File folder entitled "Atty Notes re
Revised
Indictment"
containing
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Page 56 of 69
EFTA00179678
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Thru
P-013621
handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia
Work Product
Investigative Privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013622
Thru
P-013643
File folder entitled "Research Re Possible
Misdemeanors"
containing
attorney
research
Work product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-013644
Thu
P-013653
File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea
Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail
from A. Marie Villafaila to J. Richards, N.
Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and
typed handwritten notes by A. Marie
Villafinla re items to be completed on
case, strength of case, victim interviews,
summary
of
evidence,
guidelines
calculations
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Investigative privilege
Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of
victims who are not
parties to this litigation
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in
Anticipation
of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government Communication; No Attorney-
Client Relationship; Improper Invocation;
Overriding Need; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box #3
P-013654
Thru
P-013745
File folder entitled "Plea Agreement
Drafts" containing several draft plea
agreements some with handwritten notes
by A. Marie Villafafia; copies of draft
non-prosecution agreement some with
handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia;
copy of a draft Information
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box #3
P-0013747
File
folder
entitled
"Draft
Non-
Prosecution
Agreements"
containing
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Page 57 of 69
EFTA00179679
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Thru
P-013810
several draft non- prosecution agreements
some with handwritten notes by A. Marie
Villafafia; plea sheet State Circuit Court;
copies of draft Information; draft plea
proffer, draft motion and order to seal;
draft penalty sheet; draft plea agreement
Deliberative Process
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials
Suppl. Box 3
P-013811
Thru
P-013833
File folder entitled "Information Packet
Drafts" containing several drafts of
Informations,
and
complete
draft
Information packet
Attorney-Client Privilege
Work Product
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
;uppl. Box 3 P-
013834
Through P-
013835
Two pages of filed document, D.E. 62,
page 2 of 54 and page 6 of 54,
containing handwritten attorney notes
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013836
Thru
P-013837
Pahn
Beach
Daily News Article,
"Attorneys
want
Jeffrey
Epstein
Agreement
Thrown
Out,"
with
attorney's notes written on margin
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P413838
Thru
P413841
Letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A.
Ferrer, December 10, 2010, Subject:
Request for Investigation ofJeffrey Epstein
Prosecution, with underlines, written notes,
and comments by DOJ attorney
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013842
Email
from
Dexterr
Lee . to
Ruth
Plagenhoef (OPR), February 25, 2011,
4:31
p.m.,
Re:
request
for
OPR
Investigation
— Jeffrey Epstein Non-
Prosecution Agreement
Any work-product
Atty-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual
Materials; Ordinary Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Page 58 of 69
EFTA00179680
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Conduct at Issue
SuppL Box 3
P-013843
Thru
P-013844
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie,
Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson,
September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Plea
Agreement
Atty work-product
arty-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013845
Tluu
P-013846
E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Villafana,
September 19, 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE:
Epstein, with internal U.S. Attorney's
Office e-mails attached
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against
Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013847
Thru
P413849
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie,
Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson,
September 18, 2007, 11:43 a.m., RE: Draft
Agreements?,
with
e-mail
from
Jay
Lefkowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09
a.m.) attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue Waiver
Suppl. Box 3
P-013850
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Alex Acosta,
Andrew Lourie, Rolando Garcia, Karen
Atkinson,
and
John
McMillan,
September 18, 2007, 9:31 a.m., RE:
Epstein Negotiations
Atty work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Crime-Fraud-
Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013851
Thru
P-013853
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Rolando
Garcia and Andrew Lourie, September
17, 2007, 10:35 a.m., RE: Epstein
[providing update re plea negotiations]
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against
Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013854'
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew
Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10
p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from
Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007,
7:54 p.m.), attached
Any work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding
Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Page 59 of 69
EFTA00179681
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013855
and Andrew Lourie, September 10,
2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI
Atty-client privilege
Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government ;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct
at
Issue
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship
Suppl. Box 3
P-013856
Thru
P-013857
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein,
with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September
6, 2007, 5:35 pm.), attached
Atty work-product
Atty-client privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013858
Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
September 6, 2007, 9:29 a.m., Re: Meeting
on Friday
any work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding
Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box
3
P-013859
Through
P413860
Email,
Gerald
Lefcourt to
Marie
Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy
Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein
[Not considered
privileged. Will be
produced to opposing
counsel upon lifting of
stay)
N/A
Suppl. Box 3
P-013861
Thru
P-013865
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p.m., RE:
Atty work-product
arty-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims
Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July
5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to
Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and
Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47
p.m.), attached
Suppl. Box 3
P-013866
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie,
Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3,
2007, 6:26 am., RE: Epstein
Atty work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver,
Claims
Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013867
Thin
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE:
Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Page 60 of 69
EFTA00179682
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013868
Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58
p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21,
2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013869
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and
Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m.,
RE: Epstein
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013870
Thru
P-013871
E-mail,
Andrew
Lourie
to
Marie
Villafana, May 24, 2007, 9:25 a.m., FW:
Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald
Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23,
2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to
Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32
p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew
Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann
Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.),
attached
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty; Claims Against
Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013872
E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew
Menchel,
Jeff Sloman,
and
Marie
Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW:
Jeffrey
Epstein,
with
e-mail
from
Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly
Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.),
attached
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013873
E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie,
May
14,
2007,
10:52
a.m.,
RE:
Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from
Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May
14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box
3 P-
013874
Inadvertently marked as privileged, will
be produced
N/A
Page 61 of 69
EFTA00179683
ease 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Through
P-013875
Suppl. Box 3
P-013876
Thru
P-013877
E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia,
and
Atkinson, September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m.,
RE: Draft Plea Agreement, with e-mail
from Lefkowitz to Villafana (September
19, 2007, 3:44 p.m.), and Lefkowitz to
Villafana (September 19, 2007, 3:35 p.m.)
attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013878
Thru
P-013879
E-mail, Lourie to Villafana, September 19,
2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with c-mails
from Villafana to Lourie and Garcia
(September
19,
2007,
4:13
p.m.),
Villafana to Louric and Garcia (September
19, 2007, 4:05 p.m.), and Lourie to
Villafana and Garcia (September 19,
2007, 3:50 p.m.), Villafana to Lourie
(September 19 2007, 2:36 p.m.), Lourie to
Villafana (September 19, 2007, 2:33
p.m.), and Villafana to Lourie and Garcia
(September 19, 2007, 2:31 p.m.), attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013880
Thru
P-013882
E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia,
and
Atkinson, September 18, 2007, 11:43
a.m., RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mails
from Villafana to Lourie, Garcia and
Atkinson (September 18, 2007, 11:18a.m.),
Atty work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Page 62 of 69
EFTA00179684
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Suppl. Box 3
P-013883
E-mail, Villafana to Acosta, Lourie,
Garcia,
Atkinson,
and
McMillan,
September 18, 2007, 9:31 a.m., RE:
Epstein Negotiations
Atty work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Waiver,
Claims
Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P413884
Thu
P-013886
E-mail, Villafana to Garcia and Lourie,
September 17, 2007 10:35 am., RE:
Epstein,
with
e-mail
from
Garcia
(September
17, 2007, 10:26 am.),
attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P413887
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew
Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10
p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from
Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007,
7:54 p.m.), attached
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Waiver, Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013888
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman
and Andrew Lourie, September 10,
2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI
Any work-product
Any-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P413889
Thru
P413890
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein,
with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September
6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached
Atty work-product
Atty-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Ordinary
Government
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship;
Claims
Against
Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013891
Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
September 6, 2007, 9:29 am., Re: Meeting
on Friday
ally work-product
Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor,
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box
3
Email,
Gerald
Lefcourt
to
Marie
Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy
[Not considered
priviloged. Will be
N/A
Page 63 of 69
EFTA00179685
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 65 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013892
Through
P-013893
Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein
produced to opposing
counsel upon lifting of
staYi
Suppl. Box 3
P-013894
Thru
P-013898
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p.m., RE:
Any work-product
atty-client privilege
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July
5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to
Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and
Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47
p.m.), attached
Suppl. Box 3
P-013899
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman,
Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie,
Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3,
2007, 6:26 a.m., RE: Epstein
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Overriding NeediAttorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P413900
Thru
P-013901
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE:
Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from
Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58
p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21,
2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding
Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013902
E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew
Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and
Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m.,
RE: Epstein
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct
Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013903
Thru
P-013904
E-mail,
Andrew
Lourie
to
Marie
Villafana, May 24, 2007, 925 a.m., FW:
Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald
Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23,
2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to
Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32
p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew
Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann
Any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Waiver, Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Page 64 of 69
EFTA00179686
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 66 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.),
attached
Suppl. Box 3
P-013905
E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew
Menchel,
Jeff Sloman, and
Marie
Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW:
Jeffrey
Epstein,
with
e-mail
from
Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly
Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.),
attached
Atty work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding
Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013906
E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie,
May
14, 2007,
10:52 a.m.,
RE:
Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from
Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May
14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached
Any work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Claims
Against
Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box
3 P-
013907
Through
P-013908
Inadvertently marked as privileged, will
be produced
N/A
Suppl. Box 3
P-013909
Thru
P-013911
Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant
Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Professional
Responsibility
(OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting
Associate
Counsel,
OPR,
undated,
Subject: Recommendation
Deliberative Process
Privilege; atty work-
product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; Final
Decision; Waiver; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013912
Thru
P-013914
Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant
Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef,
Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject:
Recommendation, with handwritten note
dated 5/4/11
Deliberative Process
Privilege, atty work-
product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual
Materials;
Improper
Invocation;
Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant
Deliberative Process
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Page 65 of 69
EFTA00179687
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 67 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013915
Thru
P-013918
Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef,
Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject:
Recommendation, with two post-it notes
attached
with
handwritten
attorney
notations, and handwritten notations,
underlines, and circled text throughout
the body of the two page memorandum
Privilege; any work-
product
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Factual
Materials;
Improper
Invocation;
Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013919
Thru
P4I3921
Draft letter, marked "Confidential", from
Robin C. Ashton, Counsel, Office of
Professional Responsibility to Wifredo A.
Ferrer, United States Attorney, with
handwritten corrections, strikethroughs,
and added text
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final
Decision
Suppl. Box 3
P-013922
Thru
P-013924
Draft Letter, marked "Confidential", from
Robin C. Ashton, to Wifredo A. Ferrer,
with handwritten corrections
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013925
Thru
P-013927
Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to
Professor
Paul
G.
Cassell,
with
handwritten correction
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013928
Thm
P4I3930
Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to
Professor
Paul
G.
Cassell,
with
handwritten corrections
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P4I3931
Tim
P-013933
Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to
Professor
Paul
G.
Cassell,
with
handwritten corrections, circled text,
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor,
Page 66 of 69
EFTA00179688
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 68 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
strikethroughs, and additional text
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013934
Thru
P-013936
Draft Letter, marked "Confidential,"
from Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A.
Fetter, with handwritten corrections
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013937
Thru
P-013939
Draft Letter, Robin C. Ashton to
Professor
Paul
G.
Cassell,
with
handwritten corrections
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding
Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor;
Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver
Suppl. Box 3
P-013940
Thru
P-013942
Draft Letter, marked "Confidential: To Be
Opened by Addressee Only," Robin C.
Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with
handwritten corrections
-
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of
Litigation; Improper Invocation; Crime-Fraud-
Misconduct Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Waiver; Final Decision; Factual Materials
Suppl. Box 3
P-013943
E-mail,
Ruth
Plagenhoef
to
Lisa
Howard, May 5, 2011, 11:19 a.m., RE:
Re-write of Epstein letters for your
review, with e-mail from Lisa Howard to
Ruth Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 11:08
am.), and Plagenhoef to Howard (May
5, 2011, 11:10 am.), and Howard to
Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 10:41 a.m.),
attached
Deliberative Process
Privilege
Attorney Work Product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Final Decision; Waiver
Suppl. Box 3
P-013944
E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 5,
2011,
11:17 a.m., RE:
Re-write of Epstein lett
your review, with e-mail from Howard to
Plagenhoef
(May 5, 2011,
11:08
Deliberative Process
Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Final
Decision; Waiver
Page 67 of 69
EFTA00179689
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 69 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
Plagenhoef to Howard (May 5, 2011,
11:01 a.m.), and Howard to Plagenhoef
(May 5, 2011,10:41), attached
Suppl. Box 3
P-013945
E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 4,
2011, 5:01 p.m., RE: draft letters in Epstein
matter, with e-mail from Howard to
Plagenhoef (May 4, 2011, 4:57 p.m.),
attached
Deliberative Process
Privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Improper Invocation; Overriding Need
Suppl. Box 3
P-013946
E-mail, Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton,
May 4, 2011, 4:08 p.m., RE: FYI on the
Florida matter
Law Enforcement
investigatory record, atty
work product; deliberative
process privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Final Decision; Waiver
Suppl. Box 3
P-013947
E-mail, Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef, May 3,
2011,12:23 pan., RE: OPR Inquiry —
request for information, with post-it note
attached with handwritten attorney notes
on telephone call between Plagenhoef and
Howard with Dexter Lee and Marie
Villafana
any work product; law
enforcement
investigatiory
record
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials;
Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper
Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue;
Factual Materials; Final Decision
Suppl. Box 3
P-013948
Thru
P-013951
E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard and Robin
C. Ashton, May 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m., FW:
OPR Inquiry — request for information,
with
attached
e-mails.
Handwritten
attorney notes on margin
any work-product
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials;
Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding
Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
P-013952
Thru
P-013953
E-mail, Dexter Lee to Ruth Plagenhoef,
March 16, 2011, 10:52 a.m., RE: Referral
of Cassell Request for Investigation, with
e-mail from Paul Cassell to Dexter Lee and
Marie Villafana (March 15, 2011, 7:21
p.m.), attached
atty work-product; atty-
client privilege
No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty;
Ordinary Government Communication; No
Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against
Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
E-mail, Plagenhoef to Neil Hurley, OPR,
atty work-product, atty-
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
Page 68 of 69
EFTA00179690
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 70 of
70
Bates Range
Description
Privilege(s) Asserted
Victims' Objections
P-013954
December 16, 2010, 10:59 a.m., FW: OPR
client privilege
Fiduciary
Duty;
Crime-Fraud-Misconduct;
Thru
Referral — Allegation of Misconduct —
Factual
Materials;
Ordinary
Government
P-013955
U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.Fla., with e-
mail from Dexter Lee to Plagenhoef
Communication;
No
Attorney-Client
Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public
(December
16,
2010,
10:22
a.m.),
attached. Handwritten attorney notations.
Prosecutor;
Overriding
Need;
Attorney
Conduct at Issue
Suppl. Box 3
Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten
any work-product
Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings;
P-013956
attorney
notes
on
case,
telephone
Fiduciary Duty; Material Severable; Crime-
Thru
interviews with DOJ attorneys
Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Claims
P-013846
Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need;
Attorney Conduct At Issue.
Page 69 of 69
EFTA00179691
EFTA00179692
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 10
not to provide legal advice or assistance to the police officers but rather to provide the city with
information relating to alleged indiscretion within the department).
Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established. Any attorney-client privilege has not
been properly invoked because the Government has not provided factual material identifying
who is the attorney, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle
v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003).
13. Deliberative Process Privilege
Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any deliberative process privilege has not been
properly asserted, because it must be asserted by the head of the department having control over
the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise
deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.LC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any deliberative process privilege would
only cover only the processes by which a decision was made, not the final decision itself. See,
e.g., NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-52 (1975).
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents — Any
deliberative process privilege would be a qualified privilege, which would be overridden by the
victims' compelling need to obtain the materials here. See, e.g., Newport Pac., Inc. v. County of
San Diego, 200 F.R.D. 628, 638-41 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (in action charging county Board of
Supervisors with violating Federal Fair Housing Act, the interest in free expression by policy
makers during the deliberative process leading up to those actions was outweighed by the
litigant's interest in obtaining information concerning those deliberations).
C. Investigative Privilege
4
EFTA00179693
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 10
Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any investigative privilege has not been properly
asserted, because it must be asserted by the head of the department having control over the
requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise
deliberative processes. See Landry v. FDIC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents — Any
investigative privilege would be a qualified privilege, in which the public interest in
nondisclosure must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access to the
privileged information. Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is
ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D.
339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving
access to the information.
D. Work Product Doctrine.
No Work Product Doctrine in the Context of a Claim Against Public Prosecutors —
The work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that federal
prosecutors have violated thcir public responsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See
U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product privilege
to public accountants, because they have 'a public responsibility transcending any employment
relationship with the client"); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d at 919-21 ("the strong public
interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill-
served by recognition of a governmental attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal
proceedings inquiring into the actions of public officials.").
5
EFTA00179694
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 10
Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Documents — The work
product doctrine is a qualified privilege that can be overcome where a litigant shows it has a
substantial need for the materials and that it has exhausted other means of obtaining the relevant
information it seeks. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 185-86 (2d
Cir. 2007). The victims here can make this showing.
Work Production Privilege Does Not Apply When the Attorney's Conduct is at
Issue — If the attorney's conduct is a central issue in the case, the work-production protection
does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Moto•
Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 127, 130 (M.D.N.C. 1989).
E Rule 6(c) — Grand Jury Secrecy
Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule 6(e)(3)(E) — The Court can
authorize disclosure of grand jury materials pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E). It has
already authorized disclosure of grand jury materials here, and the Government has no
independent "privilege" to interpose against court-ordered disclosure of grand jury materials.
The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury Materials — The Court has
"inherent power beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)(3) to disclose grand jury material" and
has properly exercised that power here. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1347 (11th
Cir. 2004).
Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Grand Jury Materials — A
litigant can petition for release of grand jury materials. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F). The Court
has properly granted the victims petition for release of the materials.
They have also
concurrently-filed such a petition.
6
EFTA00179695
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 10
The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Materials — The Court
is obligated to enforce crime victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(6)(1) (the court "shall ensure"
that crime victims receive their rights). This obligation carries with it authority to release
necessary materials to protect victims' rights, including grand jury materials.
Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials — The Government can
redact grand jury information from the requested materials, and produce the remaining materials.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 280 (3rd Cir. 2006).
F. The Privacy Rights of Other Victims
Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns. The Government cannot
withhold materials in this case because of the privacy rights of other victims when it has the
simple option of simply redacting the names and identifying information of these other victims
before producing the materials. The Government has already followed this procedure elsewhere
and should do so here. See, e.g., Bates 000966-67 (materials about victim "B.B.").
No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims. Several of the victims cited by the
Government are represented by undersigned counsel and do not wish to interpose privacy rights
here. Nor has the Government established that they can assert the privacy rights of other victims.
G. The Privacy Act
The Privacy Act Does Not Apply in the Context of Court-Compelled Disclosures for
Discovery. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11).
CONCLUSION
Because the Government's assertions of privilege are not well-founded, the Court should
provide all of the documents the Government submitted for in camera inspection to the victims.
7
EFTA00179696
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 10
DATED: August 16. 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WE1SSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad®pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: casseljp®law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
8
EFTA00179697
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following
using the Court's CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafafla
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the Government
Roy Black, Esq.
Jackie Perczek, Esq.
Black, Srcbnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Email: pleading@royblack.com
(305) 37106421
(305) 358-2006
Jay P. Lefkowitz
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
(212) 446-4970
Martin G. Weinberg, P.C.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Email: owlmgw®att.net
(617) 227-3700
(617) 338-9538
Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
Is/ Bradley J. Edwa ds
9
EFTA00179698
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE No. I and JANE DOE No. 2
r.
UNITED STATES
AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar
of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2
(as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime
Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits
against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice
system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office.
2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to
more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case. This
affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the Government's assertions of
privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and
substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining the
information.
Background Reeardina Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Stipulated Facts with the
Government
3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe
No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were
minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-known to the Court. For purposes of
this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to
reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government — efforts that the Government has blocked.
4. The Court first held a hearing on victims' petition on July 11, 2008. The Court discussed a
need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's
going to go to the
Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and
the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at 25-26. The Court concluded the
hearing with the following instructions: "So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a
need Sr any additional evidence to be presented." Tr. at 32.
1
EFTA00179699
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 64
5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts
underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts,
and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the
victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly reversed course. On July
29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 17).
The U.S. Attorney's Office took the following position: "After consideration, the Government
believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary" (DE 17 at 1). The Office asserted that the
Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein
to resolve the case.
6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice," giving a
proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. DE 19 at 5. The victims' response also
requested that the Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the
undisputed facts of the case, and produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information
about the case. Id. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding
the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production
of the agreement to the victims.
7. After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the
victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Ultimately, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with
the victims and declined to provide further information about the case.
8. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other
ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in
both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between
Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement — information that the U.S. Attorney's
Office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to
the victims' civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce that
information, and (as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The
Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials.
9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358
pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office
regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See DE48-Attachment
1/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been
taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims
in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein
and the Government.
While the Court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to
the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence
authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys.
10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil lawsuits against
Epstein.
Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA
case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new
filings in the case.
11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status
report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted
2
EFTA00179700
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225.1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 64
the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case.
That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We don't have any problem with
agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred" (DE 41 at 2).
12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office a detailed proposed
statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the
U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney's
Office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims
stated:
If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe No. 1 and
Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us
to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of
2008 Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with you on a stipulation
of facts when you reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the
facts was necessary (see doe. No. 19 at 2)..
I hope that your e-mail means that
you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem
appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court could well help
move this case to a conclusion.
That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to
the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at 2-3).
13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office
contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a two-
week period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an
attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution
without the need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney's
Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 — the
date on which the victims' pleading was due — the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the victims
that it did not believe that it had time to review the victims' proposed statement of facts and
advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims
that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA
in this case because in its view the case is "civil" litigation rather than "criminal" litigation (doe.
No. 41 at 3).
14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010,
the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and
accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the
disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office (DE 41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's
Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jane Doe No. 1 and the U.S. Attorney
in December 2010.
I In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office
informed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as required
for civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1). The U.S. Attorney's Office did not explain why they
believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed
as a "civil" case.
3
EFTA00179701
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 64
IS. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the
victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment"
motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on
the facts.
16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the
victims that — contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts — no such
stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any
agreement on the facts:
Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no
federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's
agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature.
That is, because whether the rights in I8 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing
of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of
that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other
than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this
Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts
that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue ....
Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011).
17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on
March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging 53 undisputed facts
along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a
motion to have their facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts.
DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold
relevant evidence. DE 50.
18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the
Government's argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government
had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court, however, rejected the victims'
argument that it should accept their facts because of the Government's failure to contest the
facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of
requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at 11. The Court reserved ruling
on the victims' motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence.
19. In light of the Court's order, on October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production
with the Government. The requests included 25 specific requests, each of which linked very
directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case.
20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Government's responses were due, rather than
produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims'
petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121.
The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129.
The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130.
The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the
Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even
4
EFTA00179702
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 64
during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information."
DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the
Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the
Government of that statement made to the court.
21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied
the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day,
the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion to compel and directing the Government
to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the
Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE
190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by
producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege
log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by
author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter
DE 190 at 2.
22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. With regard to item (1)
— correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling
from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard
to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in
camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government
asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the
Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the
victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims
themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88,
00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g , Bates 0008-
10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33),
and similar materials already available to the victims.
It also included roughly four hundred
pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively
indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received.
Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed
issues in this case.
23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This
involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the
contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims'
own pleadings, see, e.g., Bates 000671-000711 (copy of the victims' redacted summary
judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would
likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, they have simultaneously refused
production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests on the basis of
relevance.
24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for
admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims' central
allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests for admissions and the Government's
responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently
tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case.
5
EFTA00179703
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 64
25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by
voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer employed by the Justice
Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Acosta, who both
have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them.
Both of them have ignored my letters.
The Need for the Materials Requested by the Victims
26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October
3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested
them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This
section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims.
For the
convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the
need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 2011,
request for production is attached to this Affidavit. Also attached is the victims' supplemental
discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for
production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents
would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents
were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific
paragraphs in the victims' previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims
have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary
judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23.
27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this point in
the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle
[the victims] to that relief [of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly
reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-12. The
Court has further indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the
Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument
"implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual
context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the
federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy
between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of
negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of
the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait aceompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added).
The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show
what the "entire interface" was and to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as well
as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response
from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually-
based and other arguments against the victim's position).
28.
Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1 requests information regarding the Epstein
investigation.
These documents arc needed to support the victims' allegations that the
Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued
against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7.
29. RIP No. 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These
documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their
6
EFTA00179704
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 64
right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these
documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the non-
prosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the
Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17.
30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality
provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision
precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other
victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that
Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately
causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13.
31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey
Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea
(including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another
location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations
that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would
effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from
learning what was happening through the press See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8.
32. RIP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and
Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein.
These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegation that part of the plea negotiations
with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in
civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by
someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9.
33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or
discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement
that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the
Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view
because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been
disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the
judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, 11. They are also relevant to bias and
motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case.
34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government's awareness of its potential
CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and
Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove
the victims' allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under
the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court
plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13.
35.
RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the
Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement,
including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard
Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.
These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation
that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he
used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a
7
EFTA00179705
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 64
more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These materials also are needed to establish
the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters
to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case.
36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on
January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that "this case is currently
under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or,
at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea
arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein
and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the
Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6.
37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to
believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution
and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The
Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue
is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the
victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore
needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the
case — inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office's negotiations with Epstein.
If the FI31 agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could
not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case — a central point in the
victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan —
something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S.
Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NM, it would have been part of the same
scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific
allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17.
38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including
FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those
meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a non-
prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that
related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment
motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18.
39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's
Office to me (Bradley J. Edwards) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges
against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this
request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement.
Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NM, I was deceived
as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent
position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't
Answers to RFA ¶ 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the
state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense
attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement
confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution
agreement confidential.").
8
EFTA00179706
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 64
40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government
learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The
documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the
Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus
blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims' full knowledge of what was
happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20.
41.
RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together
to kecp the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment
about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court
became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that
the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at 14-18,and to contradict what
appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly
after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA ¶ 13(b) (claiming that "the USAO had
communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30,
2008 guilty plea.").
These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's
apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't
Answers to RFA ¶ 13(d) (Government denying request that it admit that "Epstein's defense
attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that
barred conferring with victims about the agreement").
42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about
the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a "corrected"
notification letter on about September 3, 2008 — months after Epstein had pled guilty. These
documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to
provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received
inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that
inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16.
43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was
present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with
Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP
No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non-
public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn
affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office:
"I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at
3 (¶ 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was
in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have
discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Additionally, I learned through public record
that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at
the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address.
However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then,
however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that
it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the
Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to
RFA's ¶ 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart
9
EFTA00179707
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of
64
filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart
was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information
about the case that is being concealed as well.
44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims' summary judgment motion.
See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart).
45. Reinhart's affidavit with the Court also states: "Because I did not have any, I did not share
non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's
attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (1 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that
the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false
as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein's business
address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney's Office, and that Mr. Reinhart
ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil
litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is
highly relevant.
46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts
between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left
his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't Answers to RFA's 1 16. As stated above, Reinhart
left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as
Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the
Florida rules of ethics for attorneys.
47. Information about Reinhart's connections to Epstein is critical to the victims' allegations in
this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would
provide a motive for Reinhart (and other prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not
to confer with them.
Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the
prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereof), that could be highly relevant to the remedies
stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement
invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against
that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the
defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider,
in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein
was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly
relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the
Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise.
48. Evidence concerning Reinhart's connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is
also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a
reason to encourage others in the U.S. Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than
the one he was entitled to.
49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein
and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if
the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims'
allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admission,
the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between
Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel. Answers
10
EFTA00179708
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of
64
to Requests for Admission at 1 20. The Government should be required to disclose all of those
documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those
relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case
prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment
of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being
prosecuted.
50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution
undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in
Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the
Justice Department to determine whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the
negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey
Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR
generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See Bates P-
013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein
prosecution would support the victims' allegations that they were not being properly notified.
Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case —
or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be
critical to supporting the victims' case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many
of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have
already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could
probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process.
51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a
year after the victims' request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to
my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it "regret[ted) it could not be of
assistance" in providing information about the allegations.
52. RFP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida was "conflicted out" of handling various issues related to the Epstein case.
This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about
the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest that has
been recognized may have to do with the Office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its
production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by
the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. (It appears that
this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the
conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims' discovery
requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant
to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the
victims.
A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the
Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case.
53. RFP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former
U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he
claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a
yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This information is needed to explain
11
EFTA00179709
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of
64
why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the
NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were, then they would
have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show
improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in
determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and
bias.
54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors
and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the non-
prosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the
victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to
them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with
persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is
worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly
informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for
crimes committed against them.
55.
RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims
understand that the Government is prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the
stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is
worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims' claims that the
Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at
Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information
that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "allegation of a deliberate
conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the
pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and
presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a/aft accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6.
56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered
to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this
information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is
highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have properly notified
the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the
victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein
pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public
criticism).
57. RFP No. 23 asks for documents that will assist Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 in
protecting their rights under the CVRA. This request links to the Government's obligations
under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" to protect victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).
The direct connection between this request and the victims' case is self-explanatory.
58. RFP No. 24 request correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the Government
had with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that these
materials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of
information with persons or entities outside the federal government).
For the sake of
completeness, this information is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein
12
EFTA00179710
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of
64
investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that
investigation.
59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules
apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled.
60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government
to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook
concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI,
grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of
Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to
proving the victims' allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of
Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's "estoppel"
argument. This information would also show motive and bias.
Inadeouate Privilege Log
61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court's order in this case. I
have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government's assertions of privilege because
of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the
Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log.
62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that "clearly identifies]
each document[] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date,
and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to
meet this requirement.
63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in
the log, covering Box No. I (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents. DE
212-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ
SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney
(Villafafia) handwritten notes."
64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of
the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 through P-012451). The Government
asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90
pages is: "File folder entitled 'Key Documents' containing correspondence between AUSA and
case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to
draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials."
65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court
will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the
government's privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as
well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's privilege log.
66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with
producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's directives. At all times relevant to this
case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive
burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that I sent to the
Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden.
Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim
13
EFTA00179711
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of
64
67. Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premises — such as the
existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that
relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its
privilege assertions.
68. An illustration of this problem is found on page I of the supplemental privilege log (DE
216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: "7/10/08
emails between J. Sloman and A. Marie Villafafla, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to
Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is
asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege.
The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings
of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government
does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product
claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with
regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was
involved.
69.
There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual
underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege
log and the victims responsive log.
Waiver of Confidentiality
70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a
requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been
circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege.
71. An illustration of waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with
regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P413282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from
A. Marie Villafafla to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to
Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is
asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the
U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the "FBI." (This is another illustration of the
inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not
disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides
legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of
this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Office.
72. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-
1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: "File
folder labeled `Mtg w/ Ken Starr, MA, JS, Drew' containing handwritten notes by A. Marie
Villafafla." Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein.
Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorney-
client privilege.
73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE
216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P413644 through P-013653). The entry here
reads: "File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A.
Marie Villafafla to J. Richards, N. Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and typed handwritten
notes by A. Marie Villafafia re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews,
14
EFTA00179712
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of
64
summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Government is asserting attorney-client
privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to "Richards' and "Kuyrkendall" to be
references to FBI agents — not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the
attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail.
The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege
74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a "fiduciary exception"
(also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the
Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. I and Jane
Doe No. 2.
Specifically, because they were recognized "victims" under the CVRA, the
Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to
confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary
duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions
with the victims.
75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI
determined that both Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by
Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age
and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexual assaults involved use of
means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane
Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of
Epstein.
76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this
case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA
victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its
"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. l's rights, including title reasonable right to confer with
the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public
proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea .. .." The notification further explained that
"[alt this time, your case is under investigation."
77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard
CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would
make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. l's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to
confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any
public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ...." The notification further explained
that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation."
78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several
meetings with Jane Doe No. 1. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by
Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred
because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims' rights under the CVRA.
79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosecution agreement was signed between
Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No. I was
contacted to be advised regarding the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E.
Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was
recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime.
15
EFTA00179713
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of
64
80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of
a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims
under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising
any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege
assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the material.
81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 1 of
the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to
83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K.
Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification."
In
responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney's
Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims' interests. Accordingly, the
Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the
victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed
by the victims' compelling need for the materials.
82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on
page 16 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The
entry reads: "File folder entitled tsrch re Crime Victims Rights' containing attorney research,
handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz."
Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case — what kind of notifications were
made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications.
Moreover, in evaluating victims' rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the
Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office
cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the
victims have arisen in this case.
Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered
83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges
when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the
important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting
privilege would fall within that exception.
84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the
Government's privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a non-
prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the non-
prosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a
representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the
agreement to the victims.
85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters
from the FBI advising them that "Whis case is currently under investigation. This can be a
lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough
investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal
that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by
Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify
Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that
part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
16
EFTA00179714
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of
64
Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal
case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution
agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI
was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S.
Attorney's Office.)
86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. I contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was
attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S.
Attorney A. Marie Villafafia secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several
other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able
to assist Jane Doe No. I in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafafia secured pro bono
counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in
Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms.
Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter.
87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the
U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that "1-11his case Is currently
under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while
we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive
because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement
entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007.
88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No.
1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes
committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA
Villafaffa and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call,
AUSA Villafafia asked me to send any information that I wanted considered by the U.S.
Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges.
I was not informed that
previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file
federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent
at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld this information from
me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement.
At this point it is clear that AUSA Villafana was restricted in what she was being permitted to
tell me.
89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client's
desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of
my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the
fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move
forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes
Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our
children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware
that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact that continued to be
concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I only learned of this fact
later on.
90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case,
deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed
17
EFTA00179715
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of
64
non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating
to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted.
91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this
basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box
#3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Stan• to Acosta'
containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J.
Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie
Villafafla." Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve
discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to
crime victims. And given the dates of the communications, in all likelihood they would be
related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later.
92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is
found on page I of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-
013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J.
Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification."
These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and
Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to kcep the non-prosecution agreement secret.
93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to
information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public
information about the Epstein case. This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce
Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate)
privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court
to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are
covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception.
94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potentially apply
is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew Menchel has a
personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's 120.
This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also potentially a motive to violate the
victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries
showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to
the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to
Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information suggesting that immediately after
leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Menchel was associated with Epstein-
controlled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the
Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its
prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced.
95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component — the Office of Professional
Responsibility — has collected information about possible improper behavior during the
investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 122 (government admits that "The
Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities
have collected information about ... other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's]
possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own
investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie
18
EFTA00179716
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of
64
case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to
various privileges.
Factual Materials Not Privileged
96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not
covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is
asserting privilege are factual materials.
Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege
97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with
regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the
client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications
were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very
difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any
event, the Government has failed to carry its burden of showing that the privilege applies.
98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been
improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE
216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two
pages of documents reads: "File folder entitled 'Information Packet Drafts' containing several
drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet." It is impossible from this
description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide
many other illustrations of the problem.
99. The Government's attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was in a
fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For
example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning
Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Starr
to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to
J. Leficowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A.
Marie Villafafia." This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it
goes directly to "victim notification." Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client
privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary
exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's
ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the
Government and Epstein's attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could
ethically apply to such documents.
100. As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials
described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has
indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a
defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a
fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the
entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense
victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein
and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between
Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution
agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to
19
EFTA00179717
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of
64
which the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege go directly to that "interface"
between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims have a compelling need for this
information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the
Court to provide these documents to the victims.
101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the
documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such
harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged
harm.
Deliberative Process Privilege
102.
Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the
deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with' regard to the Epstein case. This investigation
was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel,
Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr.
Ferrer, asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and
how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based on the privilege log that has been
provided, as well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, that request for
investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C.
103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is that many
documents are being withheld about that investigation — documents that would go to the central
issues in this case. Approximately three whole pages of the privilege log — pages 12 through 14
of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) — relate to the OPR investigation of how the
Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated.
104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of
reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently
asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR
decision. It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the
inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that final decision has been produced).
Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR
decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE
216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft
Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo
A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there
any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also
noteworthy that this letter is described as a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the
final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was "draft" and what was
"final." If this is the final embodiment of OPR's conclusions, then this letter would not be
protected by a "deliberative process" privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an
end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by
federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its
20
EFTA00179718
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of
64
documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.)
105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does I and 2,
and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its
conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could
significantly shortcut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR "needed"
the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims' claims, then logically the
victims share that "need" and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The
Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered
by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I
respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm.
Investigative Privilege
106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular
litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing
process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59
F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically:
(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by
discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact
upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3)
the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program
improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is
factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is
an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or
reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police
investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary
proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the
plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the
information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources;
and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case.
On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims
have requested.
107. With regard to factor (1) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental
processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), I represented four
victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a
victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well.
If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing
information, but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally to attorneys for a
number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that
Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case.
108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having
their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that
would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims.
Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims and that information has
21
EFTA00179719
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of
64
not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their
identities to be disseminated.
109. With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent
program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by
the Government with its CVRA obligations. Accordingly, the Government's "program" of
providing victims' rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights
in this lawsuit.
110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative
summary), many of the items that the victims seeks arc factual summaries. An example of this is
found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P-
011788. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing chart with
victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts." This would
include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be
purely factual information.
ill. With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential
defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the
incident in question), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not
criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein)
who has undertaken several "limited" intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of
information to the victims.
112.
With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the
investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its
privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity.
113.
With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have
arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen as a
direct result of the victims' efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any
information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that
the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct,
then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as
appropriate.
114. With regard to factor (8) (whether the plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous and brought in good
faith), it should be clear at this juncture of a five-year long case that the victims have a
substantial claim that is brought in good faith.
115.
With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other
discovery or from other sources), as recounted throughout this affidavit, the victims have no
other way to obtain the information at issue in this privilege debate, as it involves information
internal to the Justice Department.
116. With regard to factor (10) (the importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs case),
the information that the victims are seeking is highly important to their case. Indeed, without
adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 99 at
11. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the
victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government
22
EFTA00179720
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of
64
is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government's alleged
"estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute.
Work-Product Doctrine
117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship
to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and
compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat all of those
assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the
Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they
have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the
materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor.
118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as
part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to
OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to
the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's involved. These interviews appear to
be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with
regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic — apparently should be P413970, a total of
14 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would be factual statements from Justice
Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct
occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other
way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department
has declined to provide information on this subject.
119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the
previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production
requests numbers 1 through 25 and supplemental request number 1.
120. As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the
materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel"
argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has
noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered
in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial
authorities and the federal offense victims - including an assessment of the allegation of a
deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on
the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and
presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6
(emphasis added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection
go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims
have no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if the
materials are provided to the victims.
Grand Jury Information
121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted
any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand
jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information.
Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should
require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials.
23
EFTA00179721
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of
64
122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1),
with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled 'FBI
Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names,
identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment."
This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly
discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited
disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other
information provided to the victims.
123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is
asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that
disclosing any of the materials would "tip off" a potential target to a Government investigation.
Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation
into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes.
124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the
documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an
opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm.
Privacy Rights of Other Victims
125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying information
about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government
stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not
parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying
information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have
requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other
victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead
redact that information."
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed this 16th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Bradley J. Edw rds
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ.
Attachments:
1. October 3, 2011, request for production;
2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and
3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers
24
EFTA00179722
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of
64
EXHIBIT 1
To
Brad Edwards Affidavit
EFTA00179723
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of
64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES,
Defendants
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR
PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned
counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the
original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to
the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case.
BACKGROUND
As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to
undisputed fads in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their
Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request fora Hearing on
Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion
to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
(DE 49).
On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted
(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the
EFTA00179724
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of
64
factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11).
The Court reserved
ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant
evidence (DE 99 at 11).
On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide
documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document.
Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information relevant to their pending summary
judgment motion.
DISCOVERY REQUESTED
The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of
terms provided at the end of the requests.
1. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the
Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual
exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008.
The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein
operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find
and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the victims' summary judgment motion, the
Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office's
"investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on
'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an
allegation that needed "further factual development." DE 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all
documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims' allegations,
including:
(a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case;
(b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other
similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against
and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein
or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or exchange of information
concerning the case;
(c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar
information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or
other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against
children by Jeffrey Epstein;
(d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros memo") outlining
numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments
to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal
EFTA00179725
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of
64
offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor
or predecessor document; and
(e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any
documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments
that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents,
correspondence, and other information regarding these prosecution
memoranda and the draft federal indictments.
2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they
received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's
Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein
and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached. Please provide all documents,
correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but
not limited to):
a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and
Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offenses;
b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations
between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent
and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions
between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm
Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defense attorneys
concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching
orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could
provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement;
e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that
could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement,
including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane
Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement;
f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's
awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be
notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court)
or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting
with the Government.
3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that
non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the
agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and
federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by
attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining
to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate
that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom.
EFTA00179726
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of
64
4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was
interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep
Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was
happening through the press.
Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other
information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning
the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in
particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of
West Palm Beach).
5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea
negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be
represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal
injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining
to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation
of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of
representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement.
6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the
non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense
public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility
that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement.
Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the
Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or
victim objections.
7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was
aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-
prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement.
Please provide all
correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its
potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government
and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections
raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and
any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and
information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims.
8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed
the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social
and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal
(including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the
Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other
information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more
favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former
President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York),
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy
Black on his behalf.
EFTA00179727
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of
64
9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI
advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents,
correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the
non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications
being made to the victims.
10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led
to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution
and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case.
Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these
allegations, including:
a) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussions
between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of the
investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of
charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein;
b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S.
Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law
enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and
c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI
would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated
the rights of Epstein's victims in this case.
11.1n their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had
various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents). Related to
these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards)
discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the
AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without
disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further
allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges
against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding
these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on
October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June
2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to
contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim's Law Institute (NCVLI)
concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI.
12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008,
their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for
filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such
charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The
victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of
federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other
information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result
of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent.
EFTA00179728
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of
64
13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27,
2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about
June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding:
a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered;
b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and
c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty,
including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution
agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of
crimes Epstein had committed against them.
14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the
Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution
agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when
asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all
documents, correspondence, and information about the Government's and Epstein's efforts to
keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and
correspondence about "declining comment" or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution
agreement secret.
15. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times,
it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed
about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that
on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the
terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a "corrected"
notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence,
and other information about these notifications, including:
a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include
some mention of the non-prosecution agreement;
b) any information about the contents of these notifications;
c) any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding
what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about
July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft;
d) My communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel about
which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether
Part 3 was operative);
e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding
the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and
f) any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality
and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the
agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the
victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement.
16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior
prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important
decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people
close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement
EFTA00179729
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of
64
reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that
other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any
documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper
relationship, including:
a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the
Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution
of Epstein;
b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's
witness, subject, or tar et o
Ghislaine Maxwell,
▪ Investigation Includi
Larry Mo
iso i 1
ogers,
r lam
Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh;
c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls
(including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received
by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack
Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, and any
other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including
telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation;
d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for example, e-
mails) that
red to, or sent by Reinhart in which the word
"Epstein,"
" "Morrison," "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond,"
Roxburgh,'
r afana, " "Florida SS
Foundation," "Starr," "Black,"
"Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian,"'
"Sanchez," "358 El Brillo Way"
appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger,
or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecution;
e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example e-
mails) of a similar nature that indicate that my other Government prosecutor has
represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey
Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey
Epstein;
f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest
that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local
prosecutor or investigator) has had any form of business, social, personal, or other
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein;
and
g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest
that my Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local
prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly
from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any
charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity).
17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether "improper influences" were
brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the
non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of
EFTA00179730
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of
64
Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began
some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide:
a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice
Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter;
b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information
collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investigation;
c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information
collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result
of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest
violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207)
d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information
collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR's
inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any
improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been
committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein
investigation and/or prosecution;
e) Any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or
inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart's sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that
he "did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he
"was not involved in any of the Office's decisionmaking with regard to the
Epstein matter;" and that he "never learned any confidential, non-public
information about the Epstein matter;"
f) Any
documents, correspondence, or other information regarding the
circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011,
indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in
connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on
the Epstein case;
g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information
prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of
or following up on the victims' December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein
case; and
h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or
obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution.
18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately
December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in
Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, of handling
various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The
Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on
information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of
Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all
documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest
that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any
referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that
EFTA00179731
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 34 of
64
were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be
investigated.
19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the
news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein,
Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter,
Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter
to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors
but merely pointed out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the Epstein
investigation. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information that supports
or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his letter, including any information that the Justice
Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the
case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and
over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or
contradicted such allegations.
20. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein's guilty
plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that
barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that
Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents,
correspondence, and other information between the Government and state and local prosecutors
and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department and Palm Beach State
Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein investigation and ultimate Epstein plea.
21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence
in the possession of the Government will support their claims. Please provide all documents,
correspondence, and other information between Government attomeys/officials (including both
federal and state prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on
Epstein's behalf) relating to (I) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately
the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses
committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty pleas for
related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the
Government that barred his prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and/or the Government's obligations under the non-
prosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other
conditional release of Epstein from confinement; (6) any designation of Epstein as a sex offender
or restrictions on him contacting victims of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc
#2); and (7) any termination of supervision or parole of Epstein. This information should include
unredacted c-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors
working on the case (including, but not limited to, federal prosecutors Alexander Acosta, Jeffrey
H. Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andy Lourie, Ann Marie Villafana, Dexter Lee, and Bruce Reinhart
and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein
investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy
Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy
Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein
(including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward
EFTA00179732
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of
64
(a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York). This should also include letters of recommendation or
similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support
for Jeffrey Epstein.
22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have
alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were
denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein
generous concessions through the plea negotiations.
Please provide any documents,
correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type
that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual
within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously
employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The
documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing:
(a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services,
or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity;
(b) My offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment,
business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties;
(c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the
investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense;
(d) My consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law
enforcement agencies in the past; and
(e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had
provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending
Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement
than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect.
23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1), requires the Government to use
its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims.
Please provide all documents,
correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting
their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information
that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide
based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this
case because no indictment was filed.
24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the
Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, and
information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local
prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other
countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please
provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with
any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including e-
mails) with those entities or persons.
25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in
this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at
that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time,
EFTA00179733
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of
64
the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(aXI).
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are
defined:
The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind,
including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original
by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files,
telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries,
pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of
conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter,
computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations,
modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records
or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs,
microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or
electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and
disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind.
The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or
memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited
to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing
information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications.
The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a
possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe
#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein,
and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex
offenses.
The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and
components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney
General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of
Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's
Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities
related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production
seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities,
including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in
any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the
victims' claims.
EFTA00179734
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of
64
The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request.
The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form
(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or
information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term
includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency,
including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or
Florida.
NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT
If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand
jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a
grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation.
PRIVILEGE LOG
If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this
request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a
"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is
consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3XB). Your privilege log should include the type of
document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and
addressee of the document or correspondence.
REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN
If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly
burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce
any such burden.
DATED: October 3. 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad(4)pathtojustice.com
EFTA00179735
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of
64
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellv@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and
E-Mail Transmission:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafafia
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: Dexter.Lee®usdoj.gov
E-mail: ann.marie.c,villafana@usdoi.sov
Attorneys for the Government
Roy Black, Esq.
Jackie Perczek, Esq.
Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
JIBlackaroyblack.com
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al.
Respectfully Submitted,
S/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
EFTA00179736
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLED Docket DB/16/2013 Page 39 of
64
EXHIBIT 2
To
Brad Edwards Affidavit
EFTA00179737
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of
64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-110736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
Plaintiffs
r.
UNITED STATES,
Defendants
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTALJtEOUEST
FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING NEW INFORMATION
CONCERNING INVESTIGATION OF HANDLING OF EPSTEIN NON-
PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
COME NOW Jane Doe #I and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims), by and through undersigned
counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the
original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to
the Court's Order (DE 99) directing discovery in this case, the Court's Order denying the
Government's motion to dismiss and lifting stay of discovery (DE 189), and the Court's
Omnibus Order (DE 190):
BACKGROUND
As the Government will recall, the victims have repeatedly asked the Government to
stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the
victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and
Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment
motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's
Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49).
EFTA00179738
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of
64
On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted
(DE 99 at II). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the
factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at I I). The Court reserved
ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant
evidence (DE 99 at 11).
On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide
documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document.
On October 3, 2011, the victims sent requests for production of documents relevant to
this case.
On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of this discovery was due, rather
than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the Government filed a
motion to dismiss the victims' case. The Government also filed an accompanying motion for a
stay in this case.
On November 8, 2011, the Government filed an ex parte, sealed motion to stay further
discovery in this case. (DE 121). On November 9, 2011, the Court granted an cx parte, sealed
order to stay. (DE 123).
On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government's motion to stay. The
victims strenuously objected to the Government's approach, alleging specifically that "delay
appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The
victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to
dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired
effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any
ability to obtain discovery from the Government." DE 129 at 2-3. The victims also filed a
EFTA00179739
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 42 of
64
protection motion to compel (DE 130) asking that the Court direct the Government to produce
the requested materials.
On January 24, 2012, the Government filed a reply in support of its motion to stay. DE
140.
In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing
information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the
victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that
information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen
months, the Government did not provide any information to the victims.
A year after the Government's motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed
a Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying the Government's Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The
motion explained that it had been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for
a stay and that the Government's refusal to produce any information continues to effective block
the victims from learning what happened during the Government's plea negotiations with the
man who sexually abused them. The Government filed a response in opposition to that motion
(DE 182).
On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in
view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should begin fulfilling its
court-ordered discovery obligations:
The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been more than fifteen
months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet the
Court has not granted that motion, the Court's discovery order is in effect and
controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by March 8, 2013,
the Government produce all of the materials which is covered by the victims'
discovery requests. If the Government has not produced those materials by
March 8, 2013, the victims may be forced to seek the intervention of the Court to
order the Government to follow its obligations.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time
where we can talk to you over the phone about all this. We are happy to work
EFTA00179740
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of
64
with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from your discovery
obligations.
E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards to Dexter Lee, et al., Counsel for the
Government (February 25, 2013).
The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any way.
Accordingly, in view of the Government recalcitrance and refusal to even discuss its
discovery obligations, on March 14, 2013, the victims filed a motion to compel production of
discovery materials. The Government did not respond to this motion.
On June 1, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss. DE 189. That
denial also lifted stay of discovery proceedings. DE 189 at 14 ("The stay of discovery pending
ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss entered on November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is also
lifted."). The Court also entered an Omnibus Order (DE 190) that, among other things, granted
the victim motion to compel (DE 130).
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST
The victims now request one specific item of supplemental discovery relating to information
that, in large measure, has come into existence since they filed the first request for production of
documents on October 3, 2011:
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have asked the Government to investigate their allegations that
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida entered into a non-prosecution
agreement with Jeffrey Epstein for sexual offenses committed against them and other victims
based on considerations apart from the merits of the criminal case and also that violations of
criminal law, rules of ethics, Justice Department policies (including policies on crime
victims' rights), and the Crime Victims Rights Act occurred during the negotiations leading
up to and surrounding the entry of the non-prosecution agreement. Please provide any
information that the Government has developed concerning or relating to those allegations
and the handling of the negotiations and consummation of the non-prosecution agreement,
including any information developed by the Justice Department's Office of Professional
Responsibility (0PR), the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigative
entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) allegations, including any grand
jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the District of
EFTA00179741
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of
64
New Jersey, and/or the District of Columbia. For this one discovery request only, please
include all relevant grand jury transcripts and evidence collected by the grand jury.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are
defined:
The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind,
including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original
by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files,
telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries,
pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of
conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter,
computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations,
modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records
or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs,
microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or
electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and
disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind.
The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or
memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited
to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing
information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications.
The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a
possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe
#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein,
and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex
offenses.
The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and
components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney
General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of
Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's
Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities
related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production
seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities,
including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in
any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the
victims' claims.
The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request.
EFTA00179742
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of
64
The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form
(including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or
information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term
includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency,
including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or
Florida.
PRIVILEGE LOG
If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this
request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a
"privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is
consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3XB). Your privilege log should include the type of
document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and
addressee of the document or correspondence.
REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN
If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly
burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce
any such burden.
DATED: June 24, 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
EFTA00179743
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of
64
Salt Lake City, UT 841 (2
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: eassellnalaw.utah.edu
Attorneys for Janc Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
EFTA00179744
Case 9:08,v-807364.M Document 226-1 Entered on ELSE Docket 08116/2013 Page 47 of
EXHIBIT 3
To
Brad Edwards Affidavit
EFTA00179745
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of
64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES,
Defendants
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR
PENDING ACTION CONCERNING THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned
counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to admit or
deny the following facts:
BACKGROUND
As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to
undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their
Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on
Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion
to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
(DE 49).
On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted
(DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the
factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved
EFTA00179746
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of
64
ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant
evidence (DE 99 at 11). The Court allowed the victims to propound requests for admission to
the Government.
DISCOVERY REOUESTED
The numbered requests for admissions below should all be construed in light of the
definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. Where the request for admission has
separate, lettered sub-parts, please admit or deny each separate sub-part:
I. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's
investigation into Jeffrey Epstein developed a case for a federal prosecution against
Epstein for many federal sex offenses.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
1. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation
into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and
information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against
Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted
above, the government denies Request No. 1.
* The government's response is confined to Request No. 1 through Request No.
26 in the "Discovery Requested" section of the Request for Admissions and does not
intend to respond to assertions in any other section of the Request for Admissions
(including the "Background" section), none of which appear to separately state any
matter calling for an admission. Nonetheless, the government denies the assertion that
the government has declined the request of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to stipulate to
undisputed facts in this case.
EFTA00179747
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of
64
2. Regarding notifications provided to victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse:
(a)
The U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys
concerning the notifications to be provided to victims of Epstein's abuse;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
2. (a) The government admits that, after Epstein's attorneys learned of
the notification that the government planned to provide to Jane
Doe #2, who claimed that she was not a victim, Epstein's
attorneys contacted the USAO and objected to the procedures for
notification and the legal bases therefor. The government further
admits that the USAO considered those objections when
evaluating what notification to provide to victims. Except as
otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No.
2(a).
(b)
It is not standard practice for the U.S. Attorney's Office to negotiate with defense
attorneys about the extent of notifications provided to crime victims;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(b) Admitted.
(c)
As a result of those negotiations or requests received from Epstein, the U.S.
Attorney's Office stopped making notifications to some crime victims;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(c) The government admits that, as a result of objections lodged by Epstein's
attorneys, the government reevaluated the notifications that it had intended to
provide to victims and, as a result of that reevaluation, the USAO altered the
scope, nature, and timing of notifications that it had contemplated providing to
victims. With regard to Jane Doe #2, the government further admits that, as a
result of representations made by Jane Doe #2 that she was not a victim and
objections lodged by Epstein's attorneys, the USAO stopped making
notifications to Jane Doe #2. Except as otherwise admitted above, the
government denies Request No. 2(c).
EFTA00179748
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of
64
(d)
The language used in the notifications to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were
affected by the negotiations with Epstein's defense lawyers;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(d) The government admits that, after the USAO received objections to victim
notifications from Epstein's counsel and reevaluated its victim notification
obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in
the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of Bradley Edwards.
Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d).
(e)
At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were
not told that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into a non-prosecution
agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was executed.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(e) The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged
by Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the USAO reevaluated its
obligations to provide notifications to victims, and Jane Doe #1 was thus not
told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein
until after the agreement was signed. The government further admits that Jane
Doe #2 was not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution
agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was signed, but denies that
the USAO did not inform Jane Doc #2 as a result of any negotiations involving
Epstein or any objections lodged by Epstein's lawyers; the USAO did not
consider Jane Doe #2 a victim after she informed the USAO and the FBI that
she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epstein, and, as a result, the
USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution
agreement. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies
Request No. 2(c).
3. Because of a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement signed by the
U.S. Attorney's Office, it would have been a breach of the agreement for the U.S.
Attorney's Office to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the terms of
that non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of certain sex offenses.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
3. Denied.
EFTA00179749
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of
64
4. During its negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's
Office was aware that publicly disclosing the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey
Epstein would likely have led to public criticism of the agreement.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
4. Denied.
5. During negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, it was
the position of at least one experienced attorney within the U.S. Attorney's Office that the
Crime Victims' Rights Act required notifications to the victims in this case.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
5. The government admits that, during the negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein
regarding the non-prosecution agreement, at least one experienced attorney within
the USAO subscribed to the position that the CVRA required notifications to the
victims in this case and that position was communicated to Epstein's counsel. To the
extent that Request No. 5 seeks admissions regarding the positions held by attorneys
within the USAO that were not communicated to non-government personnel
regarding whether or not the CVRA ultimately required notifications to the victims
in this case, the government objects to Request No. 5 as violative of the deliberative
process privilege.
6. The Justice Department possesses documents, correspondence or other information
reflecting contacts with the Department between May 2007 and September 2008 on
behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by:
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(a) President Bill Clinton;
Denied.
(b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York); Denied.
(c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; Admitted
(d) Ken Starr; Admitted.
(e) Lillian Sanchez;
Admitted to the extent that the reference to "Lillian Sanchez" was
meant to refer to Lilly Ann Sanchez.
(f) Jay Lelkowitz; Admitted and
(g) Roy Black. Admitted
EFTA00179750
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of
64
7. On about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising
them that "this case is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had
already entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
7.
The government admits that, on about January 10, 2008, when Jane
Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that "this case
is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's Office had
already signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, but
that, on that date, the non-prosecution agreement nonetheless
remained in a state of some flux and was subject to being set aside as
Epstein was challenging the propriety of the non-prosecution
agreement and seeking further review from the Department of
Justice.
8. In September 2007 when the U.S. Attorney's entered into the non-prosecution agreement
with Epstein, it did not inform FBI agents of the details of the disposition of the case in
the way that it ordinarily informed them of dispositions of other cases.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
9. With regard to the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the Government:
(a)
(b)
Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to, a provision in the
non-prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(a) The government admits that, at Epstein's insistence, the USAO
agreed to a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that provided as
follows: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of
any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act
request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the
agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure."
Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9(a).
In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will
not be made part of any public record;"
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted
EFTA00179751
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of
64
(c)
By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put
itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1
and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate certain
terms of the agreement;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
(d)
Even notifying the victims about the agreement would have violated the
confidentiality provision; and
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
(e)
From September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the U.S Attorney's Office did not
notify Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution
agreement.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(e) The government admits that, during the period from September 24, 2007
through June 2008, the USAO did not notify Jane Doe #2 of the existence of
the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits that,
although FBI agents notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence and substance of
the agreement at the request of the USAO on or about October 27, 2007, no
employee of the USAO personally notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence of the
non-prosecution agreement during the period from September 24, 2007
through June 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government
denies Request No. 9(e).
10. With regard to contact between the Government and the victims:
(a)
On about October 26, 2007, FBI agents met with Jane Doe #1;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
10. (a) Admitted. Because Request No. 10 appears directed solely to the communica-
tions between FBI agents and Jane Doe #1 during their meeting on or about October
26, 2007, the government responses to Requests No. 10(b) through 10(g) address
only that meeting.
(b)
The agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving
another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender, and he had
made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims,
including Jane Doe #1;
EFTA00179752
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of
64
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(b) The government admits that, on or about October 26, 2007, FBI agents
explained to Jane Doe #1 that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges for
procuring minors to engage in prostitution; that Epstein would be required to
register as a sex offender; that Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to seek damages
from Epstein; and that, if she desired, Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to use the
services of an attorney at no expense to her in seeking those damages from
Epstein. The government denies that the FBI agents explained that the state
charges "involvied) another victim."
(c)
During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an agreement had already
been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal crimes
committed against Jane Doe #I;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(c) The government denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 that
an agreement had already been signed; denies that the FBI agents did not explain to
Jane Doe #1 that the agreement resolved the investigation of the federal case
involving Jane Doe #1; and denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe
#1 other terms of that agreement Except as otherwise admitted above, the
government denies Request No. 10(c).
(d)
The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement
without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement;
(e)
(f)
(g)
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
The agents themselves had not been informed of the existence of the provision in
the non-prosecution agreement barring Epstein's prosecution for various federal
crimes or sex offenses at that time;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
Because the non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein,
the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #I's view on the proposed
resolution of the case; and
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
The agents never explained that the non-prosecution agreement would ultimately
bring to an end the federal investigation in the case.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
EFTA00179753
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of
64
11. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim
notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification
letter would have explained: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of
Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have
reached an agreement containing the following terms . . . ."
Because of concerns from.
Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim
notification letter to the victims.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
11. The government admits that, on or about November 28, 2007, A. Marie
Villafafia of the USAO sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay
Letkowitz, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, and that the draft notification letter
stated, in part: "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of
Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's
Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms . . . ." The
government further admits that, in part as a result of objections lodged by
Epstein's lawyers, the USAO reevaluated its obligations to provide notifications
to victims, and, as a result of that reevaluation and other considerations and
developments, the USAO never sent victims the draft notification letter that was
sent to Jay Leflcowitz on or about November 28, 2007. Except as otherwise
admitted above, the government denies Request No. 11.
12. On July 3, 2008, when Bradley J. Edwards was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney's
Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed
against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc #2, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already entered into
a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
12. The government admits that, prior to July 3, 2008, the USAO had already
entered a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The
government is without knowledge of precisely when "Bradley J. Edwards was
working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office concerning the need to federally
prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe
#2," and, accordingly, the government denies the assertion that Edwards worked
on that letter on July 3, 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the
government denies Request No. 12.
13. When Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008,
(a)
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the U.S. Attorney's
Office of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement.
EFTA00179754
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of
64
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
13. (a) The government admits that, when Epstein pled guilty to state charges on
June 30, 2008, Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the USAO of the
existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits
that, although the USAO, through FBI agents, had notified Jane Doe #1 of the
existence of the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008
guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally notified Jane Doe #1 at
that time of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Except as
otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(a).
(b)
The U.S. Attorney's Office had not conferred with either Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe
#2 about the non-prosecution agreement;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(b) The government denies that, by the time of Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea,
an attorney for the government working at the USAO had not already
conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about their opinions regarding
how the federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein should
proceed. The government admits that the USAO had not conferred with Jane
Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008
guilty plea. The government further admits that, although the USAO had
communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement through
FBI agents prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea, no employee of the
USAO had personally conferred with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution
agreement prior to Epstein's guilty plea. Except as othenvise admitted above,
the government denies Request No. 13(b).
(c)
Epstein's defense attorneys were aware that the U.S. Attorney's Office had not
conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement; and
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(c) Although the government was aware that Jane Doe #2 had been represented
by counsel paid for by Epstein, the government is unaware of the extent of
Epstein's defense attorneys' awareness of the USAO's communications with
Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement, as described in the responses
to Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), and therefore can neither deny nor admit
Request No. 13(c). Except as othenvise admitted above and in the responses to
Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), the government denies Request No. 13(c).
EFTA00179755
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of
64
(d)
Epstein's defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the
non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the
agreement.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(d) The government admits that Epstein's attorneys negotiated with the USAO
for a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that ultimately provided as
follows: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any
public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act
request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement,
it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." Except as
otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(d).
14. When Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution
agreement, both the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's defense attorneys were working
to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
14. The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state
charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's
defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-
prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to
keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. Except as
otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 14.
15. Defense attorney Bruce E. Reinhart:
(a)
learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
15. (a) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant U.S.
Attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein
matter.
(b)
discussed the Epstein matter with an attorney working on the case for the U.S.
Attorney's Office; and
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
(b) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant
U.S. Attorney, he discussed the Epstein matter with another Assistant U.S.
Attorney working on the Epstein matter.
EFTA00179756
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of
64
(c)
was involved in decision-making with regard to the Epstein matter.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
16. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs and emails) reflecting
contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein
(including Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Harvard
Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lily Ann Sanchez) before
Reinhart left the employment of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted.
17. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs or emails) reflecting
contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons working at or for the Department of
Justice or United States Attorney's Office that related to Jeffrey Epstein or the
investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and other potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted.
18. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs or
photographs or emails) reflecting improper communication or influence made or
attempted with the Government, on Jeffrey Epstein's behalf by:
(a)
Guy Lewis
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied.
(b) LilyAnn Sanchez
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied.
19. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs,
photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or
business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Attorneys and/or Assistant US
Attorneys.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
19. To the extent that Request No. 19 is directed to the business or personal
relationships of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and over 5,400 Assistant U.S. Attorneys
serving across this country, or the countless individuals who have formerly
served as U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys throughout this nation,
the government objects to Request No. 19 as overly broad and burdensome and
not calculated to lead to or involve information relevant to the instant matter.
EFTA00179757
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of
64
The government denies possessing or having any knowledge or information
about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and either the
U.S. Attorney or any Assistant U.S. Attorney serving in the Southern District of
Florida. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No.
19.
20. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs,
photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or
business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Menehel.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted.
21. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs,
photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or
business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
22. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government
entities have collected information about:
(a)
Bruce Reinhart's possible involvement in the Epstein matter;
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted
(b)
Other government attorney's possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter;
and
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted
(c)
A conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida handling issues relating to the Epstein matter.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted
EFTA00179758
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of
64
23. The non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein
currently blocks the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting sex offenses committed by
Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
23. The government admits that the non-prosecution agreement signed by the
USAO and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the USAO from prosecuting sex
offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the
Southern District of Florida from in or around 2001 through in or around
September 2007, provided that those offenses are set out on pages 1 and 2 of the
non-prosecution agreement, were the subject of the joint investigation by the
FBI and the USAO, or arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Except as
otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 23.
24. The Justice Department possesses information that Epstein, himself or through his
attorney's or acquaintances, has provided or offered to provide to the federal government
(or an individual within the Government, in his official or private capacity) valuable
consideration.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
24. Admitted; Jeffrey Epstein provided valuable consideration to the federal
government through the non-prosecution agreement he entered with the USAO.
25. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation/inquiry
into alleged misconduct relating to the negotiation and consummation of the Epstein non-
prosecution agreement has relevance to issues pending in this case.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied
26. The Government possesses evidence, not covered by grand jury secrecy rules, that
reveals that districts outside the Southern District of Florida share jurisdiction and venue
with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the
alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and/or Jane Doe #2.
UNITED STATES RESPONSE:
26. The government objects to Request No. 26 because it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigative privilege.
EFTA00179759
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of
64
,DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are
defined:
The tenn "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind,
including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original
by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation,
correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files,
telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries,
pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of
conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter,
computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations,
modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records
or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs,
microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or
electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and
disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind.
The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or
memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited
to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing
information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications.
The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a
possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #I, Jane Doe
#2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein,
and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex
offenses.
The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and
components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney
General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of
Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's
Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities
related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production
seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities,
including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in
any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the
victims' claims.
The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request.
EFTA00179760
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of
64
The term "U.S. Attorney's Office" means the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida and includes all branch offices within the Southern District of Florida.
PRIVILEGE LOG
If you believe that any request for admission is subject to a privilege and if you intend to
assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g),
including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your
privilege log should include a specific identification of the privilege being asserted and the basis
for the privilege.
DATED: December I. 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEIIRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
Florida Bar No.: 542075
E-mail: brad®pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellp®law.utah.edu
The foregoing document
and electronic mail to:
Dexter A. Lee
A. Marie Villafafia
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
was served on December 1, 2011, on the following persons via US Mail
EFTA00179761
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 of
64
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: dexter.lee(41usdoj.gov
E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoi.gov
Attorneys for the Government
EFTA00179762
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
N.
UNI'T'ED STATES
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED
EFTA00179763
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 10
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and
through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to turn over to them numerous documents that
to which the Government has asserted various privileges. All of the Government's assertions of
privilege are not well founded, for the reasons described in this pleading, and the Court should
provide all of the documents to the victims.' The factual support for the arguments found in this
memorandum is contained, inter alia, in the attached affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. The
victims have also concurrently filed itemized objections to the Government's privilege log.
I. General Responses to All Assertions of Privilege.
Inadequate Privilege Log — The great bulk of the Government's privilege assertions do
not comply with the Court's requirement that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each
document[] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE
190 at 2. As a result of the Government's failures, it is impossible to even begin to determine
which of the Government's assertions of privilege are valid.
Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim — Most of the
Government's privilege assertions rest on factual underpinnings (e.g., an attorney-client
relationship is at issue, a deliberative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any
materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle.
McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown' City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520
Should the Court allow the Government to assert privilege with regard to any of the
materials, the victims would then he free to argue that, as a remedy for the Government's
assertion of privilege, the Court should preclude the Government from denying the claims by the
victims that would have been supported by the withheld information. See, e.g., Attorney General
of the U.S.I Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
1
EFTA00179764
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 10
(S.D. Fla. 1993) (government failed to prove attorney-client relationship), affd, 56 F.3d 1390
(I lth Cir. 1995).
Waiver of Confidentiality — Somc of the Government's assertions of privilege fail
because it is clear that any confidentiality was waived by the presence of persons outside the
confidential relationship. For example, some of the assertions of attorney-client privilege
involve documents and correspondence sent to person outside of any attorney-client relationship.
Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege - The Government
cannot invoke privilege in the context of a Crime Victims' Rights Act petition because it owes a
fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use "best efforts," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), to protect their
rights. See Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 644 F.3d 221, 226-27 (4th Cir. 2011)
(noting that the attorney-client privilege does not apply "in the context of fiduciary relationships"
and that "[t]his principle has been applied to fiduciary relationships beyond the traditional trust
context"); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 919-21 (8th Cir.
1997) (government attorneys have duty to report wrongdoing).
Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered - Any privilege
would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395,
399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S.
Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) (applying exception to work product claim).
Such an exception applies to the facts of this case.
Factual Materials Not Covered - Any privilege would only cover materials reflecting
the confidential relationship, not factual materials. See, e.g., EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87-88
(1973) ("memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material . . . and severable from its
2
EFTA00179765
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 10
context would generally be available for discovery by private parties in litigation with the
Government."). Many of the materials at issue arc factual materials.
Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation — The work product
doctrine (as well as the investigative privilege) only applies to documents prepared by an
attorney in anticipation of litigation, not to documents prepared in the ordinary course of
business, pursuant to regulatory requirement, or for other non-litigation purposes. So/is v. Food
Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 644 F.3d 221, 231 (4th Cir. 2011). Many of the documents at
issue here were not prepared in anticipation of litigation, and certainly not litigation about the
Crime Victims' Rights Act. See, e.g., Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D.
542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in
connection with case at hand).
II. Specific Responses to Specific Assertions of Privilege.
A. Attorney-Client Privilege.
Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered — A general attorney-client
privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications. See In re Grand Jury
Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 916-21 (8th Cir. 1997).
Only communications concerning legal services covered — Any attorney-client
privilege would be limited to communications made for purposes of facilitating the rendition of
legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond v. City of Mobile, 86 F.R.D. 324 (D.
Ala. 1978) (attorney-client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city
attorney while conducting the internal investigation where the purpose of the investigation was
3
EFTA00179766
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 18
•
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
4
UNITED STATES
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RENEWED MOTION
FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE
COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and
through undersigned counsel, to renew their Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's
Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50). The Court has previously reserved ruling on
this motion. DE 99 at II. In light of the Governments' recent decision to assert that thousands
of pages of documents are privileged — and to produce a privilege log in a manner and format
that makes it impossible to understand what kinds of documents have been produced, or even
whether the Government has responded to each request at all — the Court should now grant the
motion. By granting the motion, the Court would simplify and expedite these proceedings and
largely or entirely avoid the need for a document-by-document review of the Government's
privilege assertions and the victims' responses to them.
BACKGROUND
As the Court is aware from the victims' previous filing of this motion (see DE 50 at 1-3),
in discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane
1
EFTA00179767
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 18
Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information
in its possession that was material and favorable to the victims' ease. Victims' counsel pointed
out that, if they were criminal defense attorneys representing criminals, the Office would
promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the
Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would provide to criminal defendants —
i.e., to voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was favorable to the
victims' CVRA case.
In response, victims' counsel were informed by the Office that it could — and would —
withhold from the victims such information, apparently on the theory that the CVRA does not
apply to this case or on the theory that victims lack due process rights under the CVRA.
Accordingly, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a motion asking the Court to enter an order
directing the Government to produce information in its possession favorable to them. DE 50.
The Government filed a response in opposition. DE 59. The victims filed a reply. DE 76. After
a hearing on this and related motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court agreed to allow factual
development through discovery by the victims. DE 99 at II. The Court allowed the victims to
file requests for admission and for production of documents (and potentially other discovery
requests as well). Id. The Court then noted: "Because the Court will allow this limited factual
development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on [the
victims'] motion [for an order directing the Government not to withhold relevant evidence]." Id.
2
EFTA00179768
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 18
On October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production with the Government. On
November 7, 2011, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a
motion to dismiss the victims' petition. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a
motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's
motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of
their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling.
Indeed, the Government told the Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some
information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is
undertaking a search for that information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation,
however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not produce any information to
the victims.
Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied
the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day,
the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion to compel and directing the Government
to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the
Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE
190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by
producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege
log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by
author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2
(emphasis added).
3
EFTA00179769
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 18
On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production in this case. With
regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence
pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these
materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents
to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the
Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents
that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things
that the victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the
victims themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates
00142-88, 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g.,
Bates 0008-10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011,
0030, 0032-33), and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly
four hundred pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were
substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves had already received.
Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed
issues in this case.
On the other hand, the Government asserted privilege on 13,468 pages of materials.
While many of these pages also do not appear to go to the disputed issues in this case, buried
among the documents appear to be some highly pertinent materials. The Government has
asserted privilege, for example, with regard to its internal discussions about notifications to
crime victims. The Government has also asserted privilege with regard to an investigation by the
Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the
4
EFTA00179770
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 18
treatment of the victims. It is, however, difficult to say for certain which documents are
important, because rather than comply with the Court's privilege log requirement, the
Government provided only a truncated log that did not fully describe the documents at issue,
much less "clearly" identify the subject matter of the documents and the parties who received
them.' 'I'he Government has also failed to identify which documents it is producing go to which
document production requests.
DISCUSSION
The victims have previously explained at length why the Court should enter an order
directing the Government not to withhold relevant documents. DE 50; see also DE 59 (Gov't
Response); DE 76 (victim's reply). The Court reserved ruling on that motion for an uncertain
amount of time. The victims will not repeat their previously-advanced arguments here, but
simply incorporate them by reference and respectfully suggest that now would be a propitious
point in this case for the Court to take up the motion again — and to grant the motion. Doing so
would save the Court and the victims considerable amount of time by narrowing (or even
eliminating entirely) the number of privilege issues that would need to be resolved.
In addition, the victims wish to advance three new arguments in support of their motion
for such an order based on new developments in this case since they filed their motion. First and
most important, the Government's response to the Court's discovery order is so fundamentally
inadequate that the Court should simply not allow further litigation but provide the documents to
the victims by granting their motion. Second, the Court should also grant the victims' motion
Further factual information that may be relevant to this motion is found in the
contemporaneously-filed Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, attached to Jane Doe #I and Jane Doe
#2's Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Arc Not Privileged.
5
EFTA00179771
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 18
because the Government's fiduciary obligations to the victims to use its "best efforts" to protect
their rights conflict with its privilege assertions. Specifically, assertion of any privilege is
inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that flow from that statutory "best efforts" requirement.
Third, the Government's recent admissions and privilege log make clear that significant "Brady"
material exists. Accordingly, the Court should no longer reserve ruling on the victims' motion
but instead should simply order these highly relevant materials to be produced now, just as it
would order the Government to produce highly relevant materials to criminal defendants.
1.
THE COURT SHOULD SIMPLY PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS TO
THE VICTIMS BECAUSE OF THE GROSS INADEQUACIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS.
The Government has grossly violated the Court's order to provide an appropriate
privilege log in connection with the disputed documents. In light of that stark failure, the Court
should simply grant the victims' pending motion regarding suppression of evidence and produce
the disputed documents to them.
As the Court is well aware, it has denied repeated efforts by the Government to block the
victims from receiving relevant information about this case. In its most recent order (DE 190),
the Court directed the Government to either produce "all other responsive documents in response
to all outstanding requests for production of document" to the victims or "file and serve, in the
public portion of the court file, a privilege log clearly identifying each document[] [withheld] by
author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2
(emphasis added). Government then made its production. But rather than provide helpful
information to the victims, the Government instead has provided information that was essentially
irrelevant to the disputed issues. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards at 5.
6
EFTA00179772
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 18
More important with regard to this motion, the Government has not begun to comply in a
meaningful way with a discovery process that would permit the victims to obtain information
relevant to their claims. Of course, the purpose of a privilege log "is to provide a party whose
discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege . . . with information to sufficient to evaluate
such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified." Tulle v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1416 (D.C. Cir.
1996). Reinforcing that command, this Court required the Government's privilege log to
"clearly" indicate what materials were covered. The Government has not begun to provide the
victims with sufficient information to resist claims of privilege.
One of the most basic problems with the Government's action is that it is not identified
which of the "privileged" documents apply to which of the victims' document production
requests.
Instead, the Government has simply taken more than 13,000 pages of documents,
Bates stamped them in no particular order (or at least no order that the victims can discern), and
then asserted that they are all privileged for various reasons. The resulting "log" is wholly
inadequate for multiple reasons, the most basic of which is that it does not signal to the victims
which produced documents respond to which requests. To gather the documents to respond to
the Requests for Production (RFPs),2 presumably the Government had to perform query searches
in electronic databases or actual searches in paper files.3 Each search would have then produced
certain documents. But rather than disclose documents on a search-by-search basis, the
Government has simply taken the all documents it gathered, apparently dropped them on the
2 The victims' First and Second Requests for Production are included as attachments to
the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an attachment to the victims'
contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged.
See, e.g., Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First RFP, ¶ I6(d) (requesting emails and
other documents in which certain particular words appear).
7
EFTA00179773
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 18
floor into a random pile, and then provided a "log" of documents in no order whatsoever — and
without indicating which documents are being produced in answer to each question. The
resulting mishmash of thousands of documents places the victims in the impossible position of
trying to determine what the documents mean without any context whatsoever.
Compounding this problem and creating a critical additional problem, this lump and
dump technique makes it impossible to verify that the Government has actually performed each
of the searches required to make each of the responses. Indeed, it would be entirely possible that
the Government could have failed to search for, or to produce, any documents whatsoever on
certain requests and the victims would have no way to know one way or the other.
Perhaps in theory these problems might be mitigated if the Government had produced (as
the Court required) a privilege log "clearly" describing the subject matters and other particulars
of the documents produced. But as the Court can confirm with just a casual glance at the
privilege log, many of the documents have been described generically or not at all, leaving the
victims to wonder what many of the documents really are.
The upshot of the "lump and dump" approach is that the victims cannot even begin to
understand what has been produced with regard to their particular discovery requests. As an
illustration, consider the victims' request for production of documents about former prosecutor
Bruce Reinhart's knowledge of information about the Epstein prosecution immediate before he
left to become employed by Epstein. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for
Production, ¶ 15 (seeking this information); ¶ 21 (requesting information collected by OPR on
this subject). The victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request,
because in answering the victims' First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it
8
EFTA00179774
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 18
possessed information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice
Department that related to the Epstein investigation. See Government's Answers to Jane Doe #1
and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions (RFA's), fl 15-17.4 It further admitted that
OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior. See Gov't's Answers
to RFA's, ¶ 22(a). Yet them is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000
pages of documents) are responsive to RFP 15 because the Government has not indicated which
of its documents apply to which RFP. Nor has the Government given the victims sufficient
information to make this determination on their own. Indeed, the Government's privilege log
does not even contain the word "Reinhart" anywhere in it. So it is simply impossible to tell
which documents apply to the Reinhart issue.
As another illustration, consider the victims' request for information about former
prosecutor Matthew Menchel's personal/business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g.,
Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 16(f). Here again, the victims know that the Government possesses
such information, because it admitted to having such information in answer to the victims'
request for admissions — information collected by its own internal affairs unit, OPR. See Gov't's
Answers to RFA's, ¶ 20. Yet once again, it is impossible for the victims to even tell which
documents (if any) the Government has turned over to the Court that pertain to this issue,
because the Government has not explained which documents apply to this request and none of
4
The victims' Request for Admissions and the Government's answers thereto are
included as an attachment to the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an
attachment to the victims' contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents
That Are Not Privileged.
9
EFTA00179775
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 18
the privilege log entries provide any description that indicates they cover documents regarding
such a personal or business relationship?
As yet another illustration, consider the victims' request for information about the OPR
investigation into the possible mishandling of the Epstein prosecution and victim notifications.
Here again, the victims have very specifically requested such information. See Victims' First
RFP's at ¶ 17. The Government has admitted that OPR collected information about possible
improper behavior by prosecutors in the Epstein matter. Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 22. Yet
it is simply impossible to tell where the information that the Government collected appears
among thousands of pages of documents it has produced.6
As a fourth and final illustration, the victims requested information about why the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) was "conflicted out" of
considering issues relating to the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about
that conflict after the Epstein matter was referred to another district (e.g., the Middle District of
Florida). See Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 18; Victims' Second FRP's at ¶ 1. The victims know
that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-
MDFL evaluated something as a result. Yet apart from a few preliminary cmails within the
5 Menchel is, of course, revealed in the privilege log at several points as on the e-mails
chains involved in the plea bargain discussions surrounding the Epstein prosecution. But none of
the vague descriptions in the privilege log appear even remotely related to a personal or business
relationship. Moreover, given that many of the privilege log entries do not even include dates, it
is not even possible to look for materials that might follow the date on which Menchel left the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
6 The Court will notice that some pages in the Government's privilege log do deal with
the OPR investigation. See Gov't Supp. Privilege Log at 12-14. But so far as the victims can
discern, the documents covered there are simply e-mails about the OPR investigation, rather than
the underlying substantive information collected during the OPR (or OPR-triggered)
investigation.
10
EFTA00179776
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of 18
Justice Department regarding whether the recusal should occur, see Gov't First Privilege Log at
pp. 22-23, nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single
document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the
recusal. Indeed, so far as the victims can tell, the Government may even be staking out the
remarkable position that there is not even one single document in the Middle District of Florida
that is responsive to the victims' requests, because (so far as the victims can tell) nothing has
been provided from the Middle District of Florida.
These are but four clear and illustrative examples, which the victims could multiply
dozens of times. The victims respectfully ask the Court to require the Government, in its
response to this motion, to indicate where (if anywhere) in the privilege log documents
pertaining to these four issues appear, so that the Court can then judge for itself whether the
victims have been given sufficient information to respond to the Government's claims of
privilege.
Again, our point in this pleading is not to try and debate the Government on its privilege
assertions. The morc basic point in this pleading is that the victims cannot even begin to fairly
challenge many of the Government's assertions because they do not know which (if any) of the
documents at issue pertain to their discovery requests. The Government's privilege assertions
are simply broken beyond repair. In view of this gross failure by the Government, the Court
should simply provide the documents it has received to the victims by granting the victims'
Motion for an Order to the Government not to Withhold Relevant Evidence.
At an absolute
minimum, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which documents apply to
II
EFTA00179777
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of 18
which requests, the Government should be required to provide a listing of documents on a
request-by-request basis.
II.
THE. COURT SHOULD ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE
REQUESTED DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE CVRA'S BEST EFFORTS
REQUIREMENT
CREATES
A
FIDUCIARY
EXCEPTION
TO
ALL
PRIVILEGES.
In their 2011 motion, the victims explained that the CVRA obligates government
prosecutors to "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are
. accorded[] their rights"
under the CVRA. DE 50 at 3-5 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I)); see also DE 76 at 2-6. In light
of the Government's recent assertion of privilege, the Government's failure is now even more
apparent. The Government's invocation of a privilege to block disclosure of documents is
simply inconsistent with the Government's statutorily-mandated best efforts obligation.
Controlling circuit precedent supports the conclusion that the Government fiduciary duty
bars an assertion of privilege, even in the context of the well-established and absolute attorney-
client privilege. In Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), the Court of Appeals
with jurisdiction over this Court held that an attorney-client privilege can give way when "the
client asserting the privilege is an entity which in the performance of its functions acts wholly or
partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the
communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the
management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder
derivative action, noting that beneficiaries of its actions with the stockholders. Id Since that
7 See Knight v. Thompson, ---F.3d---, 2013 WI, 3843803 at *5 n.5 (11th Cir. 2013)
(citing Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane) (11th Circuit
adopts as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the
close of business on September 30, 1981)).
12
EFTA00179778
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 18
ruling, many courts (including this Court) have applied the "Garner doctrine" or "fiduciary
exception doctrine" in settings outside the shareholder derivative context. See, e.g., Solis v. Food
Employers Labor Relations Ass h, 644 F.3d 221, 227-28 (4th Cir. 201 I) (applying Garner
principles to bar assertions of privilege to communications by ERISA fiduciary and plan
attorneys in suit concerning alleged mismanagement of plan assets); Maltby v. Absolut Spirits
Co., Inc., 2009 WL 800142 at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ("Defendant maintains that this Court should
not apply the fiduciary exception here because the Eleventh Circuit has never applied the
fiduciary exception in the context of an ERISA case. Defendant provides no legal or factual
explanation of why this Court should not apply this doctrine, however."); Nellis v. Air Line Pilots
Assn, 144 F.R.D. 68, 71 (E.D. Va. 1992) (holding that the Garner doctrine applies because
unions owe a fiduciary duty to their members). The "Garner doctrine" or "fiduciary exception"
has also been applied to bar the federal government from asserting privilege against those whose
interests it must protect, such as Indian tribes. See, e.g., Osage Nation and/or Tribe of Indians of
Oklahoma v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 244 (2005); Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C.
2002). For instance, in Osage Nation, the Government argued against application of the
fiduciary exception in the context of a case alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds,
contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests,
including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected
these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or
offset its obligations as trustee to be unpersuasive." Id. at 248.
The situation here is parallel to situations such as a union being challenged by its
members or the Government is being challenged an Indiana tribe. In this case, of course, a U.S.
13
EFTA00179779
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of 18
Attorney's Office is being challenged by recognized crime victims, who arc arguing that the
Office violated its statutory obligation to act in their "best interests."
Accordingly, under
Garner, an attorney-client privilege is not appropriate, provided the victims to show "good
cause" why the privilege should not be invoked. Id. at 1104. I lere, there is ample good cause.
See generally Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (filed concurrently with this motion as an
attachment to the Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Documents that Are Not Privileged)
(explaining why good cause exists for production of documents requested). As a result, the Court
should not allow the Government to invoke privilege but should instead simply grant the victims'
motion for an order not allowing the Government to withhold relevant evidence and turn the
disputed materials over to the victims.
III.
THE VICTIMS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT UNDER THEIR CVRA
"RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS."
In their 2011 motion, the victims also argued that they were entitled to receive favorable
evidence in the Government's possession for the same reason that criminal defendants receive
such information: fundamental considerations of fairness require that the Government not
deliberately withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. DE 50 at pp. 5-9
(citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and arguing that they are entitled to "Brady"
information contradicting the Government's position no less than criminal defendants). In light
of the Government's recently-filed privilege log, the need for the Court to grant the victims'
motion has become even more apparent.
The Government's privilege log indicates that it is withholding significant information
that is critical to the victims' arguments.
For example, the Government is withholding
14
EFTA00179780
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of 18
information about its discussions concerning how to notify crime victims. See, e.g., page 16 of
first privilege log (DE 212-1) regarding Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. And the Government is
withholding information about its own internal investigation into the potential wrongdoing in this
case. See, e.g., page 13 of supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) regarding Suppl. Box 3 P-
013940 to P-013942.
As we understand the Government's position on this issue, it does not contend that it does
not have important evidence for the victims' case. Nor does the Government argue that it would
be difficult to identify that material. Instead, the Government's argument has been that Brady
obligations are confined to criminal cases against criminal defendants. DE 59 at 5-6.
But the case law is not so narrow as the Government believes. The victims have recently
identified several cases in which courts have applied Brady outside of the criminal context. In
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit applied Brady in the
context of a denaturalization and extradition case. In United States v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2d
985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the district court applied Brady to civil commitment proceedings for sexual
offenders. And in EEOC v. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1373, 1374 (D.N.M.
1974), the district court applied Brady to an employment discrimination action.
The issue of Brady obligations in a CVRA action appears to be one of first impression.
Thus, more important than case law is the fact that the victims here can rely on specific statute —
the CVRA — that gives them a right to be "treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). Being
treated with fairness means (at a minimum) treated someone with due process. As one of the
CVRA's co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section [§
3771(a)(8)] are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of
15
EFTA00179781
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of 18
these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due
process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the
criminal justice system.
This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and
employees, whether they arc in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the
respect they deserve." 150 Cong. Rec. S4269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added).
In the context of this particular case, it is simply inconsistent with the "due process"
requirements of the CVRA to allow the Government to withhold documents that will help the
victims prove their case. The Court should accordingly enter an order, paralleling its "Standing
Discovery Order" in criminal cases, directing the Government to provide favorable evidence to
the victims. See Local Rule 88.10. The Standing Discovery Order typically provides: "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
guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United
States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)."
The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand
here.
Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and associated local rule 88.10(O) — contains
a broad, commonsense provision which the Government has plainly violated in this case. The
Order provides: "The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts
or points of law the truth or existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which
will expedite the trial." For more than five years, the victims have been trying to get the
Government to stipulate to undisputed facts, precisely as the Court's rules envision. The
Government, however, has refused to do so. Accordingly, the Court should enter an order
16
EFTA00179782
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 18
requiring the Government to produce evidence which it well knows is relevant and material to
the victims' case. And because the Court has in its possession thousands of pages of documents
that fit that description, the Court should simply turn that information over to the victims.
CONCLUSION
The Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold material
evidence in this case and should provide to the victims the materials it has received for in camera
review.
In addition, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which
documents apply to which requests, the Government should be required to provide such a
responsive document.
DATED: August 16, 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEI IRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
and
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Ilac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utakedu
Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
17
EFTA00179783
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following
using the Court's CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafafla
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: Dexter.Lec(e)usdoj.gov
E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the Government
Roy Black, Esq.
Jackie Perczek, Esq.
Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Email: pleading@royblack.com
(305) 37106421
Jay P. Lefkowitz
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Email: lefkowitz®kirkland.com
(212) 446-4970
Martin G. Weinberg, P.C.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Email: owlmgw@att.net
(617) 338-9538
Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
18
EFTA00179784
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA
JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' RENEWED MOTION FOR
AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO
WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE
Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Petitioners'
Renewed Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant
Evidence, and states:
I.
INTRODUCTION
In its Omnibus Order of June 18, 2013, this Court directed that petitioners should have
thirty days after service of the government's privilege log to file a motion to compel contesting
any asserted privilege claim. D.E. 190 at 2. Any such motion to compel was limited to seven
pages. N. Within fifteen days, the government was permitted to file its response, which was
also limited to seven pages. D.E. 190 at 3.
Petitioners' response to the government's filing of its privilege log has been the filing of
the following: (I) the government's privilege log with its objections annotated (D.E. 224-1); (2)
a motion to compel production of documents that are not privileged, numbering eight pages D.E.
225; (3) a twenty-four page, single-spaced affidavit of petitioners' counsel, addressing the
EFTA00179785
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 2 of 12
various privileges asserted by the government, D.E. 225-1; and (4) a renewed motion for an
order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to withhold relevant evidence, numbering
seventeen pages, D.E. 226. The renewed motion also challenges the government's assertions of
privilege.
I.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROPERLY INVOKED APPLICABLE
PRIVILEGES
Petitioners argue that this Court should summarily dismiss the privileges invoked by the
government because of the "gross inadequacies" in the privilege assertions. D.E. 226 at 6-7.
Their argument is baseless because the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for
which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in
camera review to determine if the privilege is valid.
Petitioners go so far as to complain that the government has not identified in the privilege
log which documents respond to which requests. Id. at 7. They do not explain how the validity
of a privilege is contingent upon which request for production the document is responsive to. In
request for production no. 18, petitioners requested documents "regarding potential conflicts of
interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL...."
The government's privilege log clearly references e-mails between Assistant General Counsel
Richard Sudder, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney
Benjamin Greenberg, "regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of
Florida, dated August 24 and August 29, 2011." D.E. 212-1 at 22. Further, the privilege log
detailed cmails between Peter Mason, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and
Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee, "seeking advice regarding office-wide mensal, dated
December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated
December 10, 2010." D.E. 212-1 at 23.
2
EFTA00179786
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 3 of 12
The subjects of the c-mails, office-wide recusal and "seeking advice regarding office-
wide recusal," were stated in the privilege log. The attorney-client privilege was invoked for
these documents, along with the deliberative process and work product privileges for a subset of
these documents. Since petitioners requested these documents, they should be able to discern
what document request they pertain to. Moreover, the purpose of the e-mails, seeking advice
regarding office-wide recusal, was stated in the privilege log. This is sufficient factual detail to
permit petitioners and the Court to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies.
Petitioners' claim that the government has failed to produce relevant documents is based
on fallacious assumptions. They use as an example of a failure to produce documents the request
for documents regarding former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Reinhart. D.E. 226 at 8-9. "The
victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request, because in
answering the victims' First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it possessed
information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice Department
that related to the Epstein investigation." Id. Continuing, petitioners state, "It further admitted
that OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior." They then argue
that "there is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages of documents)
are responsive to REP 15 because the Government has not indicated which of its documents
apply to which RFP."I Id. at 9.
The fallacy in petitioners' reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government's
response to the request for admission was a document, rather than personal observation. If it was
based on the latter, there would be no document to produce. Petitioners make the same
fallacious assumption in the case of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Mcnchcl. D.E. 226 at
9-10. The admission in Request for Admission No. 20 need not have been based upon a
The RFP which seeks documents pertaining to Reinhart is actually number 16, rather than 15.
3
EFTA00179787
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 4 of 12
document.
Petitioners admit that the government has included documents from the Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) in its privilege logs. D.E. 226 at 10 n.6. The government has
properly invoked the attorney-client, work product, and deliberative process privileges for many
of the OPR documents. D.E. 216-1 at 12-14. In Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District
100, 600 P.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's finding that the
attorney-client and work product privileges did not apply to notes of witness interviews, and
memoranda prepared from those interviews, by a law firm retained by a school district. A
teacher in the school district was charged with sexually molesting numerous students over
several years. Id. at 615. A civil lawsuit was filed against the school district and the principal.
The school district hired Sidley Austin LIP to conduct an internal investigation and provide
legal advice to the school board. Sidley Austin was not the school district's litigation counsel in
the civil lawsuit. Attorneys from Sidley Austin interviewed current and former school district
employees, as well as third-party witnesses. The attorneys took handwritten notes and later
drafted memos summarizing the interviews. Id.
During discovery in the civil litigation, the plaintiffs sought documents in Sidley Austin's
possession regarding its investigation. The law firm invoked the attorney-client and work
product privileges as to its notes and internal memoranda relating to the employee witness
interviews, as well as other legal memoranda. The district court rejected the privilege claims,
finding that Sidley Austin had been hired to provide investigative services, not legal services. Id.
The appellate court found, based on the engagement letter between Sidley Austin and the
school district, that the law firm had been hired to "investigate the response of the school
administration to allegations of sexual abuse of students," and "provide legal services in
4
EFTA00179788
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 5 of 12
connection with the specific representation." Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter
brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 383 (1981), "which
explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within
the protection of the attorney-client privilege." 600 F.3d at 619(emphasis in original). Despite
the fact that Sidley Austin was not the school district's litigation counsel, the appellate court
found that Sidley's investigation of the factual circumstances surrounding the abuse was an
integral part of the package of legal services for which it was hired and a necessary prerequisite
to the provision of legal advice about how the school district should respond. Id. at 620. The
Court also found the witness interview notes and memoranda were entitled to protection under
the work product privilege because they were prepared "with an eye toward" the pending
litigation. Js1 at 622
In this case, OPR is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of
misconduct committed by DOJ attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(I). The counsel heading OPR
reports to the Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a. One of OPR's functions is to "[deceive,
review, investigate and refer for appropriate action." § 0.39a(aX2). In discharging this function,
OPR attorneys interviewed DOJ attorneys regarding the allegations of misconduct lodged by
petitioners' counsel, took notes, and prepared memoranda, just like the law firm retained by the
South Berwyn School District. The documents generated by these investigative actions are
covered by the work product privilege because notes and memoranda prepared by OPR attorneys
are created with an eye toward potential litigation. Under § 0.39a(a)(3), OPR Counsel shall,
"[deport to the responsible Department official the results of inquiries and investigations arising
under paragraphs (a)(I) and (2) of this section, and, when appropriate, make recommendations
for disciplinary and other corrective action."
5
EFTA00179789
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 6 of 12
In their fourth example, petitioners claim they "know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact
conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-MDFL evaluated something as a
result." D.E. 226 at 10-11. They contend that, other than a few preliminary emails within the
DOJ regarding whether the recusal should occur, "nothing in the privilege log indicates that the
Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information
about what happened as a result of the recusal."
Petitioners appear to believe that, because the USAO-SDFL was recused from the
Epstein case, the USAO-MDFL "evaluated something as a result." In U.S. v. Wevhrauch, 544
F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit noted that, "the General Counsel's Office of the
EOUSA coordinates office-wide recusals, obtains necessary approvals and helps arrange the
transfer of responsibility to another office ... ." Id. at 973-74. Office-wide recusals are
frequently based upon a finding that a reasonable person could question the impartiality of a
particular U.S. Attorney's Office, such as when the Office is prosecuting a crime where the
victim is an employee in that U.S. Attorney's Office, or a defendant is a close family member of
a U.S. Attorney's Office employee. Petitioners seem to believe that the recusal of the USAO-
SDFL was based on a finding that misconduct had occurred in the Epstein case, which is
incorrect. Further, the transfer of responsibility to the USAO-MDFL was not a charter for it to
investigate the USAO-SDFL. Instead, the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein
case, and exercises its own independent judgment and discretion in deciding what action to take,
if any.
II.
THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE
Petitioners argue that government should be ordered to produce the requested documents
because there is a fiduciary exception to all privilege. This wholesale attempt to overcome the
6
EFTA00179790
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 7 of 12
government's claims of privilege should be rejected because it lacks any legal basis.
The premise of petitioners' argument is that the CVRA provides that government
prosecutors are to "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are accorded their rights." 18
U.S.C. § 3771(cX1). They provide no legal authority for the contention that the CVRA creates a
fiduciary obligation between the government and crime victims. Instead, petitioners attempt to
engraft such a duty from other cases, involving duties owed by a corporation to its shareholders,
Gamer v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), and the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes. None of those cases are apposite.
In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. 2313 (2011), the Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Federal Claims' finding that the government was required to produce
documents in litigation involving the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The Tribe had instituted a breach
of trust action against the United States, claiming the government had mismanaged funds held in
trust for the Tribe. The Tribe sought various documents in discovery, which included materials
for which the government claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court of
Federal Claims applied the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege, applied in the
context of common law trust, and found the documents were not privileged. 131 S.Ct. at 2319.
The Supreme Court reversed, finding the government is not a private trustee, and the trust
defined between the government and the Tribe was governed by statutes, rather than the common
law. Id. at 2323. Further, the United States did not obtain legal advice as a "mere
representative" of the Tribe, nor was the Tribe the "real client" for whom that advice was
intended. a at 2326. Assuming any fiduciary relationship exists between the government and
a crime victim, such relationship would be based on the CVRA, not the common law. Further,
the government would be managing any trust relationship as a sovereign function, pursuant to
7
EFTA00179791
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 8 of 12
the plenary authority of Congress, not as a private trustee.
In Jicarilla, the Supreme Court distinguished Garner:
The United States has a sovereign interest in the administration of
Indian trusts distinct from the private interests of those who may
benefit from its administration. Courts apply the fiduciary
exception on the ground that "management does not manage for
itself." Garner, 430 F.2d at 1101; Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 232 ("[Ojf
cental importance in both Garner and Riggs was the fiduciary's
lack of a legitimate personal interest in the legal advice obtained").
But the Government is never in that position. While one purpose
of the Indian trust relationship is to benefit the tribes, the
Government has its own independent interest in the
implementation of federal Indian policy. For that reason, when the
Government seeks legal advice related to the administration of
tribal trusts, it established an attorney-client relationship related to
its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law. In other
words, the Government seeks legal advice in a "personal" rather
than a fiduciary capacity. See Riggs, 355 A.2d at 711.
131 S.Ct. at 2327-28. In this case, the government had its own independent interest in the
exercise and implementation of its sovereign authority to prosecute an individual for violating
federal law. Therefore, the fiduciary exception does not apply.2
III.
PETITIONERS HAVE NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE CVRA,
Petitioners argue that they have a due process right to documents in the government's
possession. D.E. 226 at 14-17. The basis for a due process right, according to petitioners, is the
CVRA's provision that crime victims have a right "to be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. §
3771(a)(8).
In making this due process argument, petitioners dispense with any analysis of whether
the CVRA creates any protected liberty or property interest, sufficient to trigger the due process
clause. "The necessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining
2 The two cases cited by petitioners in support of a fiduciary exception due to the government's relationship with
Indian tribes Osage Nation and/or Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 244 (2005), and
Cobell v. Norton 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C. 2002), are of dubious vitality in light of iicarilla Apache Nation.
8
EFTA00179792
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12
whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286,
1299 (11th Cir. 1999), Eijil El Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim 782 F.24 952, 95455 (11th Cir.
1986)("in assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must
first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of a constitutionally protected
liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation, there can be no denial of due process.").
There is no life, liberty, or property interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts are
hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. Site Collins v. City of
Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992X"As a general matter, the Court has always
been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for
responsible decisionmaking in this uncharted area are scarce and open ended. (citation omitted).
The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we arc
asked to break new ground in this field."). Without a protected life, liberty, or property interest,
petitioners cannot invoke the due process clause as a basis for compelling the government to
disclose documents to them.
Petitioners' reliance upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is similarly unavailing.
Petitioners are not charged with any crime, nor are they in the position of having their liberty
deprived at the hands of the government, such as the case with a defendant charged with
committing a crime. Petitioners rely upon three cases, which they claim demonstrate the
application of Brady outside the criminal context. D.E. 226 at IS. In Demjanjuk v. Petrovskv,
10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit observed:
We believe Brady should be extended to cover
denaturalization and extradition cases where the government seeks
denaturalization or extradition based on proof of alleged criminal
activities of the party proceeded against. If the government had
sought to denaturalize Demjanjuk only on the basis of his
misrepresentation at the time he sought admission to the United
9
EFTA00179793
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 10 of 12
States and subsequently when he applied for citizenship, it would
have been only a civil action.
kl at 353. Demjaqjuk has no application to this case since the government does not seek to
deprive petitioners of their United States citizenship, or anything else. The Sixth Circuit found
Brady should apply because of two factors. First, the government was seeking to denaturalize
Demjanjuk. Second, it was seeking to do so on the ground that Demjanjuk engaged in criminal
activities. The appellate court's specific focus on the government's reliance upon Demjanjuk's
participation in criminal activities, demonstrates that was the legal basis for its finding that Brady
applied. Their reference to the denaturalization case being "only a civil action," if the
government had relied solely upon Demjanjuk's misrepresentations, suggests that seeking to
denaturalize, without an allegation of criminal activity, would not be a sufficient basis for
applying Brady.
Similarly, in U.S. v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the government was
seeking to civilly commit Edwards for being a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S.C. §
4248(a). The district court found that Edwards had a liberty interest in avoiding detention and
civil commitment. L at 990. Consequently, the due process clause was implicated because the
government was seeking to deprive Edwards of a liberty interest in avoiding detention. In this
case, the government does not seek to deprive petitioners of anything.
The third case cited by petitioners is EEOC v. Los Alamos Constructors. Inc., 382
F.Supp. 1373 (D.N.M. 1974). The district court's analysis of the due process issue is contained
in one sentence in the following footnote: "Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.83 S.Ct.
1194. 10 L.Ed.2d 215, orders that exculpatory information must be furnished a defendant in a
criminal case. A defendant in a civil case brought by the government should be afforded no less
due process of law." a at 1383 n.5. This is no authority for petitioner's due process argument
10
EFTA00179794
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 11 of 12
since there is no analysis of whether a protected life, liberty, or property interest is implicated by
the government's actions. Moreover, by its own terms, this district court decision is
inapplicable because petitioners are not defendants in a civil case brought by the government.
CONCLUSION
Petitioners' renewed motion should be denied. The privilege log provided by the
government adequately describes the documents for which privileges are being asserted.
Further, there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege invoked by the
government, nor is there any due process right to documents provided in the CVRA.
DATED: September 3, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
WILFREDO A. FERRER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
ILDexter A. Lee
DEXTER A. LEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fla. Bar No. 0936693
99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300
Miami, Florida 33132
(305) 961-9320
Fax: (305) 530-7139
E-mail: dexter.lee®usdoj.gov
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 3, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
s/ Dexter A. Lee
DEXTER A. LEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
SERVICE LIST
11
EFTA00179795
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 12 of 12
Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States,
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: brad©pathtojustice.com
Paul G. Cassell
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
(801) 585-5202
Fax: (801) 585-6833
E-mail: ragselp@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2
Roy Black
Jackie Perczek
Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1300
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 371-6421
Fax: (305) 358-2006
E-mail: rblacIctarovblack.com
inerczekarovblack.com
Attorneys for Intervenors
12
EFTA00179796
Document Preview
Click to view full size
Extracted Information
Dates
Email Addresses
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00179613.pdf |
| File Size | 25934.1 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 418,169 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T11:10:32.657890 |