EFTA00206003.pdf

EFTA0020601 1 EFTA00206014 EFTA00206017 EFTA00206020 EFTA00206021 EFTA00206022 EFTA00206023 EFTA00206024 EFTA00206025 EFTA00206026 EFTA00206027 EFTA00206028 EFTA00206029 EFTA00206030 EFTA00206031 EFTA00206032 EFTA00206033 EFTA00206034 EFTA00206035 EFTA00206036 EFTA00206037 EFTA00206038 EFTA00206039 EFTA00206041 EFTA00206044 EFTA00206047 EFTA00206050 EFTA00206051 From: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:27 PM To: Brad Edwards Subject: FYI Attachments: 111711Epstein NY Appellate Division Decision.pdf EFTA00206052 Hi Brad — The DA in New York sent this to me. I thought you might be interested. Also mentioned that if you and Paul want to send a proposed redacted motion for us to consider, we are happy to do so. «111711Epstein NY Appellate Division Dedsion.pdf>> Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Morse, Deborah Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:15 PM FW: Jeffrey E. Epstein 111711Epstein.docx FYI, I will call you later today or tomorrow. Meantime, thanks for your kind words. Best, ******** ****** ************************************* This email communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the New York County District Attorney's Office and are intended solely for the use of the individuals or entity to whom it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return email. ******** *********** *********** ************* ** ****** From: To: Morse, Deborah Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:16 PM Subject: Read: Jeffrey E. Epstein EFTA00206053 Your message To: Subject: FW: Jeffrey E. Epstein Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:15:09 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:15:04 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). From: Sent: Wednesda November 30 2011 5:29 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein nited States Yes. I can be available. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: Se • • To: Cc: Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein 8i. Enited States I just spoke to He is available tomorrow at 1:30, for about an hour, or on Friday either from 10:00- 11:30 am or from 1:00-3:30 pm. Are you both available tomorrow at 1:30? From: Sent: uesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: Cc: Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States Hi, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. EFTA00206054 As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; M, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: From: To: Sent: Subject: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:29 PM Read: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Your message T Subject: : elephone on erence re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:28:51 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:29:01 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:11 PM Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States EFTA00206055 I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation;=., who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E•mail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe l Enited States I just spoke to He is available tomorrow at 1:30, for about an hour, or on Friday either from 10:00- 11:30 am or from 1:00-3:30 pm. Are you both available tomorrow at 1:30? EFTA00206056 From: Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: Cc: Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States H I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We i• , who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation-, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:34 PM RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe l Enited States EFTA00206057 I hope you are feeling better and are fully recuperated. Please let me know when we can set up the rescheduled conference call to address the outstanding issues. Best regards, From: Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, From: Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: Cc: Subje : eep one on erence re: pstein ane e nite tates H I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, EFTA00206058 Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorneys Office 99 N.E. 4th Street. Suite 800 Miami. FL 33132 Telephone E-mail: From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Monday, December 05, 2011 8:57 PM Jane Does Responses DE127_20111205 Jane Does Resp to Motn to Dismiss.pdf; DE13O_2O1112O5 Jane Does Motn to Compel.pdf; DE129_20111205 Jane Does Resp to Motn to Stay Discovery.pdf; DE128_20111205 Jane Does Protective Motion for Remedies.pdf Hi everyone: Here are the responses of the Jane Does. If they filed anything under seal I haven't received it. «DE127_20111205 _Jane Does Resp to Motn to Dismiss.pdf» «DE130_20111205 _Jane Does Motn to Compel.pdf» «DE129_20111205 _Jane Does Resp to Motn to Stay Discovery.pdf» «DE128_20111205 _Jane Does Protective Motion for Remedies.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: Sent: To: Subject: Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:44 PM RE: Jane Does I US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss EFTA00206059 I recall that most of the victims invoked the NPA provision that required Epstein not to raise the absence of a predicate federal conviction as a defense to subject matter jurisdiction. would know for sure. From: Sent: Thwnia, December 08, 2011 4:31 PM To: M, (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Do we have the case numbers of the Jane Does' civil cases against Epstein? What about the other victims cases? It would be interesting to see if they invoked the NPAs provisions against Epstein. From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 04:26 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Mid morning is fine for me. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 4:20 PM To: , (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Would mid-morning (about 10:30) work for everyone, or do you have another preference? From: i M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thwnla, December 08, 2011 04:16 PM To: M, (USAFLS; (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Let me know what time A. , AUSA EFTA00206060 From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 04:09 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Let's do it tomorrow. I will have my Blackberry on. I believe our replies are due on December 15. I am set to go to trial before Judge Ungaro during the two week term commencing January 16, 2012. She just denied my motion for continuance, so it looks like the case is going forward. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thim lay, December 08, 2011 4:02 PM To: M, (USAFLS_); . M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss I'm actually out of the office today on sick leave. If you want to talk today, I can call in, but I have not yet had a chance to review the sealed pleading and I was not inclined to forward the sealed document to my gmail account. Let me know what you both prefer. • From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 03:54 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss I will be out of the office tomorrow, but I can call in. Do you want to try something today? EFTA00206061 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 3:39 PM To: , . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Doesi US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Can all three of us get together on the phone tomorrow? From: i M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 11:47 AM To: , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Hi and — Here is the sealed portion of their response. Judge Marra's clerk called to confirm that we had no objection to the Motion to Seal. I stated that we had no objection. I am on vacation next week. We really HAVE to get this file transferred to the Middle District. «20111206 Sealed Response to Motn to Dismiss.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) .: > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:31 PM To: M , (USAFLS); , M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does I US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Do we have the case numbers of the Jane Does' civil cases against Epstein? What about the other victims cases? It would be interesting to see if they invoked the NPAs provisions against Epstein. From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 04:26 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss EFTA00206062 Mid morning is fine for me. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 4:20 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Would mid-morning (about 10:30) work for everyone, or do you have another preference? From: i M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thi.nla, December 08, 2011 04:16 PM To: M, (USAFLS; , (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does I US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Let me know what time , AUSA From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 04:09 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Let's do it tomorrow. I will have my Blackberry on. I believe our replies are due on December 15. I am set to go to trial before Judge Ungaro during the two week term commencing January 16, 2012. She just denied my motion for continuance, so it looks like the case is going forward. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thwnia, December 08, 2011 4:02 PM To: M, (USAFLS); . M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does I US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss I'm actually out of the office today on sick leave. If you want to talk today, I can call in, but I have not yet had a chance to review the sealed pleading and I was not inclined to forward the sealed document EFTA00206063 to my gmail account. Let me know what you both prefer. From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda mber 08, 2011 03:54 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jane Does I. US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss I will be out of the office tomorrow, but I can call in. Do you want to try something today? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 3:39 PM To: , (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Can all three of us get together on the phone tomorrow? From: i M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 08, 2011 11:47 AM To: , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does US -- Sealed Response to Motion to Dismiss Hi and — Here is the sealed portion of their response. Judge Marra's clerk called to confirm that we had no objection to the Motion to Seal. I stated that we had no objection. I am on vacation next week. We really HAVE to get this file transferred to the Middle District. «20111206 Sealed Response to Motn to Dismiss.pdf» Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 EFTA00206064 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: Paul Cassell < > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:55 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages Hey IMBMand Sorry I had to leave the call early Friday. Meant to check with you on this then. I am working with Brad to finalize our pleadings to be filed on Monday in response to the motion to dismiss. We are filing an unsealed pleading (that does not discuss grand jury material) as well as a sealed pleading (that discusses only the grand jury material and related issues). The unseal pleading is 24 pages long and the sealed pleading is 7 pages long. We also have a response to the motion to stay which is well under the 20 page limit. Any objection to a motion for the extra pages (4 + 7, although I'm not sure whether we count the 7) to respond to your motion to dismiss? Thanks for your help on getting back to us. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112-0730 (phone) fax CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: II., (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:23 PM To: Paul Cassell; , • . (USAFLS); Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Paul, (USAFLS) We will take care of the arrangements for tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell Sent ThursdaOecember 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; , (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday EFTA00206065 Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad —a/' can y'all initiate the conference call or set up a Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City. UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://wwwlaw.uTah.eduiprofiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: ,M N. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: , USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. ssistan mey 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • Counselor States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: <maitto: EFTA00206066 Original Message From: Paul Cassell (mailto: ]> Sent: Thursda DecemberiMPIIIII To: N. (USAFLS): (USAFLS); li., (USAFLS) Cc: Subjec iscovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ----Original Message EFTA00206067 From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)' Cc: Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests — discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah EFTA00206068 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Subject: Start: End: Recurrence: Organizer: 11:15 Conf Call re Epstein/Jane Does Fri 12/2/2011 11:00 AM Fri 12/2/2011 12:00 PM (none) (USAFLS) From: Paul Cassell Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 2:07 PM To: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages Thanks for asking -- yes everything went smoothly. Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake Cit . UT 84112-0730 (phone) (fax) CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) EFTA00206069 Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:00 PM To: Paul Cassell; (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages No objection to the extra pages. I hope that all went well on Friday. ssistant U.S. Attorney Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Sunda December 04, 2011 1:55 PM To: In MEI (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages Hey IMB =and M, Sorry I had to leave the call early Friday. Meant to check with you on this then. I am working with Brad to finalize our pleadings to be filed on Monday in response to the motion to dismiss. We are filing an unsealed pleading (that does not discuss grand jury material) as well as a sealed pleading (that discusses only the grand jury material and related issues). The unseal pleading is 24 pages long and the sealed pleading is 7 pages long. We also have a response to the motion to stay which is well under the 20 page limit. Any objection to a motion for the extra pages (4 + 7, although I'm not sure whether we count the 7) to respond to your motion to dismiss? Thanks for your help on getting back to us. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 (phone) (fax) cassellp@law.utah.edu CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: In (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:23 PM To: Paul Cassell; , MI I. (USAFLS); Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday I I Paul, (USAFLS) We will take care of the arrangements for tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu) Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 4:59 PM , m IMI lir_AFLS): To: (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; M. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday EFTA00206070 Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad - NM can y'all initiate the conference call or set up a Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www. aw.0 a .e u pro es eau .asp erson = name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: ,M I. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: , USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone - Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • Coi selor...ed States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: <mailto: EFTA00206071 Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto Sent: Thursda recember To: • I= N. (USAFLS); Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC (USAFLS); Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul I> (USAFLS) CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206072 Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: N. (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests — discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00206073 Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 2:00 PM To: Paul Cassell; MI, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages No objection to the extra pages. I hope that all went well on Friday. A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney ----Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Sun December 04 2011 1:55 PM To: I., (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: extra pages Hey MR ' and Sorry I had to leave the call early Friday. Meant to check with you on this then. I am working with Brad to finalize our pleadings to be filed on Monday in response to the motion to dismiss. We are filing an unsealed pleading (that does not discuss grand jury material) as well as a sealed pleading (that discusses only the grand jury material and related issues). The unseal pleading is 24 pages long and the sealed pleading is 7 pages long. We also have a response to the motion to stay which is well under the 20 page limit. Any objection to a motion for the extra pages (4 + 7, although I'm not sure whether we count the 7) to respond to your motion to dismiss? Thanks for your help on getting back to us. PC Paul G. Cassell EFTA00206074 Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 (phone) (fax) cassellp@law.utah.edu CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: •. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday. December 01, 2011 3:23 PM To: Paul Cassell; I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Paul, We will take care of the arrangements for tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu) Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 4:59 PM .m USAFLS); To: (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; M, [MI (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad — MI' can y'all initiate the conference call or set up a Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City. UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu<mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu> http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. EFTA00206075 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; , N. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: <maitto: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu]<mailto:[mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu]> Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: .= g. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC EFTA00206076 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578tname=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: N. (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests — discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; EFTA00206077 (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu<mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu> http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578,name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:37 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue EFTA00206078 Hi • and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12th. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. EFTA00206079 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) <DLee@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:36 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue and M, Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don't agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule. My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks. From: (USAFLS) Sen icy, la JanuLq16,_2012 2:24 PM I To: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." Cassell's concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the "the movant or applicant." Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be "serve[d] on all parties and any affected non- parties." The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to "initial discovery," my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don't recall any representation that we would provide "a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners'] motion to dismiss is denied," or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree. EFTA00206080 • From: M I. (USAFLS) SenStith January 06, 2012 12:37 PM To: (USAFLS); I., (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Hi • and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12'h. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that EFTA00206081 leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:24 PM To: Il • • . (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." Cassell's concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the "the movant or applicant." Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be "serve[d] on all parties and any affected non- parties." The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to "initial discovery," my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don't recall any representation that we would provide "a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners'] motion to dismiss is denied," or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree. • EFTA00206082 From: IN I. (USAFLS) Sen iciia, Januar 2012 12:37 PM To: , (USAFLS); I., (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Hi • and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12th. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? EFTA00206083 To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:22 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Endless... From: Sent: „ . To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=1202534991568&Jeffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.11&src=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epstein%20lawyers%20want%20to%20depose%20Scott%20 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein EFTA00206084 Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: Sent: To: Subject: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:45 PM I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Yes. Has Brad asked for preliminary responses? Can we actually respond in writing within the allotted 30 days? If we can, I think we should do so. From: . I. (USAFLS) Sent: Frida 06, 2012 2:42 PM To: M, (USAFLS); , (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Am I authorized to talk through the Requests for Admissions with Brad and give him my preliminary responses? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:36 PM EFTA00206085 To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue and M, Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don't agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule. My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks. From: (USAFLS) Sen ic ye :a JanuLy16,_2012 2:24 PM To: MI (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." Cassell's concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the "the movant or applicant." Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be "serve[d] on all parties and any affected non- parties!' The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to "initial discovery," my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don't recall any representation that we would provide "a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners'] motion to dismiss is denied," or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree. • From: IMI I. (USAFLS) Sert ia , , Jant. 06, 2012 12:37 PM To: (USAFLS); IM, (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Hi and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: EFTA00206086 DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12th. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206087 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: I. (USAFLS) < Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 9:39 AM To: USAFLS) (USAFLS) Subject: My active items summary Attachments: Case Status Reporting Form December 2011.wpd I II I Sony, I meant to send this out last night, too. «Case Status Reporting Form December 2011.wpd>> Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) < Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:42 PM To: M (USAFLS); , (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Am I authorized to talk through the Requests for Admissions with Brad and give him my preliminary responses? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax EFTA00206088 From: IMI, (USAFLS) Sen icila, Janita 06, 2012 2:36 PM To: (USAFLS); . I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue and M, Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don't agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule. My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks. From: (USAFLS) Sen i(:yf la JanuLry16,_2012 2:24 PM To: MM, MI (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." Cassell's concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the "the movant or applicant." Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be "serve[d] on all parties and any affected non- parties!" The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to "initial discovery," my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don't recall any representation that we would provide "a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners'] motion to dismiss is denied," or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree. • From: MI I. (USAFLS) Senit ia, Jar.Jari06, 2012 12:37 PM To: , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Hi and EFTA00206089 There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12th. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. EFTA00206090 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) < Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 6:32 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jane Doe litigation Were either of you able to confirm that these plaintiffs are our petitioners? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda January 04, 2012 08:26 PM To: , = I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Doe litigation Can you confirm that the plaintiffs in the cases cited below are the petitioners in our CVRA matter? First Am. Compl. 11132-33, Doei Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA ("assert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 . § 2255] and the [Non- Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Compl. 11119-20, L.M. U Epstein, Case No. 09- 81092-CIV-Cohn (asserting that plaintiff was "covered by" provisions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the government and Epstein and that Epstein was thus "estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged in [the] Complaint, and must effectively admit liability to the Plaintiff, L.M., including admitting liability for all counts enumerated in this Complaint") Thanks, EFTA00206091 • From: M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:49 PM To: M• (USAFLS); I , (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue I can only respond within 30 days based upon my own knowledge. Someone needs to gather information from DC and figure out what happened within the Miami office. So, no, I do not believe that we can answer within the allotted time. But we can at least provide some "preliminary" discovery. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sen icyla, Januaiyi61_2012 2:45 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Yes. Has Brad asked for preliminary responses? Can we actually respond in writing within the allotted 30 days? If we can, I think we should do so. From: (USAFLS) Sent: FricEanuary 06, 2012 2:42 PM To: M, (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Am I authorized to talk through the Requests for Admissions with Brad and give him my preliminary responses? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00206092 Fax From: U, (USAFLS) Sen t ida M06, 2012 2:36 PM To: (USAFLS); I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery Issue and Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don't agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule. My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks. From: (USAFLS) Sen icyl la JanuLy16/_2012 2:24 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a "motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days" and none is a "motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing." Cassell's concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the "the movant or applicant." Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be "serve[d] on all parties and any affected non- parties." The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to "initial discovery," my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don't recall any representation that we would provide "a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners'] motion to dismiss is denied," or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree. • From: IMI I. (USAFLS) Sen icla, Jan iiii06, 2012 12:37 PM To: , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue EFTA00206093 Hi • and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January 12th. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell's email, I don't recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex's records back from Archives (I don't know if Matt or Andy's materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG's offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. EFTA00206094 This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 1:10 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Lavecchio, (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein FYI - I assume they are trying to get some information on Brad Edwards. Larry — are you handling this? I will be out next week. and are handling the Epstein matter, so can you keep them up to date on this? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: Sen Kyla, December 09, 2011 11:22 AM To: I. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein EFTA00206095 Endless... From: Sen • To: Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=12025349915688deffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.118‘src=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epstein°/020lawyers%20want%20to%20deposec/020Scote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: (USAFLS) < Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:13 PM To: Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday 11:15 a.m. is also good for me. EFTA00206096 From: Brad Edwards [mailto ] Sent: Thursday, December , To: Paul Cassell; i M I. (USAFLS); Cc: M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday 11:15 is good for me. Brad Edwards Civil Justice Attorney Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: Facsimile: Toll-free: 1 www.pathtojustice.com f logo Become our fan on Facebook P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. (USAFLS) IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Please note that the views expressed herein or in any attachments hereto are not intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable Treasury Regulations, and accordingly are not intended or written to be used, and may not be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. EFTA00206097 NOTICE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TOLL FREE AND DELETE THE MATERIAL FROM ANY COMPUTER. THANK YOU. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: , = USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards'', (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone conference call or set up a call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad — can y'all initiate the Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul EFTA00206098 CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: I. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • EFTA00206099 Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:( Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah EFTA00206100 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' , • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS); $ Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: EFTA00206101 (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Ema http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or EFTA00206102 copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Brad Edwards < Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:04 PM To: Paul Cassell; • (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday 11:15 is good for me. Brad Edwards Civil Justice Attorney Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: Facsimile: Toll-free: 1 www.pathtojustice.com f logo Become our fan on Facebook P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. (USAFLS) IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Please note that the views expressed herein or in any attachments hereto are not intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable Treasury Regulations, and accordingly are not intended or written to be used, and may not be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. EFTA00206103 NOTICE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TOLL FREE AND DELETE THE MATERIAL FROM ANY COMPUTER. THANK YOU. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: ) Sent: Thursda ,December 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: , = USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards'', (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone conference call or set up a call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad — can y'all initiate the Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul EFTA00206104 CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: I. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • EFTA00206105 Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah EFTA00206106 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' , • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS); $ Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: EFTA00206107 (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or EFTA00206108 copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Paul Cassell < Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone conference call or set up a call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad — can y'all initiate the Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or EFTA00206109 copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: I. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office EFTA00206110 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [t J1 Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 EFTA00206111 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' , • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS);' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; EFTA00206112 (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206113 From: Maria Kelljchian <maria@pathtojustice.com> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:55 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; 'Paul Cassell' Subject: JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOM vs. US Attachments: Doe_1st_Req4Admissions_to_US.pdf Please see attached. Mailed out today. Thank you, Maria Maria W. Kelljchian Florida Registered Paralegal Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. f logo Become our fan on Facebook From: (USAFLS) <DLee@usa.doj.gov> To: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:38 PM Subject: Read: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? EFTA00206114 Your message To: M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:33:54 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:37:50 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:19 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi — I am going to have to call in from the Igloo at the courthouse. If you can send me an email with all the info, I would appreciate it. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:24 PM To: Paul Cassell; (USAFLS); Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Paul, (USAFLS) We will take care of the arrangements for tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. Thanks. EFTA00206115 From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: , = USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone conference call or set up a call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC as well as Brad — can y'all initiate the Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206116 From: I. (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 EFTA00206117 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edul Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu EFTA00206118 http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' , • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS); $ Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and EFTA00206119 (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) <ESanchezl@usa.doj.gov> EFTA00206120 From: M I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 20114:3 To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; M, ( US A F LS ) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. A. Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • EFTA00206121 Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edul Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah EFTA00206122 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: EFTA00206123 (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the EFTA00206124 person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: (USAFLS) Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:00 PM (USAFLS); (USAFLS) FW: JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE#2 vs. US Doe_1st_Req4Admissions_to_US.pdf Look what I received by email today! Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: Maria Kelljchian [mailtc ] Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 4:55 PM To: (USAFLS) , Cc: Brad Edwards; 'Paul Cassell' Subject: JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE#2 vs. US Please see attached. Mailed out today. Thank you, Maria Maria W. Kelljchian EFTA00206125 Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 fax f logo Become our fan on Facebook From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:24 PM To: Paul Cassell; • (USAFLS); Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Paul, We will take care of the arrangements for tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 4:59 PM To: , = USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards'', (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Conference call 11:15 AM Florida time - Friday Hi all, (USAFLS) EFTA00206126 Does 11:15 AM Florida time on Friday work? If so, please call my cell phone as well as Brad — can y'all initiate the conference call or set up a call in number? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: I. (USAFLS) [mailto Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 2:34 PM To: (USAFLS); Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi everyone — Sorry, I am having a very busy duty week. Tomorrow I have court at 9:00 probably until 11:00 and then again from 3:00 until 5:00. I have a debriefing at 1:00, but I should be able to step out after 1:30. So, 11:15 or 1:30 are best for me, but your schedules take priority. EFTA00206127 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • I. Sanchez Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: EFTA00206128 Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto Sent: Thursda ecember To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206129 Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. (USAFLS); sM, (USAFLS)' We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. EFTA00206130 Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) <ESanchezl@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:27 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Doe litigation Can you confirm that the plaintiffs in the cases cited below are the petitioners in our CVRA matter? EFTA00206131 First Am. Compl. ¶11132-33, Doet Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA cassert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 . § 2255] and the [Non- Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Compl. ¶1119-20, L.M. U Epstein, Case No. 09- 81092-CIV-Cohn (asserting that plaintiff was "covered by" provisions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the government and Epstein and that Epstein was thus "estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged in [the] Complaint, and must effectively admit liability to the Plaintiff, L.M., including admitting liability for all counts enumerated in this Complaint") Thanks, • From: (USAFLS)<AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:32 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 I think there may be at least one motion that is fully briefed that wasn't addressed at the hearing — Epstein's Motion to Intervene. I will look at the docket sheet and figure this out. I still think that we are beyond the 90 days + 14, so let me check. A. Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: , (USAFLS) Sent: Fridslanuary 06, 2012 10:52 AM To: M, (USAFLS); , M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Don't the 90-day notices only kick in after a motion is fully briefed? EFTA00206132 From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Frida , January 06, 2012 10:40 AM To: , USAFLS); Brad Edwards <bedwaraathtojustice.com> Cc: , (USAFLS); , I. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Hey As you know, we're happy to try and be accommodating. We would be glad to consent to additional time, but would ask in exchange for two things: 1. The various delays mean that several motions have now been (or will shortly be) pending for more than 90 days, triggering a 90 day report obligation under the local rules. We would trust you would be willing to file that with Judge Marra. 2. When we finished our telephone call with you some weeks back, Brad and I understood that we would be receiving (a) some initial discovery in the case and (b) a list of additional discovery that we could expect if your motion to dismiss is denied. But we have yet to receive anything at all regarding discovery. We would trust that you will carry through on what we understood you had agreed to in the telephone call. Again, we are happy to help - but would ask you to help us on these two points. Thanks! Paul Cassell Co-counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: EFTA00206133 Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578fflame=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: M, (USAFLS) [mailto Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:24 PM To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards Cc: , (USAFLS); M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012 Paul and Brad, Happy New Year. I need to ask if you have an objection to the government seeking a second enlargement of time, up to Tuesday, January 24, 2012, to file replies to the victims' two responses to the government's motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery, and responses to the victims' protective motion to compel and protective motion for remedies. is preparing for an evidentiary hearing in a 28 . 2255 motion, which is scheduled for January 24, 2012. I am scheduled to go to trial in a tort case sometime during the two week trial period commencing January 17, 2012. I have spent most of the prec, two weeks getting ready for the trial. My colleague • , with sporadic assistance from and I, will be preparing the responses and replies. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. EFTA00206134 From: , (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 11:00 AM To: , I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS = Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Shall we confer briefly at 1:30 to make sure we're on the same page and then call him? Is there any reason why we need to make this a scheduled conference call including Edwards, or should we just initiate the call to Cassell and let him decide if he wants to postpone it to bring in Edwards? From: . I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursdathecember 01, 2011 10:17 AM To: I , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Yes, I think we need to call him. Do you want to try for 1:30 since we have the time already set aside? A. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 10:15 AM To: , U. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States I just received a call from Bentley's assistant. Bentley is canceling today's conference call; he is feeling a little under the weather and is not coming into the office today. She told me that he will call me tomorrow to reschedule. Sorry. Given that it is unlikely that we are going to have a substantive discussion with Bentley this week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: Bentley, (USAFLM) EFTA00206135 Cc: I.(USAFLS); El; (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, • From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: Be ." , USAFLM) Cc: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Hi, M. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We ( Villafana, who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; M, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, • L Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 EFTA00206136 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 10:15 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States I just received a call from Bentley's assistant. Bentley is canceling today's conference call; he is feeling a little under the weather and is not coming into the office today. She told me that he will call me tomorrow to reschedule. Sorry. Given that it is unlikely that we are going to have a substantive discussion with Bentley this week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather. From: 'MI, (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: Ber .AUSAFLM) Cc: I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States EFTA00206137 We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: Ber .i t USAFLM) Cc: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein 8( Jane Doe I Enited States Hi, M. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We ( Villafalia, who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; M, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, • L Sanchez Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: EFTA00206138 E-mail: EFTA00206139 From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda ecember 01, 2011 10:15 AM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States I just received a call from Bentley's assistant. Bentley is canceling today's conference call; he is feeling a little under the weather and is not coming into the office today. She told me that he will call me tomorrow to reschedule. Sorry. Given that it is unlikely that we are going to have a substantive discussion with Bentley this week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: Bentle , USAFLM) Cc: I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, From: Sent: Tuesda To: Bentle Cc: (USAFLS) November 29, 2011 6:11 PM USAFLM) I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Hi, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non- Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. EFTA00206140 We (= Villafana, who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; M, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, I. Sanchez Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: From: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:25 PM To: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Governments position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. if the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; EFTA00206141 (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578‘name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:49 PM To: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Redacted Pleading Rather than Sealing the Entire Pleading Dear Mr. We haven't heard back from you on the issue regarding sealing of the Government's leading in the Epstein case. (See email below sent earlier this week.) I was hoping that you (or Ms. or Mr. IM) could get back to Brad and me quickly on this issue. As you know, we have a series of pleadings that we need to file on Monday. We are trying to understand the Government's position on sealing these pleadings. As you also know, we think there is absolutely no basis for sealing the majority of the Government's pleadings. We hope you agree so that we can move forward consensually, at least on this issue. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 EFTA00206142 Salt Lake City. UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:29 PM To: N. (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)'; (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Redacted Pleading Rather than Sealing the Entire Pleading Dear Mr. I am writing as co-counsel in the Jane Doe case. I understand that you are supervising the case for U.S. Attorney's Office there. I am writing to request that the Government file new, redacted copies of its currently pending motion to dismiss and motion for stay. As you may know, the Government has filed these two motions entirely under seal. Yet the vast bulk of both motions do not deal with any material that needs to be under seal. As you may know, Judge Marra has previously unsealed other pleadings in this case, recognizing the considerable public interest in the issues being discussed. As you also know, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have tried to work cooperatively with the Government wherever possible. For example, we earlier stipulated to proposed redactions of material proposed by Ms. to avoid disclosing information that she viewed as confidential. In light of all this, the victims are writing to inquire whether the Government would file a motion to place redacted copies of its two motions in the public court file in the case. Attached are two redacted pleadings that we believe remove all information that is properly subject to sealing to protect confidential grand jury material - but no more. Please let me know whether the Government is willing to move forward on that basis. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Sent: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:22 PM EFTA00206143 To: M I. (USAFLS); , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578‘name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday ecember 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' . M N. (USAFLS)'; 'I ll, (USAFLS)'; 'In (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00206144 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp©law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578‘name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: -(USAFLS) <ESanchezl@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:35 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Do you want to call us in my office? I still can't get through to your office. From: IMI I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursclgyamber 01, 2011 10:17 AM To: , (USAFLS); ill, (USAFLS) Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe l Enited States Yes, I think we need to call him. Do you want to try for 1:30 since we have the time already set aside? A. Villafaiia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00206145 week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: Be alliUSAFLILI) Cc: I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: AB / USAFLM) Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS) Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Hi, M. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under LEAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We ( Villafafia, who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; M, who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, L Sanchez EFTA00206146 From: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:00 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Am checking with Brad and will get back to you. P.S. We may need an extra 5 pages to reply to the government's motion to dismiss. Any objection? PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206147 From: (USAFLS) [mailto Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? I. Sanchez Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edul Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. EFTA00206148 Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' , • Cc: 'Brad Edwards' (USAFLS);' (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein EFTA00206149 Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00206150 Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) <ESanchezl@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:52 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Unfortunately, that doesn't work for us today. Can we set up a time for tomorrow? • I. Sanchez Counselor to the United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: E-mail: EFTA00206151 Original Message From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp@law.utah.eduj Sent: Thursda , December 01, 2011 2:22 PM To: , I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today? Hi and Co., Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line. Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate. He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work? Looking forward to chatting. PC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul EFTA00206152 CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. Original Message From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM To: ' (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS)' Cc: 'Brad Edwards' Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein Dear Mr. We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests -- discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government's position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government. If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following: (1) The Government's initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R 26; (2) Answers to all of the victims' requests for admission; (3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and (4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims' discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege. EFTA00206153 And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules? Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/defaultasp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00206154 EFTA00206155 From: Evelyn Sheehan [mailto:evelynbsheehan@gmail.corn] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:20 AM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=12025349915688Jeffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.118arc=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epstein%2Olawyers%20want%20to%20depose/020Scote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: -,_•. (USAFLS)<AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 1:10 PM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Thanks for the heads up. It is still going on and on and on for me. A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00206156 From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Sent: F -ic y la , December 09, 2011 11:22 AM To: I. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Endless... From: Evelyn Sheehan [mailto:evelynbsheehan@gmail.corn] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:20 AM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=12025349915688deffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.118‘src=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffre"20Epstein°/020lawyers%20want%20to%20deposec/020Scote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. EFTA00206157 Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: (USAFLS) <ESanchezl@usa.doj.gov> To: I. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 1:25 PM Subject: Read: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Your message To: (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 1:10:01 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, December 09, 2011 1:24:33 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) <esheehan@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:23 PM To: (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein That's nuts. Absolutely nuts. Facing similar nonsense in Rothstein and Tolz. Victims are eating each other alive while fighting for the pie of forfeited assets From: •. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 02:08 PM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein I know. I don't think it will ever go away. And I was just telling someone that I don't really ever want to do a victim case again. Paul Cassell is actually asking for sanctions in a 61° Circuit case against a PSC prosecutor because the Appellate Division in DC decided to take a different position on appeal than the USAO did in the district court and did not confer with the victim. And then, on remand, they are going to ask that same PSC prosecutor to go into court and argue for a $1 million restitution award! A. Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00206158 From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Sen ic niy, December 09, 2011 1:38 PM To: I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Really? That's nuts. So demoralizing From: (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 01:10 PM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Thanks for the heads up. It is still going on and on and on for me. A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00206159 From: Evelyn Sheehan [mailto:evelynbsheehan@gmail.corn] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:20 AM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=12025349915688Jeffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.118arc=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epstein%20lawyers%20want%20to%20depose/020Scote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: Lavecchio, (USAFLS) <LLavecchio@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:58 PM To: M I. (USAFLS); , (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein On December 2, attorney Joseph Ackerman contacted me in an attempt to get himself and Lily cleared to participate in the Rothstein deposition. I thereafter sent him the following message: Mr. Ackerman: EFTA00206160 Due to the late date of our request, I was unable to obtain clearance from the U S. Marshal's Service for you or Ms. to participate in the deposition of Scott Rothstein. Additionally, under the protocol established by Judge Ray, parties were required to obtain leave of the court in which litigation is pending to participate in the deposition and to cross-notice adverse parties. I am unaware as to whether that was done with reference to the Epstein litigation. I am copying this response to Chuck Lichtman, counsel to the Trustee in bankruptcy, who has largely organized this proceeding and who may be able to answer any other questions which you may have in this regard. Sincerely, Larry LaVecchio, AUSA Lichtman responded to Ackerman as follows: As I have explained, there will be a large number of parties already authorized to ask questions on discrete issues all of which are interrelated and will take nearly the full time allotted for the deposition. Everybody already feels they don't have enough allotted time for their respective cases. The topics to be discussed have nothing to do whatsoever with the claims existing regarding Jeffrey Epstein Under the circumstances, the Marshal's Service is not going to allow the admittance of Epstein's attorneys. From: ,M I. (USAFLS) Sent: F -ic i ia , December 09, 2011 1:10 PM To: , MISAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Cc: Lavecchio (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein FYI — I assume they are trying to get some information on Brad Edwards. Larry — are you handling this? I will be out next week. and are handling the Epstein matter, so can you keep them up to date on this? EFTA00206161 A. Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Sent:F -ic aiy, December 09, 2011 11:22 AM To: I. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Endless... From: Evelyn Sheehan [mailto:evelynbsheehan@gmail.corn] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:20 AM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=1202534991568&Jeffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.11&src=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epsteiec2Olawyers%20want%20to°/020deposeck2OScote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. EFTA00206162 Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: (USAFLS) <AVillafana@usa.doj.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:09 PM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein I know. I don't think it will ever go away. And I was just telling someone that I don't really ever want to do a victim case again. Paul Cassell is actually asking for sanctions in a 61° Circuit case against a PSC prosecutor because the Appellate Division in DC decided to take a different position on appeal than the USAO did in the district court and did not confer with the victim. And then, on remand, they are going to ask that same PSC prosecutor to go into court and argue for a $1 million restitution award! A. Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00206163 From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Sen -ic aiy, December 09, 2011 11:22 AM To: I. (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Endless. From: Evelyn Sheehan [mailto:evelynbsheehan@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:20 AM To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp? id=1202534991568&Jeffrey_Epstein_lawyers_want_to_depose_Scott_Rothstein=&et=editorial&bu=D aily%20Business%20Review&cn=12.09.11&src=EMC- Email&pt=Daily%20am&kw=Jeffrey%20Epstein°/020lawyers%20want%20to%20depose%20Scote/020 Rothstein &sl retu rn=1 Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein EFTA00206164 Lawyers for convicted billionaire Jeffrey Epstein will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to depose Ponzi scammer Scott Rothstein during his two-week deposition beginning next week. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale set the hearing on Epstein's arguments. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution following accusations that he had sex with girls, completed his year of house arrest last year. Epstein also is suing Rothstein and former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler attorney Bradley Edwards for allegedly filing a frivolous case. Rothstein's deposition begins Monday in Miami and is set to last through Christmas Eve with about 30 lawyers in line to question the former lawyer convicted of masterminding a $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud. Rothstein, who is in protective custody, is serving a 50-year sentence at an undisclosed location. From: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) <esheehan@usa.doj.gov> To: I. (USAFLS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:21 PM Subject: Read: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Your message To: Sheehan, Evelyn B. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:08:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, December 09, 2011 2:21:04 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). EFTA00206165