EFTA00179613

EFTA00179613 FOR PUBLICATION APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-73267 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC., Crime Victim. D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00089- JCM-GWF-1 STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC., Petitioner, v. OPINION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, Respondent, DEBORAH A. DIFRANCEScO, Defendant-Real Party in Interest, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada ing James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presid EFTA00179614 2 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. Submitted September 20, 2013* Filed September 26, 2013 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Milan D. Sm ith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion SUMMARY** Criminal Law A motions panel issued a per curiam opinio n denying a crime victim's petition for a writ of ma ndamus seeking reversal of the district court's denial of the victim's motion for forfeiture under the Crime Victims' Rig hts Act. The panel explained that the Crime Victim s' Rights Act and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Ac t give victims a right to restitution, not a right to crimina l forfeiture. The panel also explained that the Crime Vic tims' Rights Act expressly does not impair the government's broad discretion to seek forfeiture of assets implicated in an offender's wire fraud. * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). This summary constitutes no part of the opin ion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenienc e of the reader. EFTA00179615 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. 3 COUNSEL Kenneth P. Childs, Stake Center Locating, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Olson White, Appellate Chief and Assistant United States Attorney, District of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest. Mark B. Bailus, Bailus Cook & Kelesis, Ltd., Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendant-Real Party in Interest. OPINION PER CURIAM: Petitioner Stake Center Locating, Inc. ("Stake Center") petitions for a writ of mandamus reversing the district court's denial of its motion for forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA").1 In the underlying criminal action, Deborah DiFrancesco, a former employee of Stake Center, was charged with crimes stemming from her embezzlement of funds from Stake Center and other victims, and pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Pursuant to her plea agreement, DiFrancesco agreed to make restitution to Stake ' Stake Center previously petitioned this court for mandamus, and we denied this petition as premature. See Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court (lit re Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc.), 717 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The district court has now completed sentencing DiFrancesco, and Stake Center's renewed petition is properly before us. EFTA00179616 4 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. Center in the amount of $763,846. Stake Center moved the district court to compel the government to institute criminal forfeiture proceedings and to obtain property allegedly traceable to DiFrancesco's crimes and thus subject to forfeiture from third parties. The district court denied this motion. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). In reviewing a CVRA mandamus petition, we need not balance the usual factors under Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977), but rather "must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court's order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit a legal error in denying Stake Center's motion for forfeiture. First, the CVRA and Mandatory Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA") give victims a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The CVRA provides that a crime victim has the "right to full and timely restitution as provided in law." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA") requires that a "defendant make restitution to the victim" of certain offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Criminal forfeiture is not, as petitioner contends, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restitution, not third parties. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (b)(1) (requiring that "defendant make restitution" and "defendant" return property). EFTA00179617 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. 5 Nor did the district court err in declining to order the U.S. Attorneys' Office to commence criminal forfeiture proceedings against the Internal Revenue Service and other non-parties alleged to possess assets implicated in DiFrancesco's criminal activities. Contrary to Stake Center's argument, forfeiture is mandatory for wire fraud only if the government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United States v. Liquidators ofEuropean Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.").2 Accordingly, Stake Center's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. DENIED. 2 Because we decide this issue on these grounds, we do not reach the other arguments advanced by the government why forfeiture proceedings cannot be commenced in this case. EFTA00179618 EFTA00179619 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES G OF OBJECTIONS TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE OF FILIN PRIVLEGE LOG to as "the victims"), by and COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred objections to the Government's two through undersigned counsel, to give notice of their filing of ed hereto. The victims are filing privilege logs (DE 212 and DE 216). The objections are attach ction of the materials at issue. these objections concurrently with a motion to compel produ DATED: August 16.2013 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad©pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 1 EFTA00179620 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 3 S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: eassellp©law.utah.edu Attorneysfor Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 2 EFTA00179621 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee®usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoi.gov Attorneysfor the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perezek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading®royblack.com (305) 37106421 Jay P. Leflcowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw®att.net (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counselfor Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 3 EFTA00179622 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Docket 08116/2013 Page 2 of 70 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Production of Docments that Are Not Privileged) Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Abbreviation Objection General Objections — Inadequate Log Inadequate Privilege Log No Factual Underpinnings Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver Waiver of Confidentiality Fiduciary Duty Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege ed Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Cover Factual Materials Factual Materials Not Covered Not in Anticipation of Litigation Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Government Communication Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered No Attorney-Client Relationship Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Improper Invocation Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Overriding Need ments Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Docu Investigative Privilege - Improper Invocation Privilege Not Properly Invoked Overriding Need the Documents Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for Work Product Doctrine Claims Against Public Prosecutor Prosecutors No Work Product Doctrine in the Context of a Claim Against Public Overriding Need Docu ments Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Attorney Conduct at Issue Conduct is at Issue Work Production Privilege Does No Apply When the Attorney's Rule 6(e) Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E) Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule 6(eX3)(E) Court Inherent Power to Release The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury Materials Proper Victim's Petition Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Grand Jury CVRA-authorized release Materials The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Page 1 of 69 EFTA00179623 ease 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 70 Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials Material Severable The Privacy Rights of Other Victims Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims Redaction No Assertion by Victims Privacy Act The Privacy Act Does Not Apply to Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery Court-Compelled Disclosure Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ 6(e) P-000001 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence Work Product thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of related to various grand jury subpoenas and P4)00039 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Overriding Need Box #1 Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e) P-000040 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing subpoenas OLY-01 through Work Product thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in OLY-81, correspondence and research Contains documents P-000549 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper related to enforcement of same, documents subject to investigative Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against produced in response to some subpoenas; privilege Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes Also contains documents Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under subject to privacy rights of 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; victims who are not Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized parties to this litigation release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims; Overriding Need Page 2 of 69 EFTA00179624 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 70 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash Contains information Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-000550 SW" containing copies of a sealed search of Litigation; Improper application, warrant, and subject to investigative Anticipation thru warrant Invocation; Overriding Need ; Factual supporting documents privilege P-000621 r 6(e)(3)(E); Also contains information Materials; Court Authorized Unde Powe r to Relea se; Proper subject to privacy rights of Court Inherent Victim's Petition; CVRA -autho rized release; victims who are not parties to this litigation Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "PNY Technologies 6(e) Contains information Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-000622 Compact Flash SW" containing copies of a Anticipation of Litigation; Improper thru sealed search warrant application, warrant, subject to investigative privilege Invocation; Overriding Need ; Factual P-000693 and supporting documents Under 6(e)(3)(E); Also contains information Materials; Court Authorized se; Proper subject to privacy tights of Court Inherent Power to Relea Victim's Petition; CVRA -autho rized release; victims who are not parties to this litigation Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of containing attorney research on Epstein- Contains information P-000694 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding thru owned corporations and prior litigation subject to investigative privilege Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P-000781 Attorney Conduct at Issue; Overriding Need 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "Capital One" Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court P-000782 containing subpoena and correspondence Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent thru Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; P-000803 CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 3 of 69 EFTA00179625 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "DTG 6(e) P-000804 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car" containing Contains documents and thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in subpoena and responsive documents information subject to P-000854 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper investigative privilege Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Also contains documents Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); and information subject to Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper privacy rights of victims Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized releas who are not parties to this e; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion litigation by Victims Box #1 File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-000855 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains documents thru and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of responsive documents information subject to P-000937 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding investigative privilege Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- Box #1 authorized release; Material Severable File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" 6(e) P-000938 containing subpoena, correspondence, and Contains docum Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; ents and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of thru responsive documents information subject to P-000947 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding investigative privilege Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victiit's Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Box #1 File folder entitled "Computer Search &" Work Product P-000948 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing legal research on computer Attorney-Client thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in search and handwritten notes on indictment Contains information P-000982 Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary preparation subject to investigative Government Communication; No Attorney- privilege. Also contains Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; information subject to Overriding Need; Claims Against Public privacy rights of victims Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; who are not parties to this Redaction; No Assertion by Victim s litigation Page 4 of 69 EFTA00179626 6 of 70 FL SD Docket 08/1612013 Page Document 224-1 Entered on Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Underpinnings; Bates Range Description Wo rk pro duc t Inadequate Log; No Factual tes from als; Not in Box #1 File folder entitled "Attorney No 6(e ) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materi typed and Litigation ; Improper P-000983 Document Review" containing Co nta ins inf orm atio n Anticipation of Against aila) notes, tion; Overriding Need; Claims thru handwritten attorney (Villaf subjec t to inv est iga tive Inv oca ct at Issue; grand jury c Prosecutor, Attorney Condu P-001007 target letters, correspondence re privilege. Also contains Publi tho rize d Under subpoena information subject to Factual Materials; Court Au se; ); Court Inherent Power to Relea privacy rights of victims 6(eX3)(E tim's Petition; CVRA-authorized per Vic who are not parties to this Pro daction; No litigation release; Material Severable; Re Assertion by Victims Underpinnings; Wo rk Pro duc t Inadequate Log; No Factual Ex terials; Not in Box #1 File folder entitled "Notes fro m Fed ) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Ma and typed 6(e Litigation; Improper P-001008 Records" containing handwritten Conta ins inf orm atio n An tici pat ion of Claims Against screen shots Invocation; Overriding Need; thru attorney (Villafaila) notes and sub jec t to inv est iga tive Issue; of FedEx subpoena response ele ctronic file Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at P-001056 privilege. Also contains Public Materials; Court Authorized Under information subject to Factual se; hts of vic tim s 6(e X3 )(E ); Co urt Inherent Power to Relea privacy rig -authorized per Victim's Petition; CVRA who are not parties to this Pro Redaction; No litigation release; Material Severable; Assertion by Victims Underpinnings; 6(e ) Inadequate Log; No Factual of File folder entitled "Colo nial Bank orm atio n Fid uci ary Duty; Not in Anticipation Box #1 Conta ins inf g 05 7 Re cor ds" con tain ing records received in est iga tive Lit iga tion ; Im proper Invocation; Overridin P401 subject to inv urt Authorized thru response to grand jury subpoena privilege Need; Factual Materials; Co nt Power to P-001959 Under 6(eX3XE); Court Inhere ition; CVRA- Release; Proper Victim's Pet erable authorized release; Material Sev Page 5 of 69 EFTA00179627 L./own-tent a4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pa ge 7 of 70 Bates Range Description Box #1 File folder entitled "OLY Grand PrivideRe(s) Asserted Victims' Objections P-001960 Jury Log 6(e) Vol 2: OLY-51 THROUGH" Inadequate Log; No Factual Thru con taining Contains information Underpinnings; subpoenas numbered OLY-51 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materi P-002089 thr ough subject to investigative als; Not in OLY-81 with related correspon Anticipation of Lit iga dence privilege. Also contains Inv tion ; Improper ocation; Overriding Need; information subject to Materials; Court Authorized Un Factual privacy rights of victims Co der 6(e)(3)(E); urt Inherent Power to Relea who are not parties to this Vic se; Proper tim's Petition; CVRA-authorize litigation d release; Material Severable; Redaction Box #1 ; No Assertion File folder entitled "Epstein by Victims P402090 Co rpo rate 6(e) Records: OLY-51, OLY-52, Inadequate Log; No Factual Thru OLY-53, Contains information Underpinnings; OLY-54" containing subpoenas and Fiduciary Duty; Not P-002169 , rec ord s documents subject to in An ticipation of received in response to sub Litigation; Improper Invocation poenas, and investigative privilege ; Overriding related correspondence Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inh erent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Pet Box #1 ition; CVRA- File folder entitled "Colonia aut horized release; Material Severa P-002170 l Ba nk" 6(e) ble containing subpoenas, corres Inadequate Log; No Factual pon den ce Contains information and Un Thru related to subpoenas, records rec eiv Fiduciary Duty; Not in An derpinnings; P402246 ed in doc um ents subject to ticipation of response to subpoenas Litigation; Improper Invocation investigative privilege ; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Co urt Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inh erent Release; Proper Victim's Petitio Power to Box #1 n: CVRA- File folder entitled "JEGE & authorized release; Material Sev P-002247 Hy per ion 6(e) era ble from Goldberger OLY-46 & Inadequate Log; No Factual Thru OL Y- 47" Co nta ins information and Fiduciary Underpinnings; containing documents received in Duty; Not in Anticipation P-002265 res pon se documents subject to of to subpoenas Litigation; Improper Invocation investigative privilege ; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inh erent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Pet ition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Sev erable Page 6 of 69 EFTA00179628 e 8 of 70 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections gs; Bates Range Description con tain ing: Wo rk prod uct Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Indictment preparation bind er in Box #1 /act ivity 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not P-002266 Grand jury subpoena log, evidence s information and Anticipation of Litigation; Improper witn ess/ vict im nam es and Con tain ms Against Thru summary chart, ume nts subj ect to Invocation; Overriding Need; Clai rney (Vil lafa fia) doc e; P-002386 contact list, atto of state inve stig ativ e priv ileg e. Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issu handwritten notes, 302s, portions con tains information Factual Materials; Cou rt Authorized Under file, atto rney (Vil lafa fia) Also to Release; investigative als liste d as and doc ume nts subj ect to 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power typed notes, of indi vidu A-authorized priv acy righ ts of victims Proper Victim's Petition; CVR "Additional victims" Severable who are not parties to this release; Material litigation gs; ing: Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Indictm ent prep arat ion bind er con tain Mat eria ls; Not in Box #1 /act ivity 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Grand jury subpoen a log, evid ence of Litigation; Imp rope r P-002387 and Con tain s info rma tion and Anticipation summary chart, witness/vict im nam es inst Thru (Vil lafa fta) doc uments subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Aga list, atto rney Con duc t at Issu e; P-002769 contact of state inve stiga tive privilege. Public Prosecutor; Attorney handwritten note s, 302 s, port ions ls; Court Authori zed Und er Also contains information Factual Materia investigative file, attorney (Villafafia) ume nts subj ect to 6(e)(3)(E); Cou Inherent Power to Rele rt ase; gran d jury and doc typed notes, relevant pieces of rights of victims Proper Victim's Petition ; CVRA-authorized ne reco rds/ fligh t reco rds priv acy Redaction; No materials, telepho are not part ies to this release; Material Severable; charts, vict im/w itne ss who analysis litigation Assertion by Victims pho togr aph s, DA VID reco rds, NCI Cs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses Page 7 of 69 EFTA00179629 Labe v.vo-CV-ou db-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 70 Bates Range Description Box #1 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Indictment preparation binder containing: P-002770 Wor k prod uct Inad equate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; witness/victim list with identifying Thru information, sexual activity summary, 6(e) Fidu ciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not Contains information and Anticipation in P-003211 telephone call summary chart, attorney of Litigation; Imp roper documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against (Villafazia) handwritten notes, 302s, investigative privilege. Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issu portions of state investigative file, attorney e; Also contains information Redaction; No Ass (Villafiula) typed notes, relevant pieces of ertion by Victims and documents subject to grand jury materials, telephone privacy rights of victims records/flight records analysis charts, who are not parties to this victim/witness photographs, DAVID litigation records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 Box #1 Indictment preparation binder containing P-003212 Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin meta-analysis charts of gs; Thru telephone/flight/grand jury information for 6(e) Fidu ciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-003545 Contains information and Anticipation a number of • • • of Litigation; Improper Nadia documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Aga Marcinkova, and inst investigative privilege. Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issu Also contains information Factual Mat e; erials; Court Authorized Under and documents subject to 6(eX3)(E); Cou rt Inherent Power to Release; privacy rights of victims Proper Victim' s Petition; CVRA-authorized who are not parties to this release; Material Severable; Redaction; No litigation Assertion by Victims Page 8 of 69 EFTA00179630 nt 224-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections gs; Bates Range Description Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-003546 additional witness/victim located in New info rmation and Anticipation of Litigatio n; Imp rope r Con tain s inst Thru York documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Aga Issue; P-003552 investigative privilege. Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at hori zed Und er Also contains information Factual Materials; Court Aut Rele ase; and documents subject to 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to rized privacy rights of victims Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-autho le; Red acti on; No who are not parties to this release; Material Severab litigation Assertion by Victims nnings; Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpi Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Ant icip atio n of s P-003553 subpoena response with Attorney notation Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecut or; Issue; Thru Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at hori zed Und er P-003555B Factual Materials; Court Aut Rele ase; 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to rized Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-autho release; Material Severable nnings; " Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpi Box #1 Document entitled "Identified Numbers 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio n of P-003556 with accompanying handwritten attorney s information Litigation; Improper Invo catio n; Ove rrid ing and Con tain Thru list compiled from grand jury materials inve stigative Need; Claims Against Public Pros ecut or; subject to ls; P-003562 attorney analysis of records privilege Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materia 6(e) (3)( E); Cou rt Court Authorized Under Vic tim' s Inherent Power to Release; Proper erial Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Mat Severable Page 9 of 69 EFTA00179631 Lase sus-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 -1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 70 Page 11of Bates Range Description Box # I Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" P403563 containing manifests received pursuant to 6(e) Inad equate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Con tain s info rma tion gs; Thru grand jury subpoena and Fidu ciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-003629 documents subject to Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overrid investigative privilege ing Need; Factual Materials; Court Authori zed Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVR A- Box #1 File folder entitled "Recent Attorney authorized release; Material Severable P-003630 Wor k prod uct Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Notes" containing handwritten attorney gs; Thru (Villafalla) notes regarding document 6(e) Fidu ciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-003633 Investigative privilege Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overrid review and case strategy ing Deliberative process Need; Claims Against Public Prosecut or, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Mat erials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim' s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Mat erial Box #1 File folder bearing victim name containing Severable P-003634 FBI interview report from May 200 Wor k prod uct Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin 8, Attorney-client privilege Fiduciary Dut gs; Thru telephone activity report with attorney y; Factual Materials; Not in P-003646 (Villafanafia) handwritten notes, related 6(e) Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Investigative privilege Gov ernment Communication; No Attorney grand jury material - Also contains information Client Relation ship; Improper Invocation; and documents subject to Overriding Need; Claims Against Public privacy rights of victims Prosecutor, Atto rney Conduct at Issue; Factual who are not parties to this Materials; Cou rt Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); litigation Court Inherent Power to Release; Prop er Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized rele ase; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertio n by Victims Page 10 of 69 EFTA00179632 nt 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections nnings; Bates Range Description ual Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpi Box III File folder entitled "Summary of Sex 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materia ls; Not in containing char t bear ing Litigation; Imp rope r P-003647 Activity" Anticipation of — Investigative privilege Thru handwritten title "Sexual Activity Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against meta-analysis of Deliberative process duct at Issue; P-003651 Summary" with each Also contains information Public Prosecutor; Attorney Con information, sorted by nam e of Under and and documents subject to Factual Materials; Court Authorized victim/witness, including name 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; information of each privacy rights of victims A-a utho rized identifying who are not parties to this Proper Victim's Petition; CVR n; No victim/witness litigation release; Material Severable; Redactio Assertion by Victims Not privileged. N/A Box #1 File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" Produced to counsel for P-003652 Petitioners Thru nnings; P-003663 JE Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpi Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio n of P-003664 Websites" containing attorney research Litigation; Claims Against Public Pros ecutor; at Issu e Thru Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct nnings; P-003678 . Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpi Box #1 File folder entitled "Serene Cano (N.Y Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio n of fia) P-003679 AUSA)" containing attorney (Villafa Litigation; Claims Against Public Pros ecut or; Issue Thru handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at ual Und erpi nnings; P-003680 er" Work product Inadequate Log; No Fact Box #1 File folder entitled "Dr. Anna Salt Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticip atio n of mem o to Investigative privilege rriding P-003681 containing attorney (Villafafla) Litigation; Improper Invocation; Ove rney Thru expert witness and handwritten atto Need; Claims Against Pub lic Pros ecutor; P-003687 notes Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 11 of 69 EFTA00179633 too-KARA Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 70 Bates Range Description Box #1 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections File folder entitled "ID GO Interview" P-003688 Work product Inad equate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing attorney handwritten notes of Thru Inve stig ativ e priv ileg e Fidu ciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in interview, and attorney handwritten notes P-003693 Also contains information Anticipation regarding potential charges of Litigation; Improper subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Ove rriding Need; Claims Against victims who are not Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issu part ies to this litig atio e; Box #1 File folder entitled "Research re Travel for n Redaction; No Assertion by Victims P-003694 Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Prostitution" containing attorney gs; Thru (Villafafta) handwritten notes regarding 6(e) Fidu ciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not Investigative privilege in P-003711 grand jury presentation, chart entitled Also Anticipation of Litigation; Imp rope contains information Invocation; Overrid r "Brought to Epstein's House" with ing Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecut handwritten notes, Message Pad meta- or, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Mat analysis chart, summary of evidence eria ls; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3XE); Cou related to one victim/witness, and relevant rt Inherent Power to Release; grand jury information litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorize d release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #1 Empty file folder bearing name of Assertion by Victims P-003712 Inve stig ativ e priv ileg e N/A victim/witness Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victim who is not a party Box #1 to this litigation File folder entitled "TO MO" containing P-003713 grand jury subpoenas, motion and order to 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Doc ume nts und er seal gs; Thru compel testimony, and correspondence Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Cou pursuant to court order rt P-003746 regarding same Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inhe rent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Peti tion; Box #1 File folder entitled CVRA-authorized release; Material Severab 6(e) le P-003747 containing subpoena and correspondence Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin gs; Thru regarding same Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court P-003751 Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inhe rent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition ; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severab le Page 12 of 69 EFTA00179634 Page 14 of Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections gs; Bates Range Description 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Box #1 File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative Fiduciary Duty; Factual Mat eria ls; Not in Investigative privilege r P-003752 File" obtained via subpoena Anticipation of Litigation; Imp rope Also contains information ual Thru and documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Fact Und er 6(eX 3XE ); P-004295 privacy rights of victims Materials; Court Authorized Prop er who are not parties to this Court Inherent Power to Release; ase; litigation Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized rele on; No Ass ertio n Material Severable; Redacti by Victims gs; im/w itne ss Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin File folder bear ing nam e of vict eria ls; Not in Box #1 show ing 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Mat containing meta-analys is char t of Litigation; Imp rope r P-004296 jury Investiga tive priv ileg e Anticipation telephone calls, travel, and gran d ing Need; Claims Against Thru char ges Also contains information Invocation; Overrid P404350 materials rele van t to poss ible or; Attorney Conduct at Issue; and documents subject to Public Prosecut Court Authorized Under privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; rt Inherent Power to Release; who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Cou d litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorize acti on; No release; Material Severable; Red Assertion by Victims gs; zale z Wo rk product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin tled "Da niel Gon n of Box #1 File folder enti tain ing Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio 53909-004" con or; P-004351 Documents e Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecut rese arch rela ted to bias issu duc t at Issu e Thu attorney Overriding Need; Attorney Con gs; P-004381 tain ing 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin File Folder entitled "FEDEX" con n of Box #1 a Inve stiga tive privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio ined via subp oen Ove rrid ing P-004382 documents obta Litigation; Improper Invocation; hori zed Thru Need; Factual Materials; Court Aut er to P-004478 Under 6(e)(3XE); Court Inherent Pow Release; Proper Victim's Peti tion ; CVR A- authorized release; Material Severable Page 13 of 69 EFTA00179635 air VO-CV-dU fib -KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of 70 Bates Range Description Box #1 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections File Folder entitled "State of Delaware P-004479 Records" containing documents obtained 6(e) Inadequate Log No Factual Underpi Investigative privilege nnings; Thru in preparation for indictment Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipatio Work product n of P404551 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overrid ing Need; Claims Against Public Prosecut or; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX 3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Vic tim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Mat erial Box #1 File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" Severable P-004552 containing documents obtained via 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Work product gs; Thru subpoena Fidu ciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-004555 Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecut or; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Mat erials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Cou rt Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-autho rized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #1 File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT Assertion by Victims P-004556 Investigative privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin RECORDS" containing FDLE records on gs; Thru targets and witnesses obtained at attorney Wo rk prod uct Fidu ciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-004560 request Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overridi ng Need; Claims Against Public Pros ecutor, Box #1 Filed folder Attorney Conduct at Issue entitled "JANUSZ Work product P-004561 BANASIAK" containing Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin attorney Investigative privilege gs; Thru (Villafafla) handwritten notes of interview Fidu ciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-004565 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Ove rriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecut • or; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 14 of 69 EFTA00179636 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "JANUSZ BANASIAK Work product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-004566 RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" of Litigation; Improper Investigative privilege Anticipation Thru containing documents obtained via Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P-004716 subpoena Also contains information and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under se; who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Relea litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "IGOR ZINOVIEV" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of containing attorney research regarding Investigative privilege P-004717 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru witness Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-004722 Attorney Conduct at Issue Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of RESEARCH" containing attorney research Investigative privilege P-004723 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru regarding potential witness and subpoena Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P-004725 recipient Attorney Conduct at Issue entitled "LAWSUITS Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder EPSTEIN CORP'S" Investigative privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-004726 INVOLVING ey resear ch regarding Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru containing attorn Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P-004819 Epstein's past personal and business Attorney Conduct at Issue litiLative practices Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of containing attorney research regarding Investigative privilege P-004820 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru Epstein financial relationships Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-004959 Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 15 of 69 EFTA00179637 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "Message Pads" Work Product P-004960 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing selected items from evidence 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege P-005059 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #1 Assertion by Victims File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work Product P-005060 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing correspondence with counsel 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in for victim/witness, attorney witness outline Investigative privilege P-005081 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper with attorney handwritten notes, attorney Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; handwritten notes regarding witness Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct reports and case preparation at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Autho rized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Powe r to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #1 Assertion by Victims File folder entitled "New York Trip" Work product P-005082 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing attorney notes re witness Investigative privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of interview P-005083 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-005084 thru P-005107 are non N/A responsive documents and have been removed Page 16 of 69 EFTA00179638 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log; Fiduciary Duty; Factual File folder entitled "ANNA SALTER" Work product Box #1 Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; containing attorney research on select Investigative privilege P-005108 Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Thu expert, use of experts at trials in child Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct P-005193 exploitation cases, and additional research at Issue materials on offenders and victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "Extra Copies" Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in 6(e) P-005194 containing meta-analysis chart and 302's of Anticipation of Litigation; Improper victim/witnesses used in preparing Investigative privilege Thru Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim Against s P-005300 indictment package Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; and documents subject to privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "JUAN ALESSI Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of STATEMENT" containing transcript Investigative privilege P-005301 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru obtained via subpoena Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized P-005331 Under 6(e)(3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled "KEN LANNING" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of containing attorney research on select Investigative privilege P-005332 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru expert, including attorney handwritten Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P405341 notes Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 17 of 69 EFTA00179639 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "Info re Planes" 6(e) P-005342 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing correspondence regarding Investigative privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Improper Invocation; subpoenas and documents received in P-005387 Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court response to subpoenas Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; Box #1 CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC Work product P-005388 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Affidavit" containing portions of police Thru 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in reports with attorney notes, related phone Investigative privilege P-005442 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper records, a list entitled "Victims" with Also contains inform ation Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against identifying information and attorney and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; handwritten notes, photographs and privacy rights of victim s Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under DAVID information, and additional who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; attorney research regarding Epstein sexual litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized activity release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #1 File folder entitled "[Victim name] 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005443 Transcript of Interview & G.T Transcript" Investigative privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Also contains information Anticipation of Litigation; P-005496 Improper and documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual privacy rights of victims Materials; Court Authorized Unde r 6(e)(3)(E); who are not parties to this Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper litigation Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #1 File folder entitled "Bear Stearns Subpoena 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005497 Resp." containing material received in Investigative privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of response to subpoena P-005556 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Page 18 of 69 EFTA00179640 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005557 Jacket containing file opening documents, Deliberative process Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru expert witness payment documents Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005576 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #1 U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005578 Case File Jacket containing file opening Deliberative process Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru and file closing documents Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005583 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #1 File folder entitled "6001 Immunity 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005584 Request" containing internal memoranda Work product and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Ulm seeking witness immunity and deliberative process (as to Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005605 correspondence with counsel for witness internal memoranda) Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; regarding same Investigative privilege Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Also contains information Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court and documents subject to Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's privacy rights of victims Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material who are not parties to this Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by litigation Victims Box #2 File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005607 RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru all phone, travel, and grand jury data for all P-005914 victim/witnesses for indictment preparation Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 19 of 69 EFTA00179641 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 Victims' Objections File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product P-005915 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-005977 victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product P-005978 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thsu travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege P-006050 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Again st and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-006051 containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege P-006065 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Again st and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 20 of 69 EFTA00179642 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-006066 containing meta-analysis of all phone, of Litigation; Improper Investigative privilege Anticipation Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P-006220 victim/witness for indictment preparation and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled ""JANE DOE #12" Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) P-006221 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege iding Need ; Claim s Against P-006222 victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information Invocation; Overr uct at Issue; and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Cond rized Under privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Autho r to Release; who are not parties to this 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Powe litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA -authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "CORRECTED Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-006223 PHONE RECORDS 5/31/0? containing 6(e) Improper Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Thru meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and Claim s Against P-006522 grand jury data related to all Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Conduct at Issue; victims/witnesses for indictment and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney ials; Court Autho rized Under preparation privacy rights of victims Factual Mater se; who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Powe to Relea r litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 21 of 69 EFTA00179643 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-006523 Records" containing telephone records 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru received in response to subpoena Investigative privilege P-006802 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #2 Assertion by Victims File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Work product P-006803 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Phone Numbers" containing charts of 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in information culled from grand jury Investigative privilege P-006860 materials, Anticipation of Litigation; Improper interviews, and other Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against investigation, with attorney handwritten and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; notes, and information to issue follow-up privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under grand jury subpoena who are not parties to this 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #2 Assertion by Victims File folder entitled "EPSTEIN/KELLEN Work product P-006861 CELL PHONE RECORDS" containing Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thm documents received via subpoena with Investigative privilege P-007785 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper attorney handwritten notes and Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against highlighting and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 22 of 69 EFTA00179644 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY Work product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in 6(e) P-007786 LOG: OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" Anticipation of Litigation; Improper containing subpoenas, correspondence Investigative privilege Thru ation Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P-008120 regarding same, 6(e) letters, attorney Also contains inform Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; and docum ents subje ct to handwritten notes regarding records Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under privacy rights of victim s received in response to subpoenas 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; who are not parties to this litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims received in 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 Handwritten flight logs Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of response to subpoena Investigative privilege P-008121 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized P-008139 Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in attorney handwritten notes, typed outline 6(e) P-008140 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru with additional handwritten notes, Investigative privilege ; Claim s Against complete indictment package dated Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need P-008298 Conduct Issue; at 2/19/2008, victim list with identifying and documents subject to Public Prosecutor; Attorney rized Under information, photographs, and summary of privacy rights of victims Factual Materials; Court Autho r se; activity who are not parties to this 6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Powe to Relea rized litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA -autho release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 23 of 69 EFTA00179645 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 File folder entitled "FINAL P-008299 AGREEMENTS" containing subfolder N/A Thru entitled "Agrmts Filed in State Court" (P- P-008363 008300-P-008327 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); signed Non- Prosecution Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of 12/19/2007 Sanchez- Acosta letter (P-008328-P-008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr" containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit]) Box #2 File folder entitled "Lacerda Immunity 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008364 Request" containing internal memoranda, Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Justice Department documentation, and Deliberative Process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-008382 subpoena regarding immunity request Investigative privilege Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 24 of 69 EFTA00179646 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log, No Factual Underpinnings; File folder containing March 18, 2008 Work product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in grand jury presentation materials, including 6(e) P-008383 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper "Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment Inves tigativ e privilege Thru Invocation; Overriding Need ; Claim s Against Summary Chart (by victim)," grand jury Deliberative process P-008516 ation Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct Issue; at materials, draft indictments, victim Also contains inform Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under and docum ents subje ct to reference list, grand jury subpoena log 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; privacy rights of victim s who are not parties to this Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized litigation release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to P-008517 Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie N/A Thru [pursuant to Court's Order, not being P-008535 withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit] Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in interview of Jane Doe #2 Investigative Privilege P408536 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Contains information Thru Claim Against s P408542 subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; victims who are not Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; parties to this suit Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-008543 8, 2007 grand jury presentation Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru Investigative privilege Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P408549 uct at Issue; subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney Cond Factual Materials; Court Autho rized Under victims who are not parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 25 of 69 EFTA00179647 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "Most Recent Work product P-008550 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Indictment & Good Cases" containing draft 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in indictment and legal research Investigative privilege P-008615 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Deliberative process Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Contains information Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; subject to privacy rights of Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under victims who are not 6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release; parties to this suit Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #2 Assertion by Victims File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" Work product P-008616 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing chart prepared at direction of Attorney-Client Privil ege Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru AUSA, containing victim names, 6(e) Anticipation of Litigation; P-008686 identifying information, summary of Investigative privilege Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- activity, and other information relevant to Contains information Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; indictment subject to privacy rights of Overriding Need; Claims Again st Public victims who are not Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual parties to this suit Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable ; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name)/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008687 Doe #4" containing phone records and 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and Investigative privilege P-008776 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper grand jury data related to that Contains information and Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against victim/witness for indictment preparation documents subject to Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy tights of victims Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Powe r to Release; suit Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 26 of 69 EFTA00179648 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Work product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #5" containing handwritten notes and 6(e) P408777 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper meta-analysis of all phone, travel , and Inves tigativ e privilege Thru ation Invocation; Overr iding Need ; Claim s Against grand jury data related to that Conta ins inform P408808 Public Prosecutor, Attorney Cond uct at Issue; victim/witness for indictment preparation subject to privacy rights of victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-008809 Doe #6" containing meta-analysis of all Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Invocation; Overriding Need ; Claim s Against that victim/witness for indictment Contains information P408847 Conduct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney victims who are not Factual Mater ials; Court Autho rized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Powe r to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #7" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) P-008848 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Thru Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against that victim/witness for indictment Contains information P-008862 Conduct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Autho rized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 27 of 69 EFTA00179649 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008863 Doe #8" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; P-008890 that victim/witness for Improper indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #2 Assertion by Victims File folder entitled "Certified Copy of State P-008891 Case" containing certified copy of Epstein Thru state criminal cases and change of plea P-009103 N/A transcript [not being withheld as privileged — copy provided to opposing counsel] Box #2 File folder entitled "Meeting Timeline" Work product P-009104 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing Villafaria typed notes Deliberative process Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not summarizing meetings with opposing P-009111 in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper counsel prepared at request of R. Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Alexander Acosta, with handwritten Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue correction and typed guideline estimate Box #2 11/26/2008 Email from Roy Black to A. P-009112 Marie Villafaria and Karen Atkinson re Thru N/A Jeffrey Epstein (work release) P-009113 [pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by Il th Circuit] Page 28 of 69 EFTA00179650 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Box #2 7/3/2008 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to N/A P409114 Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work Tint release with attachment [not being P-009115 withheld as privileged — produced to opposing counsel] Box #2 12/6/2007 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to N/A P409116 Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim Thu notification) [pursuant to Court's Order, P-009125 not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit]) Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #9" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) P-009126 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Thru Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P-009134 that victim/witness for indictment Conduct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Autho rized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #13" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) P-009135 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Thru Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P409141 that victim/witness for indictment Contains information uct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Cond victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 29 of 69 EFTA00179651 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Work product P-009141A Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Doe #12" containing meta-analysis of all Thru 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege P-009141C Anticipation of Litigation; Improper that victim/witness for indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Box #2 Assertion by Victims • lder entitled Work product P-009142 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing me -anaysis o a 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in p one, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege P-009152 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper that individual for indictment preparation Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Cond uct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 File folder entitleatiall Work product P-009153 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing meta- ysis o phone, 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege P-009156 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper individual for indictment preparation Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Cond uct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 30 of 69 EFTA00179652 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #1" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) P-009157 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Thru Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against that victim/witness for indictment Contains information P-009208 Conduct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Doe #2" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) P409209 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Thru Invocation; Overriding Need ; Claim s Against that victim/witness for indictment Contains information P409213 uct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney Cond victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-009214 Doe #3" containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim s Against that victim/witness for indictment Contains information P-009271 Conduct at Issue; preparation subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attorney Factual Materials; Court Autho rized Under victims who are not parties to this suit 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Powe to Release; r Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 31 of 69 EFTA00179653 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLED Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "Purpose of Travel Work product P-009272 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Cases" containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-009354 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Interstate Commerce Work product P-009355 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Cases" containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-009403 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "Attorney Conflict Work product P-009404 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Research" containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-009536 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Mann Act/Travel to Work product P-009537 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Have Sex w/Minor" containing attorney Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes P-009574 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Travel Act" containing Work Product P-009575 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; attorney research and handwritten notes Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-009603 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Florida Work Product P-009604 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes" containing Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of attorney research and handwritten notes P-00971I Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 Booklet entitled "Attorney General P-009712 Guidelines for Victim and Witness Thru N/A Assistance" [not being withheld as P409819 privileged — produced to opposing counsel] Box #2 File folder entitled "Corporate Liability Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-009820 Rsrch" containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-009965 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 32 of 69 EFTA00179654 ed on FLSD Docket 08(16/2013 Page 34 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "Research re Work Product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Knowledge of Age Unnecessary" 6(e) P-009966 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Thru containing attorney research and Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; P410096 handwritten notes and copy of grand jury Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under subpoena 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "Money Laundering" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-010097 containing attorney research and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor Thru handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P410276 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "1960 & Work Product Box #2 ining attorn ey Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-010277 Aiding/Abetting" conta Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Thru research and handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P410394 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "18 USC § 2255 Cases" Work Product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P410395 containing attorney research and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Thru handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-010488 Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled "Research re Overt Acts Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P410489 & Witness Testimony" containing attorney Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Thru research and handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-010509 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "Extradition" Work Product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P410510 containing attorney research and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Thru handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P410525 Page 33 of 69 EFTA00179655 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "Rsrch re Crime Work Product P-010526 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Victims Rights" containing attorney Deliberative Process Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; research, handwritten notes, draft victim P-010641 Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; notification letter, and draft Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against (Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher, and a November 29, 2007 letter Erom Jay Lefkowitz to IL Alexander Acosta (P- 010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the Court's Order, these will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit) Box #2 File folder entitled "Immunity" containing Work Product P-010642 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; attorney research on granting immunity to Thm Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of witnesses P-01650 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Research re G.J. Work Product P-010651 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Transcript" containing attorney research 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of and draft pleadings re compelling Deliberative process P-010659 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding production of grand jury transcript with Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; subpoena Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 34 of 69 EFTA00179656 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 File folder entitled "Research re GJ Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010660 Transcript" containing grand jury 6(e) . Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thm subpoena, 6(e) letters, attorney research Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P410757 and correspondence related to subpoena Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box 42 File folder entitled "Original Proposed Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010758 Ind." containing draft indictment 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Deliberative process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-010793 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #2 File folder entitled "Epstein" containing Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010794 sample indictments and attorney research Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru re potential charges with attorney notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-010829 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "1591 & Money Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010830 Laundering" containing attorney research Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P-010853 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "18 USC 2425" Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010854 containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, P410876 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 35 of 69 EFTA00179657 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 File folder entitled "Knowledge of Age" Work Product P-010877 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-010920 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Box #2 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "2423(b) Work Product P-010921 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel" Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru containing attorney research and P-011049 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "Mistake not a Work Product P-011050 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Defense" containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru handwritten notes P-011212 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "Research re Work Product P-011213 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; `Pandering'" containing attorney research Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of and handwritten notes P-011237 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "Research re Grand Work Product P-011238 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Jury Instructions" containing attorney 6(e) Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes P-0I 1319 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #2 File folder entitled "Telephone = Facility Work Product P-011320 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; of Commerce" containing attorney Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes P-011361 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled "Def of Prostitution" Work Product P-011362 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing attorney research and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes P-011374 Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 36 of 69 EFTA00179658 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 2241 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "Relevant Florida Work Product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-011375 Statut es" conta ining attorn ey resear ch and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Thru handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P411 456 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "Unit of Prosecution Work Product Box #2 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-011457 Research" containing attorney research and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, handw ritten notes mm Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P411626 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled "Attorney Notes" Work Product Box #3 ritten and typed Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-011627 conta ining attorn ey handw Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Thm notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P411662 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitle d "Draf ts" conta ining 6(e) Box #3 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in draft indictments with attorney handwritten Work Product P411663 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper notes, draft internal memoranda, relevant Deliberative Process Thm report s and grand jury Inves tigative Privilege Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim Against s P-011698 and witne ss interv iew Contains information Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; P-012189 thru material and attorney handwritten notes rized Under subject to privacy rights of Factual Materials; Court Autho P-012361 victims who are not 6(eX3XE); Court Inherent Powe to Release; r (gap was parties to this Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized scanning release; Material Severable; Redaction; No error) Assertion by Victims 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 File folder entitled "6/9/09 Signed Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Indictment" containing signed indictment Work product P411699 09 with correc tions Deliberative process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru packa ge dated 6/9/20 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-011777 Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3XE); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 37 of 69 EFTA00179659 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 39 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 Victims' Objections File folder entitled "6/12/09 Victim Notil Work product P-011778 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Log" containing chart with victim contact Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; information and attorney notes regarding P-011788 Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of dates and type of contacts Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Box #3 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "Breach Memo" Work product P-011789 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing memorandum analyzing breach Deliberative process Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of of Non-Prosecution Agreement with P-011879 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding attachments Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Box #3 File folder entitled "Overt Act Lists" Work product P-011880 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing handwritten notes cross- Attorney-client privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in checking all overt acts alleged in draft Deliberative process P-011922 Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary indictment by victim and typed overt act 6(e) Government Communication; No Attorney- summary charts for indictment preparation Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 38 of 69 EFTA00179660 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of CasP 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Work product No Box #3 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- JE Coun sel" conta ining: Delib erativ e process P-011923 from Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; ■ 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann 6(e) Thru ege Ordinary Government Communication; No P-011966 Sanchez to Andrew Lourie with Attorney-Client Privil Relationship; Improper Attorney-Client handwritten attorney (Lourie) Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against notes; Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; ■ 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under Lefeourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized Marie Vi Ilafarla with handwritten release; Material Severable attorney (Villafarla) notes; ■ 6/25/2007 email from Andrew Lourie to Matt Menchel and Marie Villafafia entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" Handwritten and typed attorney (Villafinia) notes regarding main themes raised by Epstein counsel Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Composition book entitled "Operation Work product Box #3 conta ining attorn ey Inves tigative privilege Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-011967 Leap Yea? ' of Litigation; Improper 6(e) Anticipation Thru handwritten notes regarding investigation Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim s Against and case strategy Contains information P412016 ney Conduct Issue; at subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor, Attor victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this litigation 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 39 of 69 EFTA00179661 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #3 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and 6(e) P-012017 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Incorporated Memorandum of Law P-012055 Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012056 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Thru to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas P-012088 Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 United States' Response to Motion of 6(e) P-012089 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Tin Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion P412129 Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent to Compel Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P412130 Thru Fiduciary Duty P412150 Box #3 Ex Parte Declaration Number One in 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012151 Support of United States' Response to Investigative Privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Motion to Quash Subpoenas Also contains information Anticipation of Litigation; P-012167 subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Improper Factual victims who are not Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); parties to this litigation Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 40 of 69 EFTA00179662 on FLSD Docket 08/1612013 Page 42 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Descrietion 6(e) Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Inves tigativ e Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-012168 Support of United States' Response to Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru Motion to Quash Subpoenas Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized P-012170 Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Number One in Support of United States' Investigative Privilege P-012171 of Litigation; Improper Thru Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Also contains information Anticipation iding Need ; Factual P-012173 subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overr Materials; Court Authorized Unde r 6(e)(3 )(E); victims who are not parties to this litigation Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Draft of September 2009 letter from Marie of Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation P-012174 Villafalia to Roy Black regarding breach of Attorney-Client Litigation; Ordinary Government Non Prosecution Agreement with Deliberative Process Thru Communication; No Attorn ey-Client P-012176 handwritten attorney (Villafafta) notes Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overr iding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Undated handwritten attorney (Villaftula) in Anticipation of P412177 notes regarding negotiations and Attorney-Client Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not Deliberative Process Litigation; Ordin ary Government Thru allegations Communication; No Attorney-Client P-012178 Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 41 of 69 EFTA00179663 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #3 File Folder entitled "FBI GJ. Log" 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012179 containing copy of FBI grand jury Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thm subpoena log with attorney (Villafafia) Investigative Privilege P4I2188 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper handwritten notes Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim s Against subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this litigation 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #3 File folder entitled "Key Documents" 6(e) P-012362 Inade quate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing correspondence between AUSA Work Product Thru Fiduc iary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in and case agent regarding indictment prep Attorney-Client privilege P-012451 Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary questions, victim identification Investigative Privilege Government Communication; No Attorney- information, corrections to draft Also contains information Client Relationship; Improper indictment, indictment preparation subject to privacy rights of Overriding Need; Invocation; timeline, key grand jury material Claim s Again st Public victims who are not Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual parties to this litigation Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #3 File folder entitled "Victim List" Work Product P412451 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; containing list of victims with dates of Investigative Privilege Thru Fiduc iary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in birth and age information Also contains information Anticipation P-012452 of Litigation; Improper subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Claim s Against victims who are not Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; parties to this litigation Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 42 of 69 EFTA00179664 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Complete indictment package marked Deliberative process Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-012453 "Originals 12/12/07" of Litigation; Improper 6(e) Anticipation Thru ; Factual P-012623 Also contains documents Invocation; Overriding Need subject to investigative Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(6); privilege Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper rized release; Also contains documents Victim's Petition; CVRA-autho No Assertion subject to privacy rights of Material Severable; Redaction; victims who are not by Victims parties to this litigat ion Investigative Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional documents Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in P-012624 302's" containing reports of interviews Also contains of Litigation; Improper y rights of Anticipation Thru conducted in June 2007, October 2007, and subject to privac Invocation; Overriding Need; Redaction; No PA12653 March 2008. victims who are not parties to this litigation Assertion by Victims Work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A Fiduciary Duty; Overriding Need P-012654 Behavioral Analysis" with attorney Thru (Villafafia) handwritten notes P-012864 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Indictment preparation binder containing: Work Product Box #3 Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in witness/victim list with identifying Deliberative Process P412865 Anticipation of Litigation; Improper 6(e) Thru information, sexual activity summary, documents Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P413226 telephone call summary chart, attorney Also contains igative Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, subject to invest Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under portions of state investigative file, attorney privilege documents 6(eX3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; (Villafafia) typed notes, relevant pieces of Also contains n; CVRA-authorized grand jury materials, telephone subject to privacy rights of Proper Victim's Petitio victims who are not release; Material Severable; Redaction; No records/flight records analysis charts, Assertion by Victims victim/witness photographs, DAVID parties to this litigation records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Page 43 of 69 EFTA00179665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 Victims' Objections April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Stoma Privacy Act P-013227 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; to Office of Professional Responsibility re Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the Factual Materials; Court Compelled previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter Disclosure; Waiver to OPR Box #3 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman Privacy Act P-013226 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; to Office of Professional Responsibility re Thru Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure; Self Reporting P-013230 Factual Materials; Waiver Box #3 April 22, 2008 Letter from A. Marie Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013231 Villafafia to Office of Professional Thai Factual Materials; Fiduciary Duty; Court Responsibility re Self-Report of Allegation P-013239 Compelled Disclosure; Waiver of Conflict of Interest Box #3 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013240 to Office of Professional Responsibility re Thru Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure; Self Reporting with attachments P-013247 Factual Materials; Waiver Box #3 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Client Privil P-013248 ege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; General Counsel, Executive Office for Thru Ordinary Government Communication; No United States Attorneys, and Benjamin P-013251 Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and August 29, 2011 Box #3 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Client Privil P-013252 ege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; General Counsel, Executive Office for mm Ordinary Government Communication; No United States Attorneys, and Benjamin P-013253 Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, August 3, and August 24, 2011 Page 44 of 69 EFTA00179666 FLED Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; t Privilege Box #3 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Clien Ordinary Government Communication; No P-013254 General Counsel, Executive Office for Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Thru United States Attorneys, and Benjamin P-013257 Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and August 29, 2011 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Privilege Box #3 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Client Ordinary Government Communication; No P-013258 General Counsel, Executive Office for Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Thru United States Attorneys, and Benjamin P-013259 Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated July 28 and August 3, 2011 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; ient Privilege Box #3 Email from Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Cl Ordinary Government Communication; No P413260 General Counsel, Executive Office for Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Thru United States Attorneys, to Wifitdo Ferrer P-013262 (U.S. Attorney, SDFL), Robert O'Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), Benjamin Greenberg, (FAUSA, SDFL), and Lee Bentley (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24, 2011. CC's David Margolis (ODAG), Jay Macklin (USAEO), Thomas Anderson (USAEO), Michelle Tapken (USAEO), James Read (USAEO) Page 45 of 69 EFTA00179667 case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 47 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 Victims' Objections Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege P-013263 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; General Counsel, Executive Office for Deliberative Process Tluu Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Work Product P-013271 Government Communication; No Attorney- Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Southern District of Florida, regarding Overriding Need; Claims Against Public recusal of Southern District of Florida, Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver dated July 29, 2011, with attached memorandum from A. Marie Villafafla to Benjamin Greenberg summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Box #3 Emails between Peter Mason, Executive Attorney-Client Privilege P-013272 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Office for United States Attorneys, and Thru Ordin ary Government Communication; No Dexter Lee, Southern District of Florida, P-013278 Attorn ey-Client Relationship; Factual seeking advice regarding office-wide Materials; Waiver recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifiedo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010 Suppl. Box #3 8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinni P-013279 A. Marie Villafafia, R. Senior, D. Lee ngs; Work Product Fiduc iary Duty; Crime -Fraud -Misconduct; Thru and K. Atkinson re proposed P-013280 Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box :13 Handwritten note re Epstein investigation Attorn Conduct at Issue; Waiver ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Also contains information Government Communication; No Attorney- subject to privacy rights of Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; victims who are not Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Page 46 of 69 EFTA00179668 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Issue; parties to this litigation Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at P-013281 Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Attorney-Client Privilege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box #3 7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafiula to Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- A. Acosta, J. Sloman, IC Atkinson, and Work product P-013282 Misconduct; Crime -Frau d-Mis condu ct Factual FBI re proposed response to Goldberger Deliberative Process Thm Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; P-013283 letter re victim notification Ordin ary Gove rnmen t Comm unica tion; No Attorney-Client Relati onshi p; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need ; Claim s Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Attorney-Client Privil ege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box #3 7/10/08 Emails between J. Sloman and Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; A. Marie Villafafia, K. Atkinson, and FBI Work Product P-013284 Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary re proposed response to Goldberger's Deliberative Process Government Communication; No Attorney- letter e victim notification Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Attorney-Client Privilege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "8/5/08 AMCV e- Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- mail re correct agrmt" containing 8/5/08 Work Product P413285 Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; email from A. Marie Villafarla to A. Deliberative Process Thru Ordinary Government Communication; No P-013289 Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Atkinson re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement" Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against discussing 6/24/08 email from A. Marie Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue Villafafia to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Agreement Page 47 of 69 EFTA00179669 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "8/14/08 E-mail from Victims' Objections Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Under P-013290 Left to AMCV" containing (undated) pinnings; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thru emails from A. Marie Villafafla to R. P-013292 in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Senior, J. Sloman, A. Acosta, K. Government Communication; No Attorney- Atkinson, D. Lee re draft response to Client Relationship; Claims Against Public 8/14/08 email from J. Lefkowitz regarding "the December 2007 proposal" Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "8/15/08 AMCV e- Attorn Condu ct at Issue ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin P-013293 mail re Agape" containing 8/15/08 e- • gs; Work Product Fiduc iary Duty; Crime -Fraud -Misc Thru mails from A. Marie Villafafla to A. onduct; Deliberative Process Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of P-013299 Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Litigation; Ordinary Government Atkinson, D. Lee re follow up on Communication; No Attorn ey-Client Agreement and from A. Acosta to Ann Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Marie Villafana on issue of Special Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Master with attached 8/15/08 emails from Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver A. Marie Villafafla to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K. Atkinson, IL Black, M. Weinberg re Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson, R. Black re interpretation of Agreement; email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafafla, K. Atkinson re questions re Agreement; email from A. Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson re production of Agreement to victims Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr Attorn ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinni P-013300 to AMCV" containing A. Marie ngs; Thou Fiduc iary Duty; Crime-Frau d-Mis conduct; Not Villafafia's handwritten draft notes for in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Page 48 of 69 EFTA00179670 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Government Communication; No Attorney- proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- Work Product P-0133303 Client Relationship; Claims Against Public mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Sloman, A. Marie Villafafta re meeting Conduct at Issue; Waiver with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings ient Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "6/25/07 Lefcourt to Attorney-Cl Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Sloman & Lourie containing 6125/07 letter Work Product P-013304 in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Thin (with handwritten notes by A. Marie Government Communication; No Attorney- P413325 Villafafia) from G. Lefcourt to J. Sloman, Client Relationship M. Menchel, A. Lourie, A. Marie Villafafia addressing reasons for not prosecuting Epstein; handwritten outline by A. Marie Villafarla of possible response to letter Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "9/17/07 Villafafla Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Lefkowitz containing 9/17/07 e-mail from Work Product P-013326 Litigation; Ordinary Government Tin A. Marie Villafaha - to IL Garcia, A. Lourie Communication; No Attorney-Client P413329 and from R. Garcia to A. Marie Villafaela Relationship; Claims Against Public concerning status of plea negotiations Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Underpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "11/8/07 Lefkowitz Fiduciary Duty; Not in Antic ipation of Sloman" containing 11/8/07 letter from Work Product P-013330 Litigation; Ordinary Government Thru J. Lefkowitz re issues arising during Communication; No Attorney-Client P-013333 pendency of matter with attorney Relationship; Claims Against Public handwritten notes Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Underpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-013334 Leflcowitz (was this sent?)" containing Litigation; Ordinary Government Thru draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman Page 49 of 69 EFTA00179671 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P413337 Victims' Objections responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Work Product Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box #3 Conduct at Issue File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to [Not considered P413338 N/A Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter privileged. Will be Thru w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. produced to opposing 013341 Lefkowitz to A. Acosta counsel upon lifting of stay Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "12/05/07 Starr to Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinni P413342 Acosta" containing drafts of 11/30/07 ngs; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and Deliberative Process P413350 Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re Litigation; Ordinary Government performance and victim notification with Communication; No Attorney-Client handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Villafaila Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "12/21/07 Lefkowitz Attorney Conduct at Issue Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinni P-13351 Acosta" containing handwritten notes by ngs; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thru A. Marie Villafaila, 12/21/07 letter P-013361 in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary ftom J. Leflcowitz to A. Acosta re Government Communication; No Attorney- performance of NPA and appeal to Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Washington with attorney handwritten Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Factual notes Suppl. Box #3 File folder labeled "12/26/07 Le&owitz Materials; Attorney Conduct at Issue Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde P-013362 to Acosta" containing 2 copies of draft rpinnings; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thm letter from A. Acosta to J. Lefkowitz Deliberative Process P413366 in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary (with 12/28/07 fax header) Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Suppl. Box #3 Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder labeled "Draft hr from Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde rpinnings; Page SO of 69 EFTA00179672 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-013367 Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination" Litigation; Ordinary Government Tim containing draft letter dated "April , Communication; No Attorney-Client P-013372 2008" from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz Relationship; Claims Against Public concerning the compliance with the Prosecutor; Overr iding Need ; Attorn ey Agreement Conduct at Issue rpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde Suppl. Box #3 File folder labeled "6/3/08 Sloman Fiduciary Duty; Not in Antic ipatio n of Submission to the DAG" containing Deliberative Process P413373 Litigation; Ordinary Gover nmen t 6/3/08 letter from J. Sloma n to Mark Work Product Thru Inves tigative privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client P-013503 Filip, Office of the DAG , cc'd to R. Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Senior, A. Marie Villaftula, K. Atkinson, Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; re Jeffrey Epstein, detailing events Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; concerning the Agreement and thereafter Waiver and with relevant attachments quate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; d "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, Attorn ey-Client Privilege Inade #3 File folder labele Suppl. Box Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P413504 RAA, JS, Drew" containing handwritten Litigation; Ordinary Government Thru notes by A. Marie Villafttfla Communication; No Attorn ey-Client P413507 Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overr iding Need ; Attorn ey Conduct at Issue; Waiver Underpinnings; ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log No Factual Suppl. Box #3 File folder labeled "Internal Corr." Attorn Fiduciary Duty; Crime -Frau d-Misconduct; containing 11/28/07 e-mails from J. Work Product P-013508 Factual Materials; Not in Antic ipation of Sloma n to A. Marie Villaf tula re Thru Litigation; Ordinary Government P-013514 respo nding to 11/28 /07 e-mai l from J. Communication; No Attorney-Client Lefkowitz to J. Sloman regarding victim Relationship; Claims Against Public notification with attachments Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Waiver rpinnings; #3 Draft 11/30 /07 letter from A. Acost a to Attorn ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde Suppl. Box Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not K. Starr cc'd to J. Sloman and A. Marie Work Product P-013515 in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Thru Villafafta re compliance with Agreement Page 51 of 69 EFTA00179673 case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege® Asserted Victims' Objections P-013525 and internal emails from J. Sloman, A. Deliberative Process Government Communication; No Attorney- Acosta, and A. Lourie re items to Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; address in letter Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Suppl. Box #3 Waiver; Factual Materials 5/23/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual P-013526 to K. Atkinson re draft proposed internal Underpinnings; Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru e-mail about handling of case and Deliberative Process P-013527 Litigation; Ordinary Government attached email correspondence between Communication; No Attorney-Client Andrew Lourie and G. Lefcourt Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Suppl. Box #3 Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafana Work Product P-013528 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; dated 9/21 re telephone conference with Thru Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in possible victim representative, conflict P-013530 Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against check with names and email listed, list of Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney names of potential victim representatives, P-013532 Conduct at Issue payment discussion, and guideline Thru calculation, email containing contact info P-013537 for potential victim representative, draft Non Prosecution Agreement dated 9/10/07 4:17 pm Suppl. Box #3 Typed note addressed to "Dear David" re 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013531 response to grand jury subpoena Investigative privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- Suppl. Box #3 authorized release; Material Severable File folder labeled "Notes Re Post- Work Product P-013538 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Agreement Communications" containing Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Page 52 of 69 EFTA00179674 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Deliberative Process Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-013553 handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Attorney-Client Privilege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box #3 File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not in Anticipation Negotiations" containing: Work Product P-013554 of Litigation; Ordinary Government Thru Delib erative Process Communication; No Attorney-Client ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Relationship; Improper Invoc ation; Overriding A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan, Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, IL Garcia re non-prosecution Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final agreement, with attached Decision correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, It. Garcia, K. Atkinson re negotiating strategy, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/18/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, A. Lourie, R.Gar ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta re negotiation; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafaila to R. Garcia, A. Acosta, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re negotiations; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, A. Lourie re negotiation strategy; ■ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to L Simian, A. Acosta, R. Garcia, A Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball re proposed plea agreement and Information Page 53 of 69 EFTA00179675 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections ■ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafaiia to J. Sloman, A. Acosta, A Lourie, R Garcia, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan, S. Ball re plea negotiations ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Atkinson, S. Ball, J. McMillan it indictment package; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust agreement with attached correspondence ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust agreement ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, J. Sloman re conference call with J. Lefkowitz; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re plea negotiations with attached correspondence; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re charging strategy with attached correspondence; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to K. Atkinson, S. Ball, J. McMillan re indictment package; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Garcia, K. Atkinson, A. Lourie re plea negotiations; Page 54 of 69 EFTA00179676 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re meeting w/ G. Lefcourt with attached correspondence; ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re revised Agreement with attached correspondence; ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman re non- prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafarla to A. Oosterbaan re status of negotiations with attached correspondence; ■ 9/10/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman re negotiations; 9/10/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman, J. McMillan re state grand jury proceedings; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Acosta to A. Marie Villafafia, R. Garcia, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re draft Agreement with attached correspondence; ■ 9/14/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. Marie Villafalla, A. Acosta, R Garcia, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball, re finalizing documents; ■ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafia re charging strategy Page 55 of 69 EFTA00179677 case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections with attached correspondence; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to A. Marie Villafaila re setting up trust fund; ■ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafaila re final negotiations with attached correspondence; ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafaiia re scheduling a meeting regarding finalizing the agreement with attached correspondence; ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. MarieVillafaiia re non-prosecution agree ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. MarieVillafafia re non-prosecution agree ■ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to A. Marie Villafalia re negotiations with attached correspondence; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafaiia to R. Garcia A. Lourie re negotiation strategy Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "[j Target Letter" 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013609 containing copy of signed letter and Investigative Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru contact info for counsel for target Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-013615 Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA- Suppl. Box #3 authorized release; Material Severable File folder entitled "Atty Notes re Attorney-Client Privilege P-013616 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Revised Indictment" containing Deliberative Process Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Page 56 of 69 EFTA00179678 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Work Product Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Thru handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia Government Communication; No Attorney- Investigative Privilege P-013621 Invocation; Also contains information Client Relationship; Improper st Public subject to privacy rights of Overriding Need; Claims Again Prosecutor, Attorney Cond uct at Issue victims who are not parties to this litigation Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "Research Re Possible Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-013622 Misdemeanors" containing attorney Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Thru research Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-013643 gs; t Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnin Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Attorney-Clien Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in tiation s" conta ining 9/17/0 7 e-mai l Work Produ ct P-013644 Nego Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary from A. Marie Villafaila to J. Richards, N. Deliberative Process ey- Thu Government Communication; No Attorn Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and Investigative privilege P-013653 information Client Relationship; Improper Invoc ation; typed handwritten notes by A. Marie Also contains Public to privacy rights of Overriding Need; Claims Against Villafinla re items to be completed on subject Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waive r case, strength of case, victim interviews, victims who are not summary of evidence, guidelines parties to this litigation calculations rpinnings; File folder entitle d "Plea Agree ment Attorn ey-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde Suppl. Box #3 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Drafts" containing several draft plea Work Product P-013654 Litigation; Ordinary Government agreements some with handwritten notes Deliberative Process Thru Communication; No Attorn ey-Client P-013745 by A. Marie Villaf afia; copie s of draft Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding non-prosecution agreement some with Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia; Attorney Conduct at Issue copy of a draft Information al Underpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factu Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "Draft Non- Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Prose cution Agree ments " conta ining Work Product P-001 3747 Page 57 of 69 EFTA00179679 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Thru Victims' Objections several draft non- prosecution agreements Deliberative Process P-013810 Litigation; Ordinary Government some with handwritten notes by A. Marie Communication; No Attorney-Client Villafafia; plea sheet State Circuit Court; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding copies of draft Information; draft plea Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, proffer, draft motion and order to seal; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials draft penalty sheet; draft plea agreement Suppl. Box 3 File folder entitled "Information Packet Attorney-Client Privil P-013811 ege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Drafts" containing several drafts of Work Product Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Informations, and complete draft Deliberative Process P-013833 Litigation; Ordinary Government Information packet Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; ;uppl. Box 3 P- Two pages of filed document, D.E. 62, Attorney Conduct at Issue Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; 013834 page 2 of 54 and page 6 of 54, Through P- Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public containing handwritten attorney notes 013835 Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box 3 Conduct at Issue Pahn Beach Daily News Article, Atty work-product P-013836 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; "Attorneys want Jeffrey Epstein Thru Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Agreement Thrown Out," with P-013837 Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney attorney's notes written on margin Suppl. Box 3 Letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Conduct at Issue Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P413838 Ferrer, December 10, 2010, Subject: Thru Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Request for Investigation ofJeffrey Epstein P413841 Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Prosecution, with underlines, written notes, Conduct at Issue and comments by DOJ attorney Suppl. Box 3 Email from Dexterr Lee . to Ruth Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013842 Plagenhoef (OPR), February 25, 2011, Atty-client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; 4:31 p.m., Re: request for OPR Factual Materials; Ordinary Government Investigation — Jeffrey Epstein Non- Communication; No Attorney-Client Prosecution Agreement Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Page 58 of 69 EFTA00179680 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Conduct at Issue Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; SuppL Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie, Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson, arty-client privilege P-013843 Communication; No Attorney-Client Thru September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Plea Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public P-013844 Agreement Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Villafana, Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public P-013845 September 19, 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Tluu Epstein, with internal U.S. Attorney's Conduct at Issue P-013846 Office e-mails attached Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie, Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public P-013847 Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson, Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Thru September 18, 2007, 11:43 a.m., RE: Draft Conduct at Issue Waiver P413849 Agreements?, with e-mail from Jay Lefkowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09 a.m.) attached Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Alex Acosta, Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- P-013850 Andrew Lourie, Rolando Garcia, Karen Misconduct; Waiver; Claim s Again st Public Atkinson, and John McMillan, ; Attorney Prosecutor; Overriding Need September 18, 2007, 9:31 a.m., RE: Conduct at Issue Epstein Negotiations Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Rolando Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public P-013851 Garcia and Andrew Lourie, September Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Thru 17, 2007, 10:35 a.m., RE: Epstein Conduct at Issue P-013853 [providing update re plea negotiations] Any work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding P-013854' Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10 Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007, 7:54 p.m.), attached Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 Page 59 of 69 EFTA00179681 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-013855 Victims' Objections and Andrew Lourie, September 10, Atty-client privilege 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government ; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Communication; No Attorney-Client Suppl. Box 3 Relationship E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Atty work-product P-013856 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein, Atty-client privilege Thru Ordinary Government Communication; No with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September P-013857 Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against 6, 2007, 5:35 pm.), attached Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box 3 Conduct at Issue Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, any work-product P-013858 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; September 6, 2007, 9:29 a.m., Re: Meeting Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding on Friday Suppl. Box Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Marie [Not considered 3 Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy privileged. Will be P-013859 N/A Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein produced to opposing Through counsel upon lifting of P413860 stay) Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013861 Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p.m., RE: arty-client privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July P-013865 Ordinary Government Communication; No 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013866 Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3, Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver, Claims 2007, 6:26 am., RE: Epstein Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Attorney Conduct at Issue Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013867 Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Thin Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Page 60 of 69 EFTA00179682 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-013868 Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21, 2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; P-013869 Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m., Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue RE: Epstein Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public P-013870 Villafana, May 24, 2007, 9:25 a.m., FW: Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Thru Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald Conduct at Issue P-013871 Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32 p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; P-013872 Menchel, Jeff Sloman, and Marie Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie, Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; P-013873 May 14, 2007, 10:52 a.m., RE: Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May 14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached N/A Suppl. Box Inadvertently marked as privileged, will 3 P- be produced 013874 Page 61 of 69 EFTA00179683 ease 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Through P-013875 Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia, and Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013876 Atkinson, September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., Thru Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against RE: Draft Plea Agreement, with e-mail P-013877 Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney from Lefkowitz to Villafana (September Conduct at Issue 19, 2007, 3:44 p.m.), and Lefkowitz to Villafana (September 19, 2007, 3:35 p.m.) attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Lourie to Villafana, September 19, Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013878 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with c-mails Thru Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public from Villafana to Lourie and Garcia P-013879 Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney (September 19, 2007, 4:13 p.m.), Conduct at Issue Villafana to Louric and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 4:05 p.m.), and Lourie to Villafana and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 3:50 p.m.), Villafana to Lourie (September 19 2007, 2:36 p.m.), Lourie to Villafana (September 19, 2007, 2:33 p.m.), and Villafana to Lourie and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 2:31 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia, and Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013880 Atkinson, September 18, 2007, 11:43 Thru Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; a.m., RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mails P-013882 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue from Villafana to Lourie, Garcia and Atkinson (September 18, 2007, 11:18a.m.), Page 62 of 69 EFTA00179684 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16 /2013 Page 64 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; E-mail, Villafana to Acosta, Lourie, Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver, Claims P-013883 Garcia, Atkinson, and McMillan, Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; September 18, 2007, 9:31 a.m., RE: Attorney Conduct at Issue Epstein Negotiations Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; e, Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Villafana to Garcia and Louri Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against September 17, 2007 10:35 am., RE: P413884 Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Thu Epstein, with e-mail from Garcia Conduct at Issue P-013886 (September 17, 2007, 10:26 am.), attached Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; w Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andre Fiduciary Duty; Waiver, Claims Against Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10 P413887 Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from Conduct at Issue Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007, 7:54 p.m.), attached Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 Any-client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government P-013888 and Andrew Lourie, September 10, Communication; No Attorney-Client 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Relationship; Waiver; Claim Against Public s Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein, Atty-client privilege P413889 Communication; No Attorney-Client Thru with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September Relationship; Claims Against Public P413890 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue ally work-product Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public P-013891 September 6, 2007, 9:29 am., Re: Meeting Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney on Friday Conduct at Issue [Not considered N/A Suppl. Box Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Marie Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy priviloged. Will be 3 Page 63 of 69 EFTA00179685 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 65 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-013892 Victims' Objections Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein produced to opposing Through counsel upon lifting of P-013893 Suppl. Box 3 staYi E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Any work-product P-013894 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p.m., RE: atty-client privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July P-013898 Ordinary Government Communication; No 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 Conduct at Issue p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Any work-product P-013899 Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3, 2007, 6:26 a.m., RE: Epstein Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Overriding NeediAttorney Conduct at Issue Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P413900 Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Thru Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from P-013901 Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58 Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21, 2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product P-013902 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m., Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, RE: Epstein Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013903 Villafana, May 24, 2007, 925 a.m., FW: Thru Fiduciary Duty; Waiver, Claims Against Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald P-013904 Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23, Conduct at Issue 2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32 p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann Page 64 of 69 EFTA00179686 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16 /2013 Page 66 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; P-013905 Menchel, Jeff Sloman, and Marie Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Any work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie, Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Claims Against P-013906 May 14, 2007, 10:52 a.m., RE: Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from Conduct at Issue Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May 14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached Suppl. Box Inadvertently marked as privileged, will N/A 3 P- be produced 013907 Through P-013908 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Deliberative Process Suppl. Box 3 Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Privilege; atty work- P-013909 Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; Final product Thru Office of Professional Responsibility Decision; Waiver; Claims Against Public (OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting P-013911 Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Conduct at Issue Subject: Recommendation Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef, Privilege, atty work- P-013912 Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; product Thru Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public P-013914 Recommendation, with handwritten note Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney dated 5/4/11 Conduct at Issue Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Page 65 of 69 EFTA00179687 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Dock et 08/16/2013 Page 67 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-013915 Victims' Objections Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef, Privilege; any work- Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: product P-013918 Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; Recommendation, with two post-it notes Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public attached with handwritten attorney Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney notations, and handwritten notations, Conduct at Issue underlines, and circled text throughout the body of the two page memorandum Suppl. Box 3 Draft letter, marked "Confidential", from Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013919 Robin C. Ashton, Counsel, Office of Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Professional Responsibility to Wifredo A. Attorney Work Product Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P4I3921 Ferrer, United States Attorney, with Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, handwritten corrections, strikethroughs, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final and added text Suppl. Box 3 Decision Draft Letter, marked "Confidential", from Deliberative Process P-013922 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Robin C. Ashton, to Wifredo A. Ferrer, Privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of with handwritten corrections Attorney Work Product P-013924 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Suppl. Box 3 Attorney Conduct at Issue Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Deliberative Process P-013925 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Professor Paul G. Cassell, with Privilege Thru Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten correction Attorney Work Product P-013927 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Suppl. Box 3 Attorney Conduct at Issue Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Deliberative Process P-013928 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Professor Paul G. Cassell, with Privilege Thm Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten corrections Attorney Work Product P4I3930 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Suppl. Box 3 Attorney Conduct at Issue Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Deliberative Process P4I3931 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Professor Paul G. Cassell, with Privilege Tim Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten corrections, circled text, Attorney Work Product P-013933 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Page 66 of 69 EFTA00179688 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 68 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Enter 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description Attorney Conduct at Issue strikethroughs, and additional text Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential," Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of from Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Privilege P-013934 Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Thru Fetter, with handwritten corrections Attorney Work Product Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-013936 Attorney Conduct at Issue Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Draft Letter, Robin C. Ashton to Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Professor Paul G. Cassell, with Privilege P-013937 Overriding handwritten corrections Attorney Work Product Litigation; Improper Invocation; Thru Need; Claims Against Public Prose cutor; P-013939 Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential: To Be Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Opened by Addressee Only," Robin C. Privilege P-013940 Crime-Fraud- Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with Attorney Work Product Litigation; Improper Invocation; Thru Misconduct Overriding Need; Claims Against P-013942 handwritten corrections Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final Decision; Factual Materials - Deliberative Process No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Ruth Plagenhoef to Lisa Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Howard, May 5, 2011, 11:19 a.m., RE: Privilege P-013943 Claims Against Re-write of Epstein letters for your Attorney Work Product Invocation; Overriding Need; Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; review, with e-mail from Lisa Howard to Final Decision; Waiver Ruth Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 11:08 am.), and Plagenhoef to Howard (May 5, 2011, 11:10 am.), and Howard to Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 10:41 a.m.), attached Deliberative Process No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 5, Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Final 2011, Privilege P-013944 Decision; Waiver 11:17 a.m., RE: Re-write of Epstein lett your review, with e-mail from Howard to Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 11:08 Page 67 of 69 EFTA00179689 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 69 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Plagenhoef to Howard (May 5, 2011, 11:01 a.m.), and Howard to Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011,10:41), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 4, Deliberative Process P-013945 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; 2011, 5:01 p.m., RE: draft letters in Epstein Privilege Improper Invocation; Overriding Need matter, with e-mail from Howard to Plagenhoef (May 4, 2011, 4:57 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton, Law Enforcement P-013946 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; May 4, 2011, 4:08 p.m., RE: FYI on the investigatory record, atty Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Florida matter work product; deliberative Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against process privilege Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Suppl. Box 3 Final Decision; Waiver E-mail, Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef, May 3, any work product; law P-013947 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; 2011,12:23 pan., RE: OPR Inquiry — enforcement Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; request for information, with post-it note investigatiory Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper attached with handwritten attorney notes record Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against on telephone call between Plagenhoef and Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Howard with Dexter Lee and Marie Factual Materials; Final Decision Villafana Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard and Robin any work-product P-013948 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; C. Ashton, May 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m., FW: Thru Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; OPR Inquiry — request for information, P-013951 Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding with attached e-mails. Handwritten Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue attorney notes on margin Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Dexter Lee to Ruth Plagenhoef, atty work-product; atty- No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013952 March 16, 2011, 10:52 a.m., RE: Referral client privilege Thru Ordinary Government Communication; No of Cassell Request for Investigation, with P-013953 Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against e-mail from Paul Cassell to Dexter Lee and Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Marie Villafana (March 15, 2011, 7:21 Conduct at Issue p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Plagenhoef to Neil Hurley, OPR, atty work-product, atty- Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Page 68 of 69 EFTA00179690 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 70 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Bates Range Description client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; P-013954 December 16, 2010, 10:59 a.m., FW: OPR Factual Materials; Ordinary Government Thru Referral — Allegation of Misconduct — No Attorney-Client Communication; P-013955 U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.Fla., with e- Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public mail from Dexter Lee to Plagenhoef Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney (December 16, 2010, 10:22 a.m.), Conduct at Issue attached. Handwritten attorney notations. any work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten Fiduciary Duty; Material Severable; Crime- P-013956 attorney notes on case, telephone Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Claims Thru interviews with DOJ attorneys Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; P-013846 Attorney Conduct At Issue. Page 69 of 69 EFTA00179691 I EFTA00179692 EFTA00179693 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 10 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Enter officers but rather to provide the city with not to provide legal advice or assistance to the police department). information relating to alleged indiscretion within the attorney-client privilege has not Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established. Any not provided factual material identifying been properly invoked because the Government has unications were confidential. See Bogle who is the attorney, who is the client, and how the comm v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). 13. Deliberative Process Privilege ss privilege has not been Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any deliberative proce of the department having control over properly asserted, because it must be asserted by the head ling the information would compromise the requested information who must explain why revea 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.LC., 204 F.3d rative process privilege would Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any delibe made, not the final decision itself. See, only cover only the processes by which a decision was 2 (1975). e.g., NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-5 for the Documents — Any Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need ge, which would be overridden by the deliberative process privilege would be a qualified privile e.g., Newport Pac., Inc. v. County of victims' compelling need to obtain the materials here. See, (in action charging county Board of San Diego, 200 F.R.D. 628, 638-41 (S.D. Cal. 2001) interest in free expression by policy Supervisors with violating Federal Fair Housing Act, the those actions was outweighed by the makers during the deliberative process leading up to those deliberations). litigant's interest in obtaining information concerning C. Investigative Privilege 4 EFTA00179694 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume nt 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1 6/2013 Page 6 of 10 Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any investigative privilege has not been prop erly asserted, because it must be asserted by the head of the department having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. FD IC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 200 0). Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for the Docume nts — Any investigative privilege would be a qualified privilege, in which the pub lic interest in nondisclosure must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access to the privileged informa tion . Tuit e v. Hen ry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancin g is ordinarily made by considering the ten facto rs identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizz o, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D . Pa. 197 3). Tho se ten facto rs decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Work Product Doctrine. No Work Product Doctrine in the Con text of a Claim Against Public Prosecutor s— The work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime vict ims that federal prosecutors have violated thcir public resp onsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rig hts Act. See U.S. v. Arth ur You ng & Co. , 465 U.S . 805 , 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product priv ilege to public accountants, because they have 'a public responsibility transcending any employment relationship with the client"); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d at 919-21 ("the strong public interest in honest government and in exp osing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill- served by recognition of a governmenta l attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal proceedings inquiring into the actions of public officials."). 5 EFTA00179695 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 10 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Enter the Documents — The work Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims' Need for ome where a litigant shows it has a product doctrine is a qualified privilege that can be overc other means of obtaining the relevant substantial need for the materials and that it has exhausted July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 185-86 (2d information it seeks. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Cir. 2007). The victims here can make this showing. Attorney's Conduct is at Work Production Privilege Does Not Apply When the case, the work-production protection Issue — If the attorney's conduct is a central issue in the 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Moto• does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, (M.D.N.C. 1989). Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 127, 130 E Rule 6(c) — Grand Jury Secrecy 6(e)(3)(E) — The Court can Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E). It has authorize disclosure of grand jury materials pursuant to here, and the Government has no already authorized disclosure of grand jury materials disclosure of grand jury materials. independent "privilege" to interpose against court-ordered Materials — The Court has The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury ) to disclose grand jury material" and "inherent power beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)(3 Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1347 (11th has properly exercised that power here. United States v. Cir. 2004). Grand Jury Materials — A Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F). The Court litigant can petition for release of grand jury materials. e of the materials. They have also has properly granted the victims petition for releas concurrently-filed such a petition. 6 EFTA00179696 Case 9:08 -cv- 80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/20 13 Page 8 of 10 The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Materials — The Court is obligated to enforce crime victims' righ ts. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(6)(1) (the court "shall ensu re" that crime victims receive their rights). This obligation carries with it authority to release necessary materials to protect victims' rights, including grand jury materials. Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials — The Government can redact grand jury information from the requ ested materials, and produce the remaining materials. See, e.g., In re GrandJury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 280 (3rd Cir. 2006). F. The Privacy Rights of Other Victims Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns. The Government cann ot withhold materials in this case because of the privacy rights of other victims when it has the simple option of simply redacting the nam es and identifying information of these othe r victims before producing the materials. The Governm ent has already followed this procedure else where and should do so here. See, e.g., Bates 000966-67 (materials about victim "B.B."). No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims. Several of the victims cited by the Government are represented by undersig ned counsel and do not wish to interpose privacy rights here. Nor has the Government established that they can assert the privacy rights of othe r victims. G. The Privacy Act The Privacy Act Does Not Apply in the Con text of Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). CONCLUSION Because the Government's assertions of priv ileg e are not well-founded, the Court should provide all of the documents the Government submitted for in camera inspection to the vict ims. 7 EFTA00179697 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 10 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on DATED: August 16. 2013 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WE1SSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad®pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University ofUtah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: casseljp®law.utah.edu Attorneysfor Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 8 EFTA00179698 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on Augu st 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafla Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov Attorneysfor the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srcbnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading@royblack.com (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw®att.net (617) 227-3700 (617) 338-9538 CriminalDefense Counselfor Jeffrey Epstein Is/ Bradley J. Edwa ds 9 EFTA00179699 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. I and JANE DOE No. 2 r. UNITED STATES RDING NEED FOR AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGA PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS member in good standing of the Bar 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a ent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I repres enforce their rights under the Crime (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to several other victims) in civil suits Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and also familiar with the criminal justice against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am ty State Attorney's Office. system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward Coun rnment's assertions of privilege to 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Gove in camera inspection in this case. This more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for the Government's assertions of affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the victims have a compelling and privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that have no other way of obtaining the substantial need for the information requested and information. Stipulated Facts with the Background Reeardina Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Government of Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights by Jeffrey Epstein while they were No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them nown to the Court. For purposes of minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-k y recount the efforts of the victims to this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefl s that the Government has blocked. reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government — effort 11, 2008. The Court discussed a 4. The Court first held a hearing on victims' petition on July going to go to the be an issue that's need to "hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to record as to what your position is and Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete 25-26. The Court concluded the the government's is as to what actions were taken." Tr. at you confer about whether there is a hearing with the following instructions: "So I'll let both of 32. need Sr any additional evidence to be presented." Tr. at 1 EFTA00179700 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 64 5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's Offi ce then attempted to reach a stipulated set underlying the case . The U.S . Atto rney 's of facts Offi ce offe red a very abbreviated set of proposed fact and the vict ims resp ond ed with a deta iled s, set of proposed facts. Rather than respond victims' specific facts, however, the U.S to the . Attorney's Office suddenly reversed cou rse. On July 29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regardi ng Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hea The U.S . Atto rney 's Offi ce took the ring (DE 17). follo wing position: "After consideration, the Gov believes that an evidentiary hearing is not ernm ent necessary" (DE 17 at 1). The Offi ce asse rted Court need only take judicial notice of the that the fact that no indictment had been filed against to resolve the case. Epstein 6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "No tice ," proposed statement of facts surrounding the giving a case. DE 19 at 5. The victims' resp requeste d that the Cou rt dire ct the onse also Gov ernm ent to confer with the victims regarding undisputed facts of the case, and produce the the non-prosecution agreement and othe r info rmation about the case. Id. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case the confide ntia lity of the non -pro secu regarding tion agre eme nt. The Court ultimately ordered producti of the agreement to the victims. on 7. After the U.S. Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreeme nt avai victims, the victims reviewed it and purs labl e to the ued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney Ulti mat ely, how ever , the U.S . Atto rney 's Office. 's Offi ce declined to reach a stipulated set of fact the victims and declined to provide further s with information about the case. 8. With negotiations at an impasse, the vict ims attempted to learn the facts of the case way s. In app roxi mat ely May 200 9, coun in other sel for the victims propounded discovery requ both state and federal civil cases against ests in Epstein, seeking to obtain correspo nde nce Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea between agreement — information that the U.S. Office was unw illin g to prov ide to the Attorney's vict ims and information that was highly relevant both the victims' civil suit and their CVRA to enforcement action. Epstein refused to prod information, and (as the Court is aware) exte uce that nded litigation to obtain the materials follo Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to wed. The producing the materials. 9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approxi mat pages of e-mail correspondence between ely 358 criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney regardin g the plea agre eme nt that had 's Office been nego tiated between them. See DE48-Attach 1/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose ment for the first time the extreme steps that taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avo had been id prosecuting Epstein and to avo id hav ing in the case learn about the non-prosecu the victims tion agreement that had been reached betw and the Gov ernm ent. Whi le the een Epstein Cou rt ordered that all of the correspondence be turn the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that ed over to order and instead only produced the corr espondence authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. 10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil law Epstein. Then, armed with the new informa suit s agai nst tion, they turned to moving forw ard in the case. On September 13, 2010, the victims CVR A informed the Court that they were preparin filings in the case. g new 11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to prov ide a report on the case by October 27, 2010. Tha statu s t same day, counsel for the victims again cont acted 2 EFTA00179701 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 64 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225.1 Enter ing a stipulated set of facts in the case. the U.S. Attorney's Office about the possibility of reach don't have any problem with That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded: "We is what occurred" (DE 41 at 2). agreeing that afactual assertion is correct if we agree that ney's Office a detailed proposed 12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attor by the correspondence between the statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented requested that the U.S. Attorney's U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims Office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to stated: Jane Doe No. 1 and If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, you work with us Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that know, in the summer of to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you you on a stipulation 2008 Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with that no recitation of the of facts when you reversed course and took that position e-mail means that facts was necessary (see doe. No. 19 at 2).. I hope that your ications that you deem you will at least look at our facts and propose any modif could well help appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court move this case to a conclusion. rd the proposed statement of facts to That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to forwa 2-3). the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office 13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed the filing of their motion for a two- contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay en the Office and the victims in an week period of time so that negotiations could be held betwe hopefully reach a settlement resolution attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to en the victims and the U.S. Attorney's without the need for further litigation. Negotiations betwe p.m. on October 27, 2010 — the Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 Attorney's Office informed the victims date on which the victims' pleading was due — the U.S. s' proposed statement of facts and that it did not believe that it had time to review the victim Office further advised the victims advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The r with their Office under the CVRA that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confe rather than "criminal" litigation (doe. in this case because in its view the case is "civil" litigation No. 41 at 3). Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, 14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. agreed to delay filing their motion and the victims filed a report with the Court in which they iations can resolve (or narrow) the accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negot Discussions with the U.S. Attorney's disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office (DE 41 at 4). Jane Doe No. 1 and the U.S. Attorney Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between in December 2010. the U.S. Attorney's Office I In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, disclosures to the victims as required informed the victims that it would not be making any initial ney's Office did not explain why they for civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aX1). The U.S. Attor think this case is properly viewed believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they as a "civil" case. 3 EFTA00179702 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 64 IS. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the victims informed the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would file their "summary judgment" motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on the facts. 16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the victims that — contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts — no such stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any agreement on the facts: Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matte r in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is, because whether the rights in I8 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interp retatio n, resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certai n set of facts, other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffre y Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispu te at issue .... Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011) . 17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgm ent, alleging 53 undisputed facts along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of the Governmen t's failure to contest their facts. DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold relevant evidence. DE 50. 18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the Government's argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court , however, rejected the victims' argument that it should accept their facts because of the Gove rnment's failure to contest the facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discov ery could proceed in the form of requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at 11. The Court reserved ruling on the victims' motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence. 19. In light of the Court's order, on October 3, 2011, the victim s filed requests for production with the Government. The requests included 25 speci fic reque sts, each of which linked very directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case. 20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Governmen t's responses were due, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indee d, the Government told the Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some inform ation to [the victims] even 4 EFTA00179703 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 64 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter taking a search for that information." during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is under over the next seventeen months, the DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, despite the victims reminding the Government did not produce any information to the victims, Government of that statement made to the court. on June 19, 2013, the Court denied 21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, of discovery. DE 189. That same day, the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay to compel and directing the Government the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion in; (2) all communications between the to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epste ent requested by the victims. DE Government and outside entities; and (3) every other docum the Government to assert privilege by 190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed filing a contemporaneous privilege producing the items in question for in camera inspection and "clearly identify[] each document[] by log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must DE 190 at 2. matter author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject its production. With regard to item (1) 22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made the correspondence pending a ruling — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld of these materials. With regard from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of documents to the Court for in to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages question. The documents that the asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in as they included such things that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, court pleadings filed by the victims victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88, themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media in related matters (e.g , Bates 0008- 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epste s (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), 10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper article It also included roughly four hundred and similar materials already available to the victims. case — notices that were substantively pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this in this case had already received. indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves produced do not go to the disputed Almost without exception, the documents the Government issues in this case. in this case on August 6, 2013. This 23. The Government made one last production of materials y meaningless in the context of the involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largel ents in the case such the crime victims' contested issues in the case. They included public docum of the victims' redacted summary own pleadings, see, e.g., Bates 000671-000711 (copy produced these documents that would judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has they have simultaneously refused likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, nsive to our requests on the basis of production of hundreds of other documents that are respo relevance. nt subjects through requests for 24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all releva many of the victims' central admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit for admissions and the Government's allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests can see that the victims have diligently responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court this case. tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in 5 EFTA00179704 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 -1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 64 25. The victims have also tried to obta in information on subjects related to thei volu ntar y requ ests for inte rvie w with r suit by pers ons who are no longer employed by the Department. For example, I have sent lette Just ice rs to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Aco sta, have information about the Epstein case, requ who both esting an opportunity to discuss the case with Both of them have ignored my letters. them. The Need for the Materials Requested by 26. The documents that the victims requeste the Victims d that the Government produce to them on 3, 2011, are all high ly rele vant to thei r October CVR A enfo rcement action. We would not have requeste them otherwise. The victims also have no othe d r means of obtaining the requested mat eria section of the affidavit explains why the l. This materials are needed by the vict ims . For convenience of the Court, the affidavit will the proceed on a section-by-section basis concern need for the mat eria ls. Also for the con ing the ven ience of the Court, a copy of the Octobe request for production is attached to this Affi r 3, 201 1, davit. Also attached is the vict ims ' supp discovery request of June 24, 2013. As lem ental the Court will note from reviewing the requ prod ucti on, mos t of the requ ests spec ests for ifica lly recount the allegations that the requested doc would support, in an effort to eliminate any uments dispute from the Government that the doc were not relevant to the case. Many of uments the requests for production link directly to paragrap hs in the vict ims ' prev ious ly-fi specific led sum mary judgment motion. Accordingly, the vict have a very specific need for these doc ims uments to support the allegations in the judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23. summary 27. The Cou rt has prev ious ly con clud ed that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this poin the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has t in ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will [the victims] to that relief [of setting aside enti tle the non-prosecution agreement] is a que stio reserved for determination upon a fully dev n prop erly eloped evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-1 Court has further indicated that it will be 2. The considering an "estoppel" argument raise Government as a defense in this case. DE d by the 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has note d that this "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense argu ment which must be considered in the historical con text of the enti re inte rfac e betw een factual Eps tein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities federal offense victims — including an asse and the ssment of the allegation of a deli bera te con between Epstein and federal prosecutors to spir acy keep the victims in the dark on the penden neg otia tion s betw een Eps tein and fede cy of ral authorities until well after the fact and pres the non-prosecution agreement to them as a enta tion of fait aceompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (em pha sis The victims have a compelling need for info add ed). rmation about the Government's actions to what the "ent ire inte rfac e" was and to resp show ond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as other defenses that it appears to be prep as well aring to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52- pag e from the Government to the victim's sum resp onse mar y judgment motion, raising numerous fact based and other arguments against the victim's ually- position). 28. Request for Production ("RFP" ) No. 1 requests information regarding the investigation. These documents arc Epstein needed to support the victims alle ' gati ons Government had a viable criminal case for that the many federal sex offenses that it could hav against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. e pursued 29. RIP No. 2 requests information rega rding crime victim notifications in this case documents are need ed to supp ort the . These vict ims ' alle gati ons that their rights under the CVRA, their 6 EFTA00179705 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 64 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter violated in this case. In particular, these right to notice and to confer with the Government, were not properly notified about the non- documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were t and Jeffrey Epstein and that the prosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Governmen ment. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. Government did not confer with the victims about the agree ing in particular its confidentiality 30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, includ that the confidentiality provision provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. I and further needed to demonstrate that victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are the agreement, thereby deliberately Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of e.g., DE 48 at 13. causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, s between the Government and Jeffrey 31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiation y Epstein would enter any guilty plea Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffre uding the plea in Miami or another (including in particular any negotiations concerning concl are relevant to the victims allegations location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents conclude any plea agreement that would that the Government was interested in finding a place to d in or about West Palm Beach) from effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom reside DE 48 at 7-8. learning what was happening through the press See, e.g., iations between the Government and 32. RIP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negot victims in civil cases against Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the tion that part of the plea negotiations These documents are needed to prove the victims' allega the victims would be represented in with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that ienced personal injury lawyer or by civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an exper DE 48 at 9. someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., rnment's and/or Epstein awareness or 33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Gove tions to the non-prosecution agreement discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objec prove the victims' allegations that the that they negotiated. The documents are needed to Epstein concealed from public view Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with resulted had the agreement been because of the intense public criticism that would have objected in court and convinced the disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have 11. They are also relevant to bias and judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, case. motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this Government's awareness of its potential 34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the sions between the Government and CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discus These documents are needed to prove Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. that it potentially had obligations under the victims' allegations that the Government was aware agreement and any related state court the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13. in's lobbying efforts to persuade the 35. RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epste t and/or non-prosecution agreement, Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangemen Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill needed to prove the victims allegation Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are his performance was delayed while he that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, the Justice Department to obtain a used his significant social and political connections to lobby 7 EFTA00179706 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 64 more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These mater ials also are needed to establish the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. 36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 advis ing them that "this case is currently under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, at the very least, highly misleading, because they conve yed the impression that no plea arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6. 37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produ ce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Gove rnment fails to recognize that the victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the case — inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office 's negotiations with Epstein. If the FI31 agents were not accurately informed about the progre ss of the cases, then they could not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case — a central point in the victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan — something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S. Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NM, it would have been part of the same scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. 38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meeti ngs that the Government (including FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a non- prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advan ced in their summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. 39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's Office to me (Bradley J. Edwards) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NM, I was deceived as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contra dict the Government's apparent position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't Answers to RFA ¶ 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epste in was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential."). 8 EFTA00179707 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 64 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter about June 27, 2008, the Government 40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or es on or about June 30, 2008. The learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charg s in this case and to prove both the documents are needed to describe the course of proceeding entering a guilty plea (and thus Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be s' full knowledge of what was blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victim happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. t and Epstein working together 41. RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Governmen secret, including declining comment to kecp the existence of the non-prosecution agreement it when his guilty plea in state court about the existence of such an agreement when asked about prove the victims' allegations that became public knowledge. These documents are needed to 48 at 14-18,and to contradict what the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE s were aware of the NPA shortly appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victim ¶ 13(b) (claiming that "the USAO had after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA ment prior to Epstein's June 30, communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agree to contradict the Government's 2008 guilty plea."). These documents are also necessary crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with that it admit that "Epstein's defense Answers to RFA ¶ 13(d) (Government denying request in the non-prosecution agreement that attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision barred conferring with victims about the agreement"). ility of notifying the victims about 42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasib victims came to receive a "corrected" the NPA, along with information concerning how the Epstein had pled guilty. These notification letter on about September 3, 2008 — months after t had no valid reason for failing to documents are needed to demonstrate that the Governmen e why the victims at first received provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrat Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was 43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Office negotiated the NPA with present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Reinhart learned confidential, non- No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn public information about Epstein matter. The Court will while he was a prosecutor in the Office: affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at "I never learned any confidential, non-public information about improbable to me, because Reinhart was 3 (¶ 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed would seem likely that he would have in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and ionally, I learned through public record discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Addit lished his criminal defense office at that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart estab y Epstein's personal business address. the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffre Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting the Government has admitted that however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, , non-public information about the it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with rnment has documents that Reinhart RFA's ¶ 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Gove 9 EFTA00179708 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 10 of filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable infe renc e that , if was willing to provide false information Rein hart abo ut this subject, he may have additional info about the case that is being concealed as wel rmation l. 44. Materials about Reinhart are also need ed to support the victims' summary judg See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations ment motion. about Reinhart). 45. Rei nha rt's affid avit with the Cou rt also states: "Because I did not have any, I did non-public confidential information about not share the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (1 17). Because the Government has information demonst the first part of this state men t is fals rating that e, it may well be that the second part of the statement is fals as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established e a business address identical to Eps tein 's business address, at a time while he was still wor king at the US Attorney's Office, and that ultimatel y repr esen ted seve ral of Mr. Reinhart Eps tein 's co-c onsp irators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civi litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had l with the Epstein case while working at the highly relevant. Office is 46. The Gov ernm ent has furt her adm itted that it possesses documents reflecting contact betw een Bru ce Rein hart and pers ons/ enti ties s affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Rein his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't hart left Answers to RFA's 1 16. As state d abo ve, left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a Reinhart private firm that was located in the same Eps tein 's pers onal busi ness whe re address as he was daily. This would appear to be a violatio Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. n of the 47. Information about Reinhart's connect ions to Epstein is critical to the victims' alle this case . If Rein hart was help ing Eps gations in tein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that provide a motive for Reinhart (and other wou ld prosecutors) not to properly notify the vict to confer with them. Also, if Epstein ims and not was improperly receiving information abo prosecut ion effo rts agai nst him (or lack ut the ther eof) , that could be highly relevant to the rem stage of this case, in which the victims will edies ask (among other things) to have the NPA invalidated. Epstein has already indicated agre ement that he will raise a double jeopardy argumen that effo rt. How ever , dou ble jeop ardy t against con side rations do not apply in situations where defendant was not truly in jeopardy of pros the ecution. In addition, the Court may wish to in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability con sider, for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that was imp rope rly obta inin g info rma tion Epstein abou t the prosecution efforts against him would be high relevant to that culpability assessment. It ly is also relevant to the estoppel defense Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) that the intend to raise. 48. Evidence con cern ing Rei nha rt's con nect ions , including improper connections, to Epstein also rele vant to bias and mot ive in this case is . It would show, for example, the Rein hart reason to encourage others in the U.S. Atto had a rney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient the one he was entitled to. deal than 49. RFP No. 16 requ este d info rma tion not only about improper connections between and Reinhart, but more broadly about such Eps tein connections with any other prosecutors. Of the Government possesses such informa cou rse, if tion, it would be highly relevant to the allegati ons for the reas ons just disc usse victims' d. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admissio the Government admits that it has information n, about a personal or business relation ship between Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor invo lved in the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel. Answers 10 EFTA00179709 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 64 all of those Government should be required to disclose to Requests for Admission at 1 20. The about those e whether there was anything improper documents so that the victims can determin on a case ly unusual for federal prosecutors to work relationships. In my experience, it is high loyment ) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the emp prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein was being a business relationship with the person who of the federal government and enter into prosecuted. ecution ing an investigation into the Epstein pros 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concern (OPR) in Office of Professional Responsibility undertaken by the Justice Department's asked the undertaken at the request of the victims, who Washington, D.C. The investigation was r during the "improper influences" were brought to bea Justice Department to determine whether of Jeffrey tion (and ultimately the non-prosecution) negotiations involving the possible prosecu that OPR logs that the Government has produced Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege Bates P- (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See generated a great deal of correspondence the Epstein r influences being brought to bear on 013909 to P-013955. Of course, imprope erly notified. allegations that they were not being prop prosecution would support the victims' in this case — ted the specific allegations that are at issue Moreover, OPR may well have investiga wou ld be stigation. Here again, this information or directed others to undertake such an inve ted many fact, because OPR has presumably investiga critical to supporting the victims' case. In n, and have which the victims complain in this litigatio of the precise actions and actors, about case file could ts needed, the production of the OPR already gathered many of the documen overy process. probably short-cut this litigation and disc 1, nearly half a information from OPR. On May 6, 201 51. There is no other way to obtain this letter to 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a year after the victims' request of December could not be of in which it stated that it "regret[ted) it my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, ut the allegations. assistance" in providing information abo Southern ut why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 52. RFP No. 18 asks for information abo Epstein case. of handling various issues related to the District of Florida was "conflicted out" tions about the victims did not receive proper notifica This information is needed to show why rest that has Epstein. It appears that the conflict of inte the NPA that the Office negotiated with eover, in its Office's treatment of the victims. Mor been recognized may have to do with the ce for the p correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Offi production of documents, and in follow-u held by there are no responsive documents being Southern District of Florida has indicated that appe ars that rict that is handling conflict matters. (It the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other dist because the Florida.) This appears to be improbable, this other office is the Middle District of ' discovery e many documents covered by the victims conflict matters would presumably generat ly relevant file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is high requests, including the OPR investigative on to the 's Office has provided complete producti to determining whether the U.S. Attorney ions of the also be highly relevant to the motivat victims. A conflict of interest would dling of the Epstein case. Government attorneys throughout the han by former porting allegations made in March 2011, 53. RFP No. 19 asks for information sup which he a three-page letter to the news media in U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent launched "a s began investigating Epstein, Epstein claimed that when Government attorney ded to explain the prosecutors." This information is nee yearlong assault on the prosecution and 11 EFTA00179710 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 12 of why the U.S. Attorney's Office would hav e withheld notifications from the victims NPA. If the pros ecut ors wer e bein about the g assa ulted , as Acosta has said they were, then they wou have reason to disregard their obligations ld to crime victims. In addition, this wou improper behavior by Epstein, which wou ld show ld be relevant at the remedies stag e of this determining the scope of any remedy. These case in allegations would also bear strongly on mot bias. ive and 54. RFP No. 20 requests documents betw een the Government and state and loca l pros and police agencies (including The Palm ecut ors Beach Police Department) regarding the prosecu tion agre eme nt. Bec ause this invo non- lves information outside of the Department, victims understanding that the Government it is the has already turned over all of this info them, as the Court has directed. See DE rma tion to 190 at 2 (requiring production of informa persons or enti ties outs ide the fede ral tion with gov ernm ent) . For the sake of completeness, however, worth noting that this information is needed it is to demonstrate that the victims wer e not prop informed that Epstein's plea to state charges erly would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecu crimes committed against them. tion for 55. RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the vict understand that the Government is prepared ims to produce all of this information to them (onc stay pen ding acti on by the Elev enth Circ e the uit is lifte d). Again, for the sake of completeness, it worth noting that this correspondence is is needed to demonstrate the victims' claim Government was concealing the existence s that the of the NPA from them and that this was Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically note don e at d that the victims have a need for informa that will allo w them to argu e to the tion Court in support of their "allegation of conspiracy between Epstein and federal pros a delib erat e ecutors to keep the victims in the dark pendency of negotiations between Epstein on the and federal authorities unt il wel l afte r the presentation of the non-prosecution agreeme fact and nt to them as a/aft accompli." DE 189 at 12 56. RFP No. 22 requests information about n.6. any considerations that Epstein prov ided , or to provide, to any individual within the Gov offered ernment. Here again, the victims understand informa tion is bein g prov ided to them that this . It is aga in worth noting, however, that this information highly relevant to explaining why the U.S is . Attorney's Office would not have prop erly the victims about what was happening in noti fied their case, an allegation that is at the cent victims' summary judgment motion. See er of the , e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the Eps tein NPA secret from public view to avoid pub criticism). lic 57. RFP No. 23 asks for docu men ts that will assist Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. protecting their rights under the CVRA. 2 in This request links to the Government' s obli under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" gati ons to protect victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c) The direct connection between this request (1). and the victims' case is self-explanatory. 58. RFP No. 24 request correspondence rela ted to the Epstein prosecution that the Gov had with entities outside the federal governm ernm ent ent. Here again, it is my underst and ing that materials have already been ordered produce these d. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring producti info rma tion with pers ons or enti ties on of outs ide the federal government). For the sake completeness, this information is again of relevant to showing the course of the Eps tein 12 EFTA00179711 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 notified about event during that investigation and why the victims were not properly investigation. ed under the Federal Rules of Civil 59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are requir it be determined that the Civil Rules Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should d. apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitle for production, asking the Government 60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request n that the Department undertook to provide any information concerning any investigatio n in this case, including any FBI, concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigatio District of Florida, Middle District of grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern lly needed, as it would go directly to Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critica violated during the investigation of proving the victims' allegations that their rights were defeating the Government's "estoppel" Epstein. This information would also go directly to argument. This information would also show motive and bias. Inadeouate Privilege Log s the Court's order in this case. I 61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violate t's assertions of privilege because have been greatly hampered in responding to the Governmen impossible to determine whether the of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is se of the inadequacy of the log. Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible becau a privilege log that "clearly identifies] 62. The Court has directed the Government to produce r(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, each document[] [as to which privilege is asserted] by autho entries in the privilege log fail to and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. Many of the meet this requirement. comes from the very first entry in 63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log some 39 pages of documents. DE the log, covering Box No. I (P-000001 through P-000039), "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ 212-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: grand jury subpoenas and attorney SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various (Villafafia) handwritten notes." privilege log is provided on page 20 of 64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the h P-012451). The Government the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 throug Yet the only description of these 90 asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. correspondence between AUSA and pages is: "File folder entitled 'Key Documents' containing fication information, corrections to case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identi jury materials." draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand of the privilege log which the Court 65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies mporaneously a response to the will see when it examines it. I have also filed conte of an inadequate privilege log, as government's privilege log, which identifies many situations Government's privilege log. well as other responses that are needed to respond to the about any burdens associated with 66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel directives. At all times relevant to this producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's counsel to minimize any excessive case, I would have been willing to work with Government sts for production that I sent to the burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The reque excessive burden. Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim 13 EFTA00179712 Case 9:08 -cv- 807 36-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 14 of 67. Many of the Government's privileg e assertions require factual premises — such existence of an attorney-client relation as the ship and the rendition of legal services relationship . Yet the Gov ernm ent within that has not prov ided the factual underpinnings for any of its privilege assertions. 68. An illustration of this problem is foun d on page I of the supplemental priv ileg e log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entr y here read s: "7/10/08 emails between J. Sloman and A. Marie Villafafla, K. Atkinson, and FBI re propose Goldberger's letter re victim notification d resp onse to ." The log then indicates that the Gov asserting attorney-client privilege, work prod ernm ent is uct privilege, and deliberative process priv The Gov ernm ent, how eve r, doe s not prov ilege. ide any document for any of the factual underpinnin of any of these claims. For example, with gs regard to the attorney-client claim, the Gov does not explain who the attorney is and ernment who the client is. With regard to the wor claim, the Gov ernm ent doe s not exp k product lain wha t litig ation this document contemplated. And rega rd to deli bera tive proc ess, the Gov ernm with ent does not explain what deliberative proc involved. ess was 69. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the underpinnings of privilege assertions, which factual the Court will see when it examines the priv log and the victims responsive log. ilege Waiver of Confidentiality 70. Som e of the priv ileg es that the Gov ernm ent has asserted have been waived. Of cour requirement of a privilege is that confidentia se, a lity be maintained. Some of the materials hav circulated outside of any confidential circ e been le, thereby waiving privilege. 71. An illus trati on of waiv er foun d on pag e 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216 regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P413282 -1), with to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 ema A. Marie Villafafla to A. Acosta, J. Slom il from an, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed resp Goldbe rger 's lette r re vict im noti fica onse to tion ." The log then indicates that the Governm asserting attorney-client privilege regarding ent is these emails. But the emails were not inte rnal U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the to the "FBI." (This is another illustrati inadequacie s of the priv ileg e log, on of the beca use who in the FBI the materials were sent to is disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcem not ent investigative agency, not an agency that legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-clie provides nt privilege would be waived by dissemi this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Offi nation of ce. 72. Ano ther illus trati on of waiv er is foun d on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log 1), with regard to supplemental box No. (P-0 (DE 216- 3 13504 to P-013507). The entry here read folder labeled `Mtg w/ Ken Starr, MA, JS, s: "File Drew' containing handwritten notes by A. Villafafla." Kenn Starr, of course, is a defe Marie nse attorney who represented defendant Eps Recording information provided by a defense tein . attorney is not part of any governmental attorney client privilege. - 73. Ano ther illus trati on of waiv er is foun d on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. (DE 3 (P413644 through P-013653). The entr reads: "File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea y here Negotiations" containing 9/17 /07 e-m ail from Marie Villafafla to J. Richards, N. Kuyrken A. dall re status update; undated and typed han notes by A. Marie Villafafia re items to be com dwr itten pleted on case, strength of case, victim intervie ws, 14 EFTA00179713 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on 64 rnment is asserting attorney-client summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Gove "Richards' and "Kuyrkendall" to be privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to ey's Office. Accordingly, the references to FBI agents — not attorneys in the U.S. Attorn attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. Privilege The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any regarding a "fiduciary exception" 74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings to privileges. In this case, the (also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) rights of Jane Doe No. I and Jane Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA "victims" under the CVRA, the Doe No. 2. Specifically, because they were recognized the CVRA, including the right to Government had obligations to provide them rights under fairness. Because of this fiduciary confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with privilege claims regarding interactions duty, an exception applies to many of the Government with the victims. s in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI 75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victim were victims of sexual assaults by determined that both Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 approximately fourteen years of age Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were sexual assaults involved use of and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These in interstate commerce. Both Jane means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel Department's investigation of Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Epstein. fied Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this 76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identi Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Justice Department would make its victim notification letter. The notification promises that the title reasonable right to confer with "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. l's rights, including be reasonably heard at any public the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to notification further explained that proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea .. .." The "[alt this time, your case is under investigation." delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard 77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand- that the Justice Department would CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises , including "[t]he reasonable right to make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. l's rights and "to be reasonably heard at any confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" The notification further explained public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea ...." that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the ented by counsel that was paid for by meetings with Jane Doe No. 1. Jane Doe No. 2 was repres attorney. These meetings occurred Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that under the CVRA. because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims' rights ution agreement was signed between 79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosec District of Florida, Jane Doe No. I was Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern er 26, 2007, Special Agents E. contacted to be advised regarding the investigation. On Octob Jane Doe No. 1 because she was Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime. 15 EFTA00179714 Case 9:08-cv-80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 16 of 80. In all of these dealings between the Gov ernment and the victims, as well as other deal a similar nature, the Government had a fidu ings of ciary obligation to protect the interests of the under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Acc vict ims ordingly, the Government is preclude d from any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exce rais ing ption applies or, at the very least, any priv assertion would be outweighed by the victims ilege ' compelling need for the material. 81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), pag e 1 of with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-0 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email 13282 to from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response Sloman, K. to Goldberger's letter re victim notifica tion responding to defense attorney Goldberger ." In 's letter about victim notification, the U.S . Atto Office had a statutory duty under the CVR rney's A to protect the victims' interests. Accordi Office cann ot asse rt priv ileg e whe n ngly, the que stio ns about whether it fulfilled its obligations victims have arisen in this case or, at the very to the least, any privilege assertion would be outw by the victims' compelling need for the mat eighed erials. 82. Ano ther illus trati on of a situ atio n whe re the fiduciary duty exception applies is page 16 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), foun on d with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-01 entry reads: "File folder entitled tsrch 064 1. The re Crime Victims Rights' contain ing atto rney handwritten notes, draft victim notification rese arch, letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefk Here again, the materials at issue go to the owi tz." heart of this case — what kind of noti fica tion made to the victims and how did the defe s wer e nse attorneys shape and limi t thos e noti fica Moreover, in evaluating victims' rights issu tion s. es and determining what kind of letter to send Government was fulfilling legal duties that , the it owed to the victims. Accordingly , the cannot now assert privilege when questio Offi ce ns about whether it fulfilled its obligations victims have arisen in this case. to the Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud 83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our -Misconduct Not Covered brief regarding an exception to vari ous priv when the communications concern crim ileges e, fraud, or government misconduct. Man imp orta nt doc ume nts abou t the trea tme y of the nt of the victims to which the Government is privilege would fall within that exception. asserting 84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in Gov ernm ent' s priv ileg e log con cern con the ceal ment from the victims of the existence of prosecution agreement between the Governm a non - ent and Epstein. I have reviewed a cop y of prosecution agreement signed on about Sep the non- tember 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorney represen tativ e of the U.S . Atto rney s and a 's Offi ce. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the agreement to the victims. 85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received from the FBI adv isin g them that "Wh letters is case is currently under investigation. This can be lengthy process and we request your con a tinued patience while we conduct a thor investigation." The statement in the notifica ough tion letter was deceptive, beca use it did not that the case had previously been resolved reveal by the non-prosecution agreement entered Eps tein and the U.S . Atto rney 's Offi ce into by disc ussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea notify agreement had been reached prev ious ly, and part of the agreement was a non-prosecution that agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 16 EFTA00179715 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 Agreement would resolve the federal Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution informed of the non-prosecution case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly by the FBI, but rather that the FBI agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct was acting at the direction of the U.S. was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, Attorney's Office.) FBI because Epstein's counsel was 86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. I contacted the s were harassing her. Assistant U.S. attempting to take her deposition and private investigator represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several Attorney A. Marie Villafafia secured pro bono counsel to igation. Pro bono counsel was able other identified victims in connection with the criminal invest AUSA Villafafia secured pro bono to assist Jane Doe No. I in avoiding the improper deposition. nal Crime Victims' Law Center in counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the Natio ge of Law. During the call, Ms. Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark Colle had been reached in this matter. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement recognized as an Epstein victim by the 87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was ng her that "1-11his case Is currently U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advisi request your continued patience while under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we in the notification letter was deceptive we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement ed by the non-prosecution agreement because it did not reveal that the case had been resolv mber 2007. entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Septe her that I represented Jane Doe No. 88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform e information about the federal crimes 1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provid indictment against Epstein. AUSA committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal es being filed. At the end of the call, Villafaffa and I discussed the possibility of federal charg that I wanted considered by the U.S. AUSA Villafafia asked me to send any information charges. I was not informed that Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal reached an agreement not to file previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had of the criminal matter was imminent federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution Office withheld this information from at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's d in the non-prosecution agreement. me was because of the confidentiality provision that existe ted in what she was being permitted to At this point it is clear that AUSA Villafana was restric tell me. In the letter, I indicated my client's 89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. In particular, I wrote on behalf of desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. d States Attorney to consider the my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our Unite Federal laws. We urge you to move fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our ution commensurate with the crimes forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosec take the steps necessary to protect our Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to wrote this letter, I was still unaware children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I Epstein — a fact that continued to be that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Office. I only learned of this fact concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's later on. here in this affidavit and in this case, 90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsew counsel of the existence of a signed deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal 17 EFTA00179716 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 64 non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misco nduct. Documents relating to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted. 91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misc onduct exception applies on this basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1 ), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Stan• to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handw ritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafla." Again, these materials are central to the dispu te in this case, as they involve discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to crime victims. And given the dates of the communications, in all likelihood they would be related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. 92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud -misconduct exception applies is found on page I of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P- 013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldb erger letter re victim notification." These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to kcep the non-prosecu tion agreement secret. 93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduc t exception would apply is to information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinh art learned private, non-public information about the Epstein case. This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct . These documents, however, are covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. 94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potentially apply is with regard to information that the Government posse sses that Matthew Menchel has a personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's 120. This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also poten tially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involv ed in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information suggesting that immediately after leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Menc hel was associated with Epstein- controlled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting shoul d be produced. 95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component — the Office of Professional Responsibility — has collected information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 122 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/o r other Government entities have collected information about . .. other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's] possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrat es that there is a prima facie 18 EFTA00179717 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 64 ct exception to ugh to trigger the crime-fraud-miscondu case of improper behavior, which is eno various privileges. Factual Materials Not Privileged erally not l memorandum, factual materials are gen 96. As noted in the accompanying lega ernment is . Many of the materials to which the Gov covered by the privileges at issue in this case asserting privilege are factual materials. Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege Yet with client privilege regarding many documents. 97. The Government has asserted attorney , who is the impossible to determine who is the attorney regard to most of these assertions, it is ications are being rendered, and whether the commun client, whether professional legal services ngly, it is very the delivery of legal services. Accordi were confidential to those involved in and , in any the assertions of attorney client privilege difficult for me to respond to many of lies. its burden of showing that the privilege app event, the Government has failed to carry to have been which attorney-client privilege appears 98. An illustration of documents at to e log (DE d is found at page 7 of the first privileg improperly asserted or inadequately describe twenty-two 3811 to P-013833. The entry for these 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-01 ing several entitled 'Information Packet Drafts' contain pages of documents reads: "File folder from this t Information packet." It is impossible drafts of Informations, and complete draf could provide privilege applies to these documents. I description to see how the attorney-client many other illustrations of the problem. re it was in a ilege claim directly covers situations whe 99. The Government's attorney-client priv ilege. For therefore is limited in now asserting priv fiduciary relationship with the victims and concerning ilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry example, page 3 of the supplemental priv 7 Starr which involves "File folder entitled '12/05/0 Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 through P-013350, J. Sloman to letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 edits by A. notification with handwritten notes and J. Leficowitz re performance and victim this case, as it s very directly to the issues involved in Marie Villafafia." This information goe rney -client Yet the Government has asserted an atto goes directly to "victim notification." fiduciary learning what is in these documents. The privilege to prevent the victims from government's e applies in this situation, and limits the exception to the attorney-client privileg betw een the appears to be shared communications ability to invoke a privilege. This also ilege could it is unclear how the attorney-client priv Government and Epstein's attorneys, and ethically apply to such documents. materials have established a compelling need for the 100. As one example of why the victims the Court has other materials like them) is the fact that described in the preceding paragraph (and ernment as a "estoppel" argument raised by the Gov indicated that it will be considering an ates a Court has noted that this argument "implic defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The text of the t be considered in the historical factual con fact-sensitive equitable defense which mus ral offense vant prosecutorial authorities and the fede entire interface between Epstein, the rele een Epstein allegation of a deliberate conspiracy betw victims - including an assessment of the s between in the dark on the pendency of negotiation and federal prosecutors to keep the victims -prosecution l after the fact and presentation of the non Epstein and federal authorities until wel materials to DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The agreement to them as a fait accompli." 19 EFTA00179718 Case 9:08 -cv- 80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 20 of which the Government is asserting attorney -client privilege go directly to that "int between the victims, the Government, and erface" Epstein. The victims have a compelling need info rma tion and the fidu ciar y exce ptio for this n to the attorney-client privilege applies to perm Court to provide these documents to the vict it the ims. 101. The Government has not explain ed any harm that would come from rele docume nts cov ered by atto rney clie nt asing the priv ileg e to the victims. If the Government raises any harm, I respectfully request an opportunity such to provide additional information on that harm. alleged Deliberative Process Privilege 102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government und deliberative process privilege concerns an er the investigation that the Justice Department' Professional Res pon sibi lity (OP R) ope s Office of ned with ' rega rd to the Epstein case. This investigation was und erta ken at the requ est of the vict ims in this case. On December 10, 2010, Professor Paul Cassell of the University co-c ounsel, of Utah College of Law, and I met with Attorney for the Sou ther n Dist rict of the U.S. Flor ida rega rdin g this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office Mia mi, Flor ida. At on that date , Prof esso in r Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Atto Ferrer, asking him to personally investig rney , Mr. ate what happened during the Epstein pros how the victims were treated during that inve ecut ion and stigation. Based on the privilege log that has provided , as well as subs equ ent corr been espo nde nce sent to Professor Cassell, that request investigation was turned over to OPR in Was for hington, D.C. 103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is docume nts are bein g with held abo ut that many that inve stiga tion — documents that would go to the cent issues in this case. Approximately three who ral le pages of the privilege log — pages 12 thro of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216 ugh 14 -1) — relate to the OPR investigation of Epstein case was handled and how the victims how the were treated. 104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the proc reaching a decision, not the ultimate deci ess of sion itself. The Government here has app asserted a deliberative process claim over arently not only the OPR process, but also over decision. It is not clear which document the OPR embodies the final OPR decision (or, give n the inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that final decision has been prod Given the limited descriptions of the docume uced). nts that have been prov ided , it app ears that decision may be reflected in a document the OPR found on page 13 of the supplemental privileg 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-01394 e log (DE 0 to P-013942. The description ther e read s: Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened "Dr aft by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wif A. Ferr er, with hand writ ten corr ecti ons. " redo No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor any indication as to whether the letter is there was or was not circulated to other pers ons. noteworthy that this letter is described as It is also a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege final vers ion of the lette r indi cate d, log is the rais ing que stions about what was "draft" and what "final." If this is the final embodiment of was OPR's conclusions, then this letter wou ld not be protected by a "deliberative process" privileg e, because the deliberations wou ld hav e com end. (It is also worth noting that because e to an OPR is an agency that investigates miscon federal prosecutors, it would not be prov duc t by iding attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its 20 EFTA00179719 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 64 e, the U.S. privileged with regard to, for exampl documents would not be attorney-client ofFlorida.) Attorney's Office for the Southern District Does I and 2, many of the exact claims raised by Jane 105. The fact that OPR has investigated to reach its bstructed by the Government in order and were able to gather documents uno case could of the OPR file to the victims in this conclusion likely means that production OPR "needed" ess and the litigation. Additionally, if significantly shortcut this discovery proc logically the ings regarding the victims' claims, then the documents to investigate and make find men ts. The r means through which to obtain the docu victims share that "need" and have no othe ts covered would come from releasing the documen Government has not explained any harm that such harm, I victims. If the Government raises any by deliberative process privilege to the . additional information on that alleged harm respectfully request an opportunity to provide e Privilege Investigativ of particular lified privilege, which balances the need 106. The investigative privilege is a qua t balancing any public interest in non-disclosure. Tha litigate for access to information against v. Rizzo, 59 e to factors discussed in Frankenhauser process is ordinarily made with referenc F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: thwart governmental processes by (1) the extent to which disclosure will ernment information; (2) the impact discouraging citizens from giving the gov of having their identities disclosed; (3) upon persons who have given information evaluation and consequent program the degree to which governmental self- (4) whether the information sought is improvement will be chilled by disclosure; ther the party seeking the discovery is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whe or any criminal proceeding either pending an actual or potential defendant in ent in question; (6) whether the police reasonably likely to follow from the incid ther any intradepartmental disciplinary investigation has been completed; (7) whe from the investigation; (8) whether the proceedings have arisen or may arise ght in good faith; (9) whether the plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous and brou other discovery or from other sources; information sought is available through sought to the plaintiff's case. and (10) the importance of the information victims h in favor of disclosing the information the On the facts of this case, these factors weig have requested. governmental extent to which disclosure will thwart 107. With regard to factor (1) (the represented four giving the government information), I processes by discouraging citizens from No. 2, and a eral Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Fed e as well. and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abus victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", from providing this case, that will not discourage them If further information is disclosed about attorneys for a them. I have also talked personally to information, but rather will encourage hope that been told that many of these other victims number of other victims in this case. I have successful in their case. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are of having upon persons who have given information 108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact rmation that 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for info their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. r victims. Accordingly, there will be no effect on othe tion has would identify any particular victim. informa es of many of Epstein's victims and that Additionally, I am aware of the true nam 21 EFTA00179720 Cas e 9:08 -cv- 80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 22 of not been disseminated to the public whe re those individual victims did not wish identities to be disseminated. for their 109. Wit h rega rd to fact or (3) (the degr ee to which governmental self-evaluation and program improvement will be chilled by disc cons equ ent losure), this is a lawsuit to force the com the Government with its CVRA obligati plian ce by ons. Accordingly, the Government's "pro providin g vict ims ' righ ts will be dire gram" of ctly imp roved if the victims are able to enforce thei in this lawsuit. r rights 110. With regard to factor (4) (whethe r the information sought is factual data or summar y), man y of the item s that the evaluative vict ims seek s arc factual summaries. An example of found at page 18 of the first privilege log this is (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-01 011788. The entry reads: "File folder enti 177 8 to P- tled '6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing victim con tact info rma tion and atto rney chart with note s rega rding dates and type of contacts." This wou include, for example, dates of contacts with ld Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, whic purely factual information. h would be ill. With rega rd to fact or (5) (wh ethe r the part y seeking the discovery is an actual or potentia defe nda nt in any crim inal proc eed ing eith l er pending or reasonably likely to follow incident in question), Jane Doe No. 1 and from the Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victi ms of a criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is crim e, not aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey who has und erta ken seve ral "lim ited Epstein) " inte rvention efforts to try and block disc information to the victims. losure of 112. With regard to factor (6) (whethe r the police investigation has been complet investig atio n of Eps tein was com plet ed ed), the year s ago and the Government has not produced in its privilege log any information indicating rece nt investigative activity. 113. With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceed arisen or may aris e from the inve stig ings have atio n), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen direct result of the victims' efforts in this case as a . However, it does not appear that rele ase information to the victims would hamper any of any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the exte the victims are able to obta in info rma tion nt that abo ut this case and find information about misconduc then they can provide that information t, to Government and other disciplinary enti appropriate. ties as 114. Wit h rega rd to fact or (8) (wh ethe r the plai ntiff s suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith), it should be clear at this junc ture of a five-year long case that the victims hav substantial claim that is brought in good faith e a . 115. With regard to factor (9) (whethe r the information sought is available thro disc ove ry or from othe r sour ces) ugh other , as reco unted throughout this affidavit, the victims other way to obtain the information at issu hav e no e in this privilege debate, as it involves info internal to the Justice Department. rmation 116 . Wit h rega rd to fact or (10 ) (the imp orta nce of the information sought to the plaintiff the information that the victims are seeking s case ), is highly important to their case. Inde ed, adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it with out may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 11. Thro ugh out this affid avit , I hav e 99 at prov ided numerous examples and explanations of why victims need the information that they are requ the esting. The documents to which the Governm ent 22 EFTA00179721 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 ly on the Government's alleged is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear direct ntiary record to dispute. "estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evide Work-Product Doctrine substantial need and undue hardship 117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of have tried to articulate the specific and to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I g. I will not repeat all of those compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seekin e any additional information that the assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provid victims have for the materials they Court may require to determine the compelling need that the l impossibility) of obtaining the have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actua decisively in the victims favor. materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips the materials that OPR collected as 118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for eys are generally required to talk to part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorn the claims of misconduct related to OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate involved. These interviews appear to the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's l privilege log (DE 216-1), with be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplementa ently should be P413970, a total of regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic — appar be factual statements from Justice 14 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would ed and whether any misconduct Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handl l issues in this case. There is no other occurred during the handling of the case. Those are centra ts, because the Justice Department way for the victims to obtain information about these subjec has declined to provide information on this subject. materials they are requesting in the 119. The victims have established a substantial need for the -request, their document production previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by number 1. requests numbers 1 through 25 and supplemental request established a compelling need for the 120. As another example of why the victims have will be considering an "estoppel" materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has argument raised by the Government as a defense in this defense which must be considered noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable en Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial in the historical factual context of the entire interface betwe assessment of the allegation of a authorities and the federal offense victims - including an to keep the victims in the dark on deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors l authorities until well after the fact and the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federa fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a is asserting work product protection (emphasis added). The materials to which the Government Government, and Epstein. The victims go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government will not be harmed if the have no other way of showing what that interface is. The materials are provided to the victims. Grand Jury Information Government has not properly asserted 121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the on, many of the Government's grand any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In additi jury and non-grand jury information. jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand form of grand jury privilege, it should Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some non-grand jury materials. require the Government to sever grand jury materials from 23 EFTA00179722 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 24 of 122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE with rega rd to Box #2 P-00 861 6 to 212-1), P-00 868 6. The entry reads: "File folder entitled 'FB Summary Charts' containing chart prepared I at direction of AUSA, containing victims nam identifying information, summary of activity es, , and other information relevant to indi ctm ent." This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that disc lose s gran d jury proc eedi ngs. Mor directly eov er, to the extent that it involves some kind disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limi of limi ted ted disclosure could be redacted and the information provided to the victims. other 123. It doe s not app ear that any of the alleg ed grand jury materials that the Governm asserting privilege involve on-going gran ent is d jury issues. Moreover, it does not app disclosing any of the materials would "tip ear that off" a potential target to a Government investig Of cou rse, Jeff rey Eps tein (and his asso ciat ation. es) are well aware of the Government's investiga into their crimes against young girls for sexu tion al purposes. 124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing docume nts to the vict ims . If the Gov ernm the ent rais es any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Privacy Rights of Other Victims 125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying info about any other victims. To clarify that fact rmation , on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Governm stating, in part, that "to avoid any interfere ent nce with any privacy rights of vict ims who are parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and not Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifyi info rma tion abo ut othe r vict ims . In any of the ng documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 requested the Government produce, the Gov have ernment should not produce the nam es of other victims or other identifying information (e.g ., address or telephone number) but should redact that information." instead I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing true and correct to the best of my knowledge is and belief. Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edw rds BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for prod uction; and 3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Gov ernment Answers 24 EFTA00179723 -1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 64 EXHIBIT 1 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179724 Case 9:08-cv-80736- KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 26 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIR ST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INF ORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CR IME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to prod uce the original or best copy of the items listed here in below for inspection and/or copying, purs uant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discove ry in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed fads in this case. The Governm ent has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crim e Victims ' Rights Act and Request fora Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims ' "summary judgment motion") along with Mot a ion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the vict ims' motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however , the Court has ordered discovery to develop the EFTA00179725 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 n (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved factual record concerning the summary judgment motio rnment not to suppress relevant ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Gove evidence (DE 99 at 11). rnment voluntarily provide On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Gove to provide even a single document. documents concerning this case. The Government declined releva nt to their pending summary Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information judgment motion. DISCOVERY REQUESTED ued in light of the definitions of The numbered discovery requests below should all be constr terms provided at the end of the requests. n, the victims contend that the 1. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motio n into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual Government conducted an extensive criminal investigatio Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and agencies established that Epstein The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal and underlings to repeatedly find operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees victims' summary judgment motion, the and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the and the U.S. Attorney's Office's Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI ution against Epstein based on "investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosec however, also noted that this was an 'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all allegation that needed "further factual development." DE rts these victims' allegations, documents, correspondence, and other information that suppo including: (a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case; 302s, and other (b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI of its case against similar information, that the Government collected as part provided to Epstein and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information nge of information or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or excha concerning the case; and other similar (c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, l, state, local, or information that the Government received from any federa itted against other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses comm children by Jeffrey Epstein; memo") outlining (d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros any attachments numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and for numerous federal to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment EFTA00179726 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of 64 offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor or predecessor document; and (e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epste in (and any documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federa l indictments that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provid e all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these prosecution memoranda and the draft federal indictments. 2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiation s that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reache d. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information regarding victim notification s in this case, including (but not limited to): a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offens es; b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys conce rning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Depar tment, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defen se attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims; d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-p rosecu tion agreement; e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regard ing information that could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecu tion agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presen tation in court) or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiation s he was conducting with the Government. 3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motio n that the Government negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that amon g the subjects covered in that non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorn eys for the Government or by attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining to these agreements and to any confidentiality provis ion in these agreements. Please indicate that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom. EFTA00179727 29 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach). 5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement. 6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or victim objections. 7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the non- prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims. 8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal (including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy Black on his behalf. EFTA00179728 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of 64 9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to those representati ons being made by the FBI to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about wheth er the FBI was aware of the non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epste in was aware of the notifications being made to the victims. 10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these allegations, including: a) All documents, correspondence, and other information relatin g to discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein; b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relatin g to whether the FBI would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated the rights of Epstein's victims in this case. 11.1n their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (inclu ding FBI agents). Related to these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charg es should be filed without disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June 2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim 's Law Institute (NCVLI) concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI. 12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involv ed in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-p rosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and corres ponde nce generated as a result of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent. EFTA00179729 nt 225-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume 64 ut June 27, motion, the victims allege that on or abo 13. In their pending summary judgment on about would be entering his plea to state charges 2008, the Government learned that Epstein rding: nts, correspondence, and information rega June 30, 2008. Please provide all docume the plea was going to be entered; a) How the Government Office learned that about the entry of the guilty plea; and b) How the Government notified victims ty, n to the victims about the entry of the guil c) The contents of the notifications give informed about the non-prosecution including whether the victims were this plea would preclude prosecution of agreement and about whether the entry of . crimes Epstein had committed against them ed that the ment motion, the victims have alleg 14. In their pending summary judg -prosecution ther to keep the existence of the non Government and Epstein worked toge ement when ment about the existence of such an agre agreement secret, including declining com provide all court became public knowledge. Please asked about it when his guilty plea in state 's efforts to tion about the Government's and Epstein documents, correspondence, and informa e-mails and tion agreement secret, including all keep the existence of the non-prosecu -prosecution t" or similar devices to keep the non correspondence about "declining commen agreement secret. ls times, ion, the victims allege that at all materia 15. In their pending summary judgment mot ims informed for the Government to have kept the vict it would have been practical and feasible er allege that -prosecution agreement. The victims furth about the discussions concerning the non of some of the 's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney "corrected" rey Epstein. The victims also received a terms of the agreement between it and Jeff correspondence, 2008. Please provide all documents, notification letter on about September 3, fications, including: and other information about these noti e notifications should or should not inclu de a) any information about whether thes agreement; some mention of the non-prosecution these notifications; b) any information about the contents of rding Government and Epstein's counsel rega c) any communications between the ut including any communication on or abo what the notifications should contain, t; July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draf ut Government and Epstein's counsel abo d) My communications between the ther ement were operative (including whe which parts of the non-prosecution agre Part 3 was operative); g ernment and Epstein's counsel regardin e) Any communications between the Gov tion letter; and the September 3, 2008, corrected notifica lity other information regarding the practica f) any documents, correspondence, and the victims of the existence of the and feasibility of providing notice to espondence related to meeting with the agreement, which shall include any corr non-prosecution agreement. victims or notifying them in any way of the the senior t motion, the victims allege that one of 16. In their pending summary judgmen after important ce joined Epstein's payroll shortly prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Offi esented people criminal liability — and improperly repr decisions were made limiting Epstein's tion agreement the peculiar nature of the non-prosecu close to Epstein. In light of this fact, EFTA00179730 Case 9:08-cv-80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 32 of reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also other improper relationships exist between poss ible that Government agents and Epstein. Please docume nts, corr espo nde nce, and othe provide any r info rma tion regarding the possibility of any relationship, including: improper a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and /or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvem ent in and/or awareness of the Governm witness, subject, or tar et o ent's ▪ Investigation Includi Ghislaine Maxwell, Larry Mo iso i 1 ogers, r lam Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and othe r information reflecting telephone calls (including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, and any other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation; d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for exam ple, mails) that red to, or sent by Reinhart in whi e- "Epstein," ch the word " "Morrison," "Visoki," "Rogers," "Ha Roxburgh,' r afana, " "Florida SS mmond," "Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian,"' Foundation," "Starr," "Black," "Sanchez," "358 El Brillo Way" appears and which are connect ed to or rela ted to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or pros ecution; e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example mails) of a similar nature that indicate that e- my other Government prosecutor has represented (or discussed representing ) a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) has had any form of business, social, personal, or other relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; and g) All documents, correspondence, and othe r information that indicate or suggest that my Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or enti ty rela ted to Jeffrey Epstein (including any charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity). 17. In December 2010, the victims sent a lette r to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Sou ther District of Florida, requesting that the n Office investigate whether "improp er influ brought to bear during the negotiations invo ence s" were lving the possible prosecution (and ultimatel non-pro secu tion) of Jeff rey Eps tein . Tha y the t letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of EFTA00179731 225-1 Entered on FLSD Doc ket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 64 ch began ice Department in Washington, D.C., whi Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Just se provide: some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Plea other information collected by the Office of a) All documents, correspondence, and any other component of the Justice Professional Responsibility (OPR) and to the victims' letter; Department (including the FBI) in response ess statements, and other information b) All documents, correspondence, witn ation; collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investig ess statements and other information c) All documents, correspondence, witn stigation that was initiated as a result collected as part of any criminal inquiry/inve stigation into criminal conflict of interest of that letter, including any inquiry/inve ) violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207 ess statements, and other information d) All documents, correspondence, witn agency that was triggered by OPR's collected by any federal investigative inquiry/investigation regarding any inquiry/investigation, including any FBI cal violations that may have been improper influences or criminal or ethi ng the handling of the Epstein committed by government attorneys duri investigation and/or prosecution; r information regarding the accuracy or e) Any documents, correspondence, and othe ments (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart's sworn state Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he he "did not participate in any way in the decisionmaking with regard to the "was not involved in any of the Office's ned any confidential, non-public Epstein matter;" and that he "never lear information about the Epstein matter;" or other information regarding the f) Any documents, correspondence, letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, circumstances that lead OPR to send a any further assistance to the victims in indicating that they would not provide roper influences were brought to bear on connection with their allegations that imp the Epstein case; ail, memoranda, or other information g) Any document, correspondence, e-m ice Department Component as a result of prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Just er 2010 letter concerning the Epstein or following up on the victims' Decemb case; and or other information that OPR has collected h) Any documents, correspondence, or and/or prosecution. obtained regarding the Epstein investigation mately tion of this action, including in approxi 18. At a couple points during the prosecu Dep artm ent in r the August 2011 hearing, the Justice December 2010 and most recently afte Southern ed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Washington, D.C., discussed or determin of handling "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was est. The because it suffered from a conflict of inter various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on ous issues related to the Epstein case Justice Department accordingly sent vari ent of Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Departm information and belief, issues related to Jane provide all 's Office in another District. Please Justice and to a United States Attorney s of interest rmation regarding the potential conflict documents, correspondence, and other info well as any determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as that the Justice Department discussed or documents that or to any other District, including any referral that was made to Main Justice EFTA00179732 Cas e 9:08 -cv- 80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 34 of were transmitted to any other District rega rding the conflict and regarding what investigated. was to be 19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page lette news media in which he claimed that whe r to the n Government attorneys began inve stig atin Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on g Epstein, the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly Jeff rey Eps tein 's defe nse atto rney Roy thereafter, Blac k sent a responsive letter to Alexander Aco to the news media in which he claimed that st's letter he did not pry into the persona l lives of but merely pointed out misconduct and ove pros ecutors r-reaching by certain people involved in investig atio n. Plea se prov ide all doc the Epstein ume nts, correspondence and other information that or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his supports letter, including any information that the Justice Department received from Epstein attackin g the prosecutors and investigators wor case. Plea se also prov ides all doc ume king on the nts, corr espondence, information about misconduc over-reaching that was provided by Blac t and k and that the Government found that contradicted such allegations. supported or 20. In their pending summary judgment mot ion, the victims have alleged that Eps tein plea to state charges was intended to be 's guilty the consummation of a non-prosecu tion agre barred prosecution of federal offenses com ement that mitted against them. They have further Eps tein ente red such a guil ty plea on alleged that or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all doc correspondence, and other information betw ume nts, een the Government and state and loca l and police agencies (including The Palm pros ecutors Beach Police Department and Palm Bea Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein inve ch State stigation and ultimate Epstein plea. 21. In their pending summary judgment mot ion, the victims have alleged that corresponde in the poss essi on of the Gov ernm ent will nce sup port their claims. Please provide all doc correspondence, and other information betw ume nts, een Government attomeys/officia ls (inc federal and state prosecutors) and attorney ludi ng both s for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acti Epstein 's beh alf) rela ting to (I) neg otia ng on tion s invo lving the possible prosecution (and ultimatel the non-prosecution) by federal or state y agencies for sex offenses, includin g sex committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane offenses Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty related sex offe nse s; (3) a non -pro secu pleas for tion agre ement entered into between Epstein and Government that barred his prosecution for the offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and Jane and/or the Government's obligations under prosecution agre eme nt and /or the state the non- guil ty plea s Epstein entered; (5) any work release or con ditio nal relea se of Eps tein from con fine other ment; (6) any designation ofEpstein as a sex or restrictions on him contacting victims offe nde r of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and #2); and (7) any termination of supervision Jane Doc or parole of Epstein. This information should unre dact ed c-m ails , lette rs, and corr espo include nde nce of any type between government pros working on the case (including, but not limi ecut ors ted to, federal prosecutors Alexand er Aco sta, H. Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andy Lourie, Ann Jeff rey Marie Villafana, Dexter Lee, and Bruce Rein and state pros ecu tors Dah lia Wei ss, Lan hart a Belolovek, and others involved in the investigation) and defense attorneys represe Epstein nting Epstein (including, but not limi ted Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Mar to, Roy tin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien Lew is, Lill y Ann San chez , Ken Star r, , Guy Ala n Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of (including, but not limited to former Presiden Epstein t Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward EFTA00179733 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on 64 e letters of recommendation or (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York). This should also includ l vouching for or providing support similar communications submitted to any Government officia for Jeffrey Epstein. ent motion, the victims have 22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgm with Jeffrey Epstein and were alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations d the Government gave Epstein denied their right to confer by the Government and that instea Please provide any documents, generous concessions through the plea negotiations. any consideration of any type correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses the Government (or any individual that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to ity) or any person previously within the Government, in either his official or private capac investigation or prosecution. The employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein e any information discussing: documents, correspondence, and other information should includ funds, services, (a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity; obtain employment, (b) My offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to rties; business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office prope ement agencies in the (c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforc e; investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offens to Government or law (d) My consideration that Epstein had provided enforcement agencies in the past; and d to provide or had (e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offere rnment extending provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Gove rosecution agreement Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-p abuse suspect. than would be received by any other similarly situated child requires the Government to use 23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1), s. Please provide all documents, its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victim #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe correspondence, and other information their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, the victims but refused to provide that the Government previously identified as being helpful to that the CVRA did not apply to this based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) case because no indictment was filed. negotiations with Epstein, the 24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and d documents, correspondence, and Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) share nment, including state and local information with other persons outside the federal gover law enforcement agencies in other prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and victims, and other entities. Please countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime that the Government shared with provide all documents, correspondence, and other information ing all correspondence (including e- any entity or person outside the federal government, includ mails) with those entities or persons. reach a stipulated set of facts in 25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and about such facts. Accordingly, at this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate in this case and, at the same time, that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence EFTA00179734 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 36 of the victims voluntarily made all initial disc losures on their part that are required by of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please prov Federal Rule ide all initial disclosures required by the ofCivil Procedure, including all disclosures Federal Rules required by Rule 26(aXI). DEFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoin defined: g discvery requests, the following terms are The term "documents" means and includes including the originals and all non-identical , without limitation, all writ ings of any kind, copies or drafts, whether different from by reas on of any nota tion mad e on the original such copy or draft or otherwise including, without correspondence, memoranda, notes, diar limitation, ies, statistics, letters, e-mails, electron ic com telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, stud puter files, ies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, pamphle ts, boo ks, pros pect uses , inte summaries, roffi ce com munications, offers, notations of any sort conversation, telephone calls, meetings or of other communications, bulletins, prin ted computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimile matter, s, invoices, work sheets and all draf ts, modifications, changes, and amendments of alte rations, any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writ or representations of any kind including, s, reco rds without limitation, photographs, cha rts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordin grap hs, gs, motion pictures; and electronic, mechan electric reco rds or repr esen tatio ns of any ical or kind incl uding, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "cor resp ond enc e" mea ns any mem tangible object that conveys information oria lizes info rma tion that was con veye or d in tangible or oral form including, but not to, writings, letters, memoranda, repo limited rts, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telep information, telephone recordings, and inte hone billing roffice communications. The term "Epstein's victims" means any possible victim of a sex offense committ person that the Governm ent iden tifie d as a ed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, #2, all vict ims identified in atta chm ent Jane Doe to the non-prosecution agreement entered into and another person that the Government by Eps tein, investigated as a possible victim of Epstein offenses. 's sex The term "Government" means the fede ral government, including all emp loye es of and components of the United States Departm ent of Justice (such as, the Office of the General , the Offi ce of the Dep uty Attorney Atto rney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Offi Professional Responsibility, the Child Exp ce of loitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S Offices for the Southern District and Mid . Atto rney's dle District of Florida, and the Fed eral Bur Investigation) and other federal governm eau of ent agencies with law enforcement respons rela ted to the Eps tein case (suc h as the ibilities Inte rnal Revenue Service). This request for prod seeks all documents, correspondence, and ucti on other information held by all of thes e including all employees of and components enti ties, of the Justice Department that worked on or any way involved the Epstein investigation were in and/or that possess information relevan victims' claims. t to the EFTA00179735 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on 64 limiting the request. The term "including" means containing within the request, but not recording in any form The term "witness statement" means any document or other rializing a statement made or (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memo example FBI 302's. The term information conveyed by a potential witness, including for cuting or government agency, includes information collected by any law enforcement, prose ies located in Washington, D.C., or including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agenc Florida. NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT do not provide the grand If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, ents that quote directly from a jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include docum grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation. PRIVILEGE LOG information requested in this If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other that privilege, please provide a request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert a description a document that is "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including log should include the type of consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3XB). Your privilege of the document, and author and document, general subject matter of the document, date addressee of the document or correspondence. REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN requests would be unduly If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing rds — to discuss ways to reduce burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwa any such burden. DATED: October 3. 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad(4)pathtojustice.com EFTA00179736 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of 64 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellv@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and E-Mail Transmission: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee®usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c,villafana@usdoi.sov Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 JIBlackaroyblack.com Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al. Respectfully Submitted, S/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. EFTA00179737 ed on FLED Docket DB/16/2013 Page 39 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 EXHIBIT 2 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179738 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-110736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs r. UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S SUPPLEMENTALJtEO FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDIN UEST G NEW INFORMATION CONCERNING INVESTIGATION OF HANDLING OF EPSTEIN NON- PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COME NOW Jane Doe #I and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspec tion and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE 99) directing discovery in this case, the Court's Order denying the Government's motion to dismiss and lifting stay of discovery (DE 189), and the Court's Omnibus Order (DE 190): BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have repeatedly asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). EFTA00179739 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16 /2013 Page 41 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 n to have their facts accepted On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motio has ordered discov ery to develop the (DE 99 at II). At the same time, however, the Court (DE 99 at I I). The Court reserved factual record concerning the summary judgment motion Government not to suppress relevant ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the evidence (DE 99 at 11). rnment voluntarily provide On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Gove to provide even a single document. documents concerning this case. The Government declined ction of documents relevant to On October 3, 2011, the victims sent requests for produ this case. this discovery was due, rather On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of a single fact, the Government filed a than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to filed an accompanying motion for a motion to dismiss the victims' case. The Government also stay in this case. sealed motion to stay further On November 8, 2011, the Government filed an ex parte, the Court granted an cx parte, sealed discovery in this case. (DE 121). On November 9, 2011, order to stay. (DE 123). Government's motion to stay. The On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to ach, alleging specifically that "delay victims strenuously objected to the Government's appro motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the waited three years to file a motion to victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had rnment's motion has had the desired dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Gove s have been effectively denied any effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victim DE 129 at 2-3. The victims also filed a ability to obtain discovery from the Government." EFTA00179740 Case 9:08-cv-80736- KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 42 of protection motion to compel (DE 130 ) asking that the Court direct the Governm ent to produce the requested materials. On January 24, 2012, the Government filed a reply in support of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government repr esented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe Unit ed States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the nex t seventeen months, the Government did not provide any information to the victims. A year after the Government's motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed a Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying the Gov ernment's Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The motion explained that it had been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for a stay and that the Government's refusal to produce any information continues to effective block the victims from learning what happen ed during the Government's plea negotiations with the man who sexually abused them. The Government filed a response in opposit ion to that motion (DE 182). On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should beg in fulfilling its court-ordered discovery obligations: The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been mor e than fifte en months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet Court has not granted that motion, the the Court's discovery order is in effect and controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by Mar ch 8, 201 the Government produce all of the mat 3, erials which is covered by the victims discovery requests. If the Government ' has not produced those materials by March 8, 2013, the victims may be forc ed to seek the intervention of the Court to order the Government to follow its obligati ons. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time where we can talk to you over the pho ne about all this. We are happy to work EFTA00179741 FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on 64 your discovery with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from obligations. r Lee, et al., Counsel for the E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards to Dexte Government (February 25, 2013). way. The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any refusal to even discuss its Accordingly, in view of the Government recalcitrance and a motion to compel production of discovery obligations, on March 14, 2013, the victims filed this motion. discovery materials. The Government did not respond to n to dismiss. DE 189. That On June 1, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motio 14 ("The stay of discovery pending denial also lifted stay of discovery proceedings. DE 189 at November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is also ruling on the Government's motion to dismiss entered on 190) that, among other things, granted lifted."). The Court also entered an Omnibus Order (DE the victim motion to compel (DE 130). SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST l discovery relating to information The victims now request one specific item of supplementa the first request for production of that, in large measure, has come into existence since they filed documents on October 3, 2011: t to investigate their allegations that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have asked the Governmen a entered into a non-prosecution the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florid against them and other victims agreement with Jeffrey Epstein for sexual offenses committed case and also that violations of based on considerations apart from the merits of the criminal (including policies on crime criminal law, rules of ethics, Justice Department policies during the negotiations leading victims' rights), and the Crime Victims Rights Act occurred agreement. Please provide any up to and surrounding the entry of the non-prosecution or relating to those allegations information that the Government has developed concerning of the non-prosecution agreement, and the handling of the negotiations and consummation rtment's Office of Professional including any information developed by the Justice Depa n or other federal investigative Responsibility (0PR), the Federal Bureau of Investigatio allegations, including any grand entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) ct of Florida, the District of jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle Distri EFTA00179742 Case 9:08- cv-80 736-K AM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of 64 New Jersey, and/or the District of Columbia. For this one discov ery request only, please include all relevant grand jury transcripts and evidence collected by the grand jury. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, defined: the following terms are The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherw ise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters , e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statem ents, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communica tions, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limita tion, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, report s, notes , e-mai ls, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communica tions. The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, includ ing Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agree ment entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex offenses. The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Crimi nal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obsce nity Section, the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Servic e). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Depar tment that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims' claims. The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiti ng the request. EFTA00179743 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 recording in any form The term "witness statement" means any document or other memorializing a statement made or (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise for example FBI 302's. The term information conveyed by a potential witness, including prosecuting or government agency, includes information collected by any law enforcement, ies located in Washington, D.C., or including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agenc Florida. PRIVILEGE LOG information requested in this If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other assert that privilege, please provide a request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to a description a document that is "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including ge log should include the type of consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3XB). Your privile of the document, and author and document, general subject matter of the document, date addressee of the document or correspondence. REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN ing requests would be unduly If you believe that complying with any of the forego rds — to discuss ways to reduce burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwa any such burden. DATED: June 24, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. EFTA00179744 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of 64 Salt Lake City, UT 841 (2 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: eassellnalaw.utah.edu Attorneys for Janc Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00179745 226-1 Entered on ELSE Docket 08116/2013 Page 47 of Case 9:08,v-807364.M Document EXHIBIT 3 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179746 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 48 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIR ST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QU ESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERNING TH E CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United Stat es (hereinafter "the Government") to admit or deny the following facts: BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Governm ent has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crim e Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hea ring on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "sum mary judgment motion") along with a Mot ion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however , the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual record concerning the summary judg ment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court rese rved EFTA00179747 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 Government not to suppress relevant ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the to propound requests for admission to evidence (DE 99 at 11). The Court allowed the victims the Government. DISCOVERY REOUESTED all be construed in light of the The numbered requests for admissions below should Where the request for admission has definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. te sub-part: separate, lettered sub-parts, please admit or deny each separa Southern District of Florida's I. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the federal prosecution against investigation into Jeffrey Epstein developed a case for a Epstein for many federal sex offenses. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Attorney's Office for 1. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. an investigation the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted evidence and into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed cution against information in contemplation of a potential federal prose wise admitted Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as other above, the government denies Request No. 1. 1 through Request No. * The government's response is confined to Request No. for Admissions and does not 26 in the "Discovery Requested" section of the Request the Request for Admissions intend to respond to assertions in any other section of r to separately state any (including the "Background" section), none of which appea denies the assertion that matter calling for an admission. Nonetheless, the government Jane Doe #2 to stipulate to the government has declined the request of Jane Doe #1 and undisputed facts in this case. EFTA00179748 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 50 of 2. Regarding notifications provided to vict ims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse: (a) The U.S. Attorney's Office negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the notifications to be provided to victims of Epstein's abuse; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 2. (a) The government admits that, afte r Epstein's attorneys learned of the notification that the government plan ned to provide to Jane Doe #2, who claimed that she was not a victim, Epstein's attorneys contacted the USAO and obje cted to the procedures for notification and the legal bases therefor . The government further admits that the USAO considered those objections when evaluating what notification to prov ide to victims. Except as otherwise admitted above, the governm ent denies Request No. 2(a). (b) It is not standard practice for the U.S. Attorney 's Office to negotiate with defense attorneys about the extent of notifications provided to crime victims; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (b) Admitted. (c) As a result of those negotiations or requ ests received from Epstein, the U.S. Attorney's Office stopped making notifica tions to some crime victims; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (c) The government admits that, as a result of objections lodged by Epstein attorneys, the government reevaluated the 's notifications that it had intended to provide to victims and, as a result of that reevaluation, the USAO altered the scope, nature, and timing of notification s that it had contemplated providing to victims. With regard to Jane Doe #2, the government further admits that, as a result of representations made by Jan e Doe #2 that she was not a victim and objections lodged by Epstein's atto rneys, the USAO stopped making notifications to Jane Doe #2. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(c). EFTA00179749 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered 64 and Jane Doe #2 were (d) The language used in the notifications to Jane Doe #1 affected by the negotiations with Epstein's defense lawyers; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: ed objections to victim (d) The government admits that, after the USAO receiv its victim notification notifications from Epstein's counsel and reevaluated ultimately contained in obligations, the USAO altered the language that was of Bradley Edwards. the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care s Request No. 2(d). Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denie and Jane Doe #2 were (e) At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 into a non-prosecution not told that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered ted. agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was execu UNITED STATES RESPONSE: a result of objections lodged (e) The government admits that, at least in part as USAO reevaluated its by Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the Doe #1 was thus not obligations to provide notifications to victims, and Jane n agreement with Epstein told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecutio further admits that Jane until after the agreement was signed. The government into a non-prosecution Doe #2 was not told that the USAO had entered was signed, but denies that agreement with Epstein until after the agreement negotiations involving the USAO did not inform Jane Doc #2 as a result of any rs; the USAO did not Epstein or any objections lodged by Epstein's lawye the USAO and the FBI that consider Jane Doe #2 a victim after she informed in, and, as a result, the she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epste about the non-prosecution USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 , the government denies agreement. Except as otherwise admitted above Request No. 2(c). rosecution agreement signed by the 3. Because of a confidentiality provision in the non-p h of the agreement for the U.S. U.S. Attorney's Office, it would have been a breac of the existence of the terms of Attorney's Office to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 certain sex offenses. that non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 3. Denied. EFTA00179750 Case 9:08-cv-807 36- KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 52 of 4. During its negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, the U.S. Offi ce was awa re that pub licly Attorney's disc losin g the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein would likely have led to public criti Jeffrey cism of the agreement. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 4. Denied. 5. Dur ing neg otia tion s with Jeff rey Eps tein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, the position of at least one experienced it was attorney within the U.S. Attorney's Office Crime Victims' Rights Act required notifica that the tions to the victims in this case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 5. The government admits that, dur ing the negotiations with Jeffrey Eps regarding the non-prosecution agreeme tein nt, at least one experienced attorne with y the USAO subscribed to the position in that the CVRA required noti fica tion victims in this case and that position s to the was communicated to Epstein's counse extent that Request No. 5 seeks admissio l. To the ns regarding the positions held by atto rney within the USAO that were not com s municated to non-government personn regarding whether or not the CVRA ultim el ately required notifications to the victims in this case, the government objects to Request No. 5 as violative of the delibera process privilege. tive 6. The Justice Department possesses documents, correspondence or othe r info reflecting contacts with the Departm rmation ent between May 2007 and September behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by: 2008 on UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (a) President Bill Clinton; Denied. (b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k /a Prince Andrew, Duke of York); Denied. (c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz ; Admitted (d) Ken Starr; Admitted. (e) Lillian Sanchez; Admitted to the extent that the referenc e to "Lillian Sanchez" was meant to refer to Lilly Ann Sanchez. (f) Jay Lelkowitz; Admitted and (g) Roy Black. Admitted EFTA00179751 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered 64 #2 were sent letters advising 7. On about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe Attorney's Office had them that "this case is currently under investigation," the U.S. y Epstein. already entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffre UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 2008, when Jane 7. The government admits that, on about January 10, "this case Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that Office had is currently under investigation," the U.S. Attorney's y Epstein, but already signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffre nonetheless that, on that date, the non-prosecution agreement set aside as remained in a state of some flux and was subject to being rosecution Epstein was challenging the propriety of the non-p Department of agreement and seeking further review from the Justice. the non-prosecution agreement 8. In September 2007 when the U.S. Attorney's entered into the disposition of the case in with Epstein, it did not inform FBI agents of the details of other cases. the way that it ordinarily informed them of dispositions of UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied Epstein and the Government: 9. With regard to the non-prosecution agreement between d to, a provis ion in the (a) Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office agree ; non-prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret UNITED STATES RESPONSE: insistence, the USAO (a) The government admits that, at Epstein's ment that provided as agreed to a provision in the non-prosecution agree not be made part of follows: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will om of Information Act any public record. If the United States receives a Freed the disclosure of the request or any compulsory process commanding g that disclosure." agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before makin s Request No. 9(a). Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denie that this agreement will (b) In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate not be made part of any public record;" UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted EFTA00179752 Case 9:08-cv- 807 36- KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 54 of (c) By entering into such a confidentiality agre ement, the U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crim e victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecu tion agreement would violate certain terms of the agreement; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied (d) Even notifying the victims about the agre ement would have violated the confidentiality provision; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied (e) From September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (e) The government admits that, during the period from September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the USAO did not notify Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The gov ernment further admits that, although FBI agents notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence and substance of the agreement at the request of the USA O on or about October 27, 2007, no employee of the USAO personally notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement during the period from September 24, 2007 through June 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9(e). 10. With regard to contact between the Gov ernment and the victims: (a) On about October 26, 2007, FBI agents met with Jane Doe #1; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 10. (a) Admitted. Because Request No. 10 appears directed solely to the communica- tions between FBI agents and Jane Doe #1 during their meeting on or about Oct obe 26, 2007, the government responses to r Requests No. 10(b) through 10(g) add only that meeting. ress (b) The agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to regi ster as a sex offender, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1; EFTA00179753 ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter 64 UNITED STATES RESPONSE: October 26, 2007, FBI agents (b) The government admits that, on or about to state charges for explained to Jane Doe #1 that Epstein would plead guilty in would be required to procuring minors to engage in prostitution; that Epste entitled to seek damages register as a sex offender; that Jane Doe #1 would be would be entitled to use the from Epstein; and that, if she desired, Jane Doe #1 ng those damages from services of an attorney at no expense to her in seeki explained that the state Epstein. The government denies that the FBI agents charges "involvied) another victim." agreement had already (c) During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an in for federal crimes been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epste committed against Jane Doe #I; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: explain to Jane Doe #1 that (c) The government denies that the FBI agents did not the FBI agents did not explain to an agreement had already been signed; denies that tigation of the federal case Jane Doe #1 that the agreement resolved the inves s did not explain to Jane Doe involving Jane Doe #1; and denies that the FBI agent otherwise admitted above, the #1 other terms of that agreement Except as government denies Request No. 10(c). non-prosecution agreement (d) The agents could not have revealed this part of the ment; without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agree UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied nce of the provision in (e) The agents themselves had not been informed of the existe cution for various federal the non-prosecution agreement barring Epstein's prose crimes or sex offenses at that time; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied reached with Epstein, (f) Because the non-prosecution agreement had already been view on the proposed the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #I's resolution of the case; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied ent would ultimately (g) The agents never explained that the non-prosecution agreem bring to an end the federal investigation in the case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied EFTA00179754 Case 9:08-cv-80736-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 64 of 11. On abo ut Nov emb er 29, 200 7, the U.S . Atto rney's Office sent a draft of a crime vict notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense im counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notifica letter would have explained: "I am writ tion ing to inform you that the fede ral inve stiga Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. tion of Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office hav reached an agreement containing the follo e wing terms . . . ." Because of con cern Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney s from. 's Office never sent the proposed notification letter to the victims. victim UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 11. The gov ernm ent admits that , on or about November 28, 2007, A. Villafafia of the USAO sent a draft Marie of a crime victim notification lette r to Letkowitz, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein Jay , and that the draft noti fica tion lette stated, in part: "I am writing to info r rm you that the federal investigatio Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, n of and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney Office have reached an agreement 's containing the following term s . . . ." government further admits that, in par The t as a result of objections lodged Epstein's lawyers, the USAO reevalua by ted its obligations to provide noti fica tion to victims, and, as a result of that reev s aluation and other con side ratio ns and developments, the USAO never sent vict ims the draft notification letter that sent to Jay Leflcowitz on or about Nov was ember 28, 2007. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government den ies Request No. 11. 12. On July 3, 2008, when Bradley J. Edw ards was working on a letter to the U.S . Atto Office concerning the need to federally rney's prosecute Epstein for sex offenses com against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc #2, the mitted U.S. Attorney's Office had already ente a binding non-prosecution agreement with red into Jeffrey Epstein. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 12. The government admits that, prio r to July 3, 2008, the USAO had already entered a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The government is without knowledge of prec isely when "Bradley J. Edwards was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney 's Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses com mitted against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2," and, accordingly, the government den ies the assertion that Edwards worked on that letter on July 3, 2008. Exc ept as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 12. 13. When Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, (a) Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office of the existence of the non-prosecu tion agreement. EFTA00179755 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered 64 UNITED STATES RESPONSE: guilty to state charges on 13. (a) The government admits that, when Epstein pled by the USAO of the June 30, 2008, Jane Doe #2 had not been informed nment further admits existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The gover notified Jane Doe #1 of the that, although the USAO, through FBI agents, had Epstein's June 30, 2008 existence of the non-prosecution agreement prior to notified Jane Doe #1 at guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally agreement. Except as that time of the existence of the non-prosecution est No. 13(a). otherwise admitted above, the government denies Requ Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe (b) The U.S. Attorney's Office had not conferred with either #2 about the non-prosecution agreement; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: June 30, 2008 guilty plea, (b) The government denies that, by the time of Epstein's had not already an attorney for the government working at the USAO their opinions regarding conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about of Epstein should how the federal investigation and potential prosecution not conferred with Jane proceed. The government admits that the USAO had Epstein's June 30, 2008 Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to although the USAO had guilty plea. The government further admits that, ution agreement through communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosec plea, no employee of the FBI agents prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty about the non-prosecution USAO had personally conferred with Jane Doe #1 vise admitted above, agreement prior to Epstein's guilty plea. Except as othen the government denies Request No. 13(b). ney's Office had not (c) Epstein's defense attorneys were aware that the U.S. Attor ment; and conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agree UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Doe #2 had been represented (c) Although the government was aware that Jane unaware of the extent of by counsel paid for by Epstein, the government is 's communications with Epstein's defense attorneys' awareness of the USAO , as described in the responses Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement neither deny nor admit to Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), and therefore can and in the responses to Request No. 13(c). Except as othenvise admitted above est No. 13(c). Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), the government denies Requ EFTA00179756 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Pag 64 e 58 of (d) Epstein's defense attorneys had negotia ted for a confidentiality prov isio n in the non-prosecution agreement that barr ed conferring with victims about agreement. the UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (d) The government admits that Epstein 's attorneys negotiated with the USA for a provision in the non-prosecutio O n agreement that ultimatel y pro vide d follows: "The parties anticipate that as this agreement will not be made part of public record. If the United States rece any ives a Freedom of Informa tion Act request or any compulsory process com manding the disclosure of the agreeme it will provide notice to Epstein befo nt, re making that disclosure." Except as otherwise admitted above, the governm ent denies Request No. 13(d). 14. When Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-pro agreement, both the U.S. Attorney's Offi secution ce and Epstein's defense attorneys were wor to keep the existence of the non-prosecu king tion agreement confidential. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 14. The gov ernm ent adm its that , whe n Epstein was pleading guilty to the stat charges discussed in the non-prosecutio e n agreement, the USAO and Eps tein defense attorneys sought to keep the 's document memoria lizin g the non - prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time keep the existence of the non-prosec to ution agreement confidential. Except otherwise admitted above, the governm as ent denies Request No. 14. 15. Defense attorney Bruce E. Reinhart: (a) learned confidential, non-public informa tion about the Epstein matter; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 15. (a) The government admits that, whi le Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant Attorney, he learned confidential, non-pub U.S. lic information about the Epstein matter. (b) discussed the Epstein matter with an atto rney working on the case for the U.S. Attorney's Office; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (b) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he discussed the Epstein matter with another Assistant U.S. Attorney working on the Epstein matter. EFTA00179757 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered 64 r. (c) was involved in decision-making with regard to the Epstein matte UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied one logs and emails) reflecting 16. The Government possesses information (including teleph ted with Jeffrey Epstein contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affilia Jack Goldberger, Harvard (including Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Lily Ann Sanchez) before Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Reinhart left the employment of the U.S. Attorney's Office. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. one logs or emails) reflecting 17. The Government possesses information (including teleph at or for the Department of contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons working d to Jeffrey Epstein or the Justice or United States Attorney's Office that relate nspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and other potential co-co UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. information (including telephone logs or 18. The government possesses, or has knowledge or tion or influence made or photographs or emails) reflecting improper communica f by: attempted with the Government, on Jeffrey Epstein's behal (a) Guy Lewis UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. (b) LilyAnn Sanchez UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. ation (including telephone logs, 19. The government possesses, or has knowledge or inform sources) about a personal or photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible eys and/or Assistant US business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Attorn Attorneys. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: the business or personal 19. To the extent that Request No. 19 is directed to tant U.S. Attorneys relationships of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and over 5,400 Assis who have formerly serving across this country, or the countless individuals throughout this nation, served as U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys and burdensome and the government objects to Request No. 19 as overly broad to the instant matter. not calculated to lead to or involve information relevant EFTA00179758 Cas e 9:08 -cv- 807 36-K AM Doc ume nt 225 -1 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 64 of The government denies possessing or having any knowledge or information about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and either the U.S. Attorney or any Assistant U.S. Atto rney serving in the Southern District of Florida. Except as otherwise admitted abo ve, the government denies Request No. 19. 20. The government possesses, or has knowled ge or information (including telephone logs photographs, emails or statement(s) of othe , r credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Menehel. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted . 21. The government possesses, or has knowled ge or information (including telephone logs photographs, emails or statement(s) of othe , r credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 22. The Justice Department's Office of Prof essional Responsibility and/or other Governm entities have collected information about: ent (a) Bruce Reinhart's possible involvement in the Eps tein matter; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted (b) Other government attorney's possible imprope r behavior in the Epstein matter; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted (c) A conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Atto rney's Office for the Southern District of Florida handling issues relating to the Epstein matter. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted EFTA00179759 61 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 23. The non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District ofFlorida. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 23. The government admits that the non-prosecution agreement signed by the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the USAO from prosecuting sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, provided that those offenses are set out on pages 1 and 2 of the non-prosecution agreement, were the subject of the joint investigation by the FBI and the USAO, or arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 23. 24. The Justice Department possesses information that Epstein, himself or through his attorney's or acquaintances, has provided or offered to provide to the federal government (or an individual within the Government, in his official or private capacity) valuable consideration. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 24. Admitted; Jeffrey Epstein provided valuable consideration to the federal government through the non-prosecution agreement he entered with the USAO. 25. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation/inquiry into alleged misconduct relating to the negotiation and consummation of the Epstein non- prosecution agreement has relevance to issues pending in this case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 26. The Government possesses evidence, not covered by grand jury secrecy rules, that reveals that districts outside the Southern District of Florida share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and/or Jane Doe #2. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 26. The government objects to Request No. 26 because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigative privilege. EFTA00179760 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu ment 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of 64 ,DEFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery reque sts, the following terms are defined: The tenn "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherw ise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters , e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statem ents, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the forego ing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limita tion, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictur es; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, witho ut limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e- mails , telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communica tions. The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #I, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex offenses. The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obsce nity Section, the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florid a, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Servic e). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Depar tment that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that posse ss information relevant to the victims' claims. The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. EFTA00179761 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered 64 Office for the Southern The term "U.S. Attorney's Office" means the U.S. Attorney's Southern District of Florida. District ofFlorida and includes all branch offices within the PRIVILEGE LOG privilege and if you intend to If you believe that any request for admission is subject to a tent with Local Rule 26.1(g), assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consis Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your including a description a document that is consistent with ge being asserted and the basis privilege log should include a specific identification of the privile for the privilege. DATED: December I. 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEIIRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad®pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College ofLaw at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp®law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE the following persons via US Mail The foregoing document was served on December 1, 2011, on and electronic mail to: Dexter A. Lee A. Marie Villafafia EFTA00179762 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 of 64 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: dexter.lee(41usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoi.gov Attorneys for the Government EFTA00179763 10 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 N. UNI'T'ED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED EFTA00179764 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 10 COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to turn over to them numerous documents that to which the Government has asserted various privileges. All of the Government's assertions of privilege are not well founded, for the reasons described in this pleading, and the Court should provide all of the documents to the victims.' The factual support for the arguments found in this memorandum is contained, inter alia, in the attached affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. The victims have also concurrently filed itemized objections to the Government's privilege log. I. General Responses to All Assertions of Privilege. Inadequate Privilege Log — The great bulk of the Government's privilege assertions do not comply with the Court's requirement that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. As a result of the Government's failures, it is impossible to even begin to determine which of the Government's assertions of privilege are valid. Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim — Most of the Government's privilege assertions rest on factual underpinnings (e.g., an attorney-client relationship is at issue, a deliberative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown' City ofMargate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert privilege with regard to any of the materials, the victims would then he free to argue that, as a remedy for the Government's assertion of privilege, the Court should preclude the Government from denying the claims by the victims that would have been supported by the withheld information. See, e.g., Attorney General ofthe U.S.I Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 1 EFTA00179765 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 10 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered ent relationship), affd, 56 F.3d 1390 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (government failed to prove attorney-cli (I lth Cir. 1995). assertions of privilege fail Waiver of Confidentiality — Somc of the Government's the presence of persons outside the because it is clear that any confidentiality was waived by privilege confidential relationship. For example, some of the assertions of attorney-client e of any attorney-client relationship. involve documents and correspondence sent to person outsid ege - The Government Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privil s Act petition because it owes a cannot invoke privilege in the context of a Crime Victims' Right U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), to protect their fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use "best efforts," 18 , 644 F.3d 221, 226-27 (4th Cir. 2011) rights. See Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n the context of fiduciary relationships" (noting that the attorney-client privilege does not apply "in nships beyond the traditional trust and that "[t]his principle has been applied to fiduciary relatio , 112 F.3d 910, 919-21 (8th Cir. context"); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum ). 1997) (government attorneys have duty to report wrongdoing Covered - Any privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client ing exception to work product claim). Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) (apply Such an exception applies to the facts of this case. only cover materials reflecting Factual Materials Not Covered - Any privilege would e.g., EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87-88 the confidential relationship, not factual materials. See, l material . . . and severable from its (1973) ("memoranda consisting only of compiled factua 2 EFTA00179766 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume nt 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1 6/2013 Page 4 of 10 context would generally be available for disc overy by private parties in litigation with the Government."). Many of the materials at issue arc factual materials. Documents Not Prepared in Anticip ation of CVRA Litigation — The wor k product doctrine (as wel l as the inve stig ativ e priv ilege) only applies to documents prep ared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, not to documents prepared in the ordi nary course of busi ness , purs uan t to regu lato ry requ irem ent, or for other non-litigation purposes . So/is v. Food Employers Lab or Rela tion s Ass 'n, 644 F.3d 221 , 231 (4th Cir. 2011). Many of the documen ts at issue here were not prepared in anticipa tion of litigation, and certainly not litig ation about the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See, e.g., Souther n Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in connection with case at hand). II. Specific Responses to Specific Ass ertions of Privilege. A. Attorney-Client Privilege. Ordinary Governmental Communicat ions Not Covered — A general attorney -client privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910 , 916-21 (8th Cir. 1997). Only communications concerning legal services covered — Any atto rney-client privilege would be limited to commun ications made for purposes of facilitat ing the rendition of legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond v. City ofMobile, 86 F.R .D. 324 (D. Ala. 1978) (attorney -client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city attorney while conducting the internal investigation where the purpose of the investigation was 3 EFTA00179767 on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 18 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 4 UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RENEWED MOTION 'S OFFICE FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE to as "the victims"), by and COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's through undersigned counsel, to renew their Motion for an Court has previously reserved ruling on Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50). The recent decision to assert that thousands this motion. DE 99 at II. In light of the Governments' privilege log in a manner and format of pages of documents are privileged — and to produce a ents have been produced, or even that makes it impossible to understand what kinds of docum — the Court should now grant the whether the Government has responded to each request at all and expedite these proceedings and motion. By granting the motion, the Court would simplify ment review of the Government's largely or entirely avoid the need for a document-by-docu privilege assertions and the victims' responses to them. BACKGROUND motion (see DE 50 at 1-3), As the Court is aware from the victims' previous filing of this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane in discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this 1 EFTA00179768 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Enter ed on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 18 Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would volun tarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was material and favorable to the victims' ease. Victims' counsel pointed out that, if they were criminal defense attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and relate d decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would provide to criminal defendants — i.e., to voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was favorable to the victims' CVRA case. In response, victims' counsel were informed by the Office that it could — and would — withhold from the victims such information, apparently on the theory that the CVRA does not apply to this case or on the theory that victims lack due process rights under the CVRA. Accordingly, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a motio n asking the Court to enter an order directing the Government to produce information in its possession favorable to them. DE 50. The Government filed a response in opposition. DE 59. The victims filed a reply. DE 76. After a hearing on this and related motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court agreed to allow factual development through discovery by the victims. DE 99 at II. The Court allowed the victims to file requests for admission and for production of docum ents (and potentially other discovery requests as well). Id. The Court then noted: "Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on [the victims'] motion [for an order directing the Government not to withhold relevant evidence]." Id. 2 EFTA00179769 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 18 On October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production with the Government. On November 7, 2011, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' petition. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government's motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the Court that "the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information." DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not produce any information to the victims. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion to compel and directing the Government to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE 190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2 (emphasis added). 3 EFTA00179770 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 18 On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production in this case. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88, 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., Bates 0008-10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves had already received. Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed issues in this case. On the other hand, the Government asserted privilege on 13,468 pages of materials. While many of these pages also do not appear to go to the disputed issues in this case, buried among the documents appear to be some highly pertinent materials. The Government has asserted privilege, for example, with regard to its internal discussions about notifications to crime victims. The Government has also asserted privilege with regard to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the 4 EFTA00179771 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 18 treatment of the victims. It is, however, difficult to say for certain which documents are important, because rather than comply with the Court's privilege log requirement, the Government provided only a truncated log that did not fully describe the documents at issue, much less "clearly" identify the subject matter of the documents and the parties who received them.' 'I'he Government has also failed to identify which documents it is producing go to which document production requests. DISCUSSION The victims have previously explained at length why the Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold relevant documents. DE 50; see also DE 59 (Gov't Response); DE 76 (victim's reply). The Court reserved ruling on that motion for an uncertain amount of time. The victims will not repeat their previously-advanced arguments here, but simply incorporate them by reference and respectfully suggest that now would be a propitious point in this case for the Court to take up the motion again — and to grant the motion. Doing so would save the Court and the victims considerable amount of time by narrowing (or even eliminating entirely) the number of privilege issues that would need to be resolved. In addition, the victims wish to advance three new arguments in support of their motion for such an order based on new developments in this case since they filed their motion. First and most important, the Government's response to the Court's discovery order is so fundamentally inadequate that the Court should simply not allow further litigation but provide the documents to the victims by granting their motion. Second, the Court should also grant the victims' motion Further factual information that may be relevant to this motion is found in the contemporaneously-filed Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, attached to Jane Doe #I and Jane Doe #2's Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Arc Not Privileged. 5 EFTA00179772 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 18 because the Government's fiduciary obligations to the victims to use its "best efforts" to protect their rights conflict with its privilege assertions. Specifically, assertion of any privilege is inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that flow from that statutory "best efforts" requirement. Third, the Government's recent admissions and privilege log make clear that significant "Brady" material exists. Accordingly, the Court should no longer reserve ruling on the victims' motion but instead should simply order these highly relevant materials to be produced now, just as it would order the Government to produce highly relevant materials to criminal defendants. 1. THE COURT SHOULD SIMPLY PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS TO THE VICTIMS BECAUSE OF THE GROSS INADEQUACIES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS. The Government has grossly violated the Court's order to provide an appropriate privilege log in connection with the disputed documents. In light of that stark failure, the Court should simply grant the victims' pending motion regarding suppression of evidence and produce the disputed documents to them. As the Court is well aware, it has denied repeated efforts by the Government to block the victims from receiving relevant information about this case. In its most recent order (DE 190), the Court directed the Government to either produce "all other responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of document" to the victims or "file and serve, in the public portion of the court file, a privilege log clearly identifying each document[] [withheld] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2 (emphasis added). Government then made its production. But rather than provide helpful information to the victims, the Government instead has provided information that was essentially irrelevant to the disputed issues. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards at 5. 6 EFTA00179773 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 18 More important with regard to this motion, the Government has not begun to comply in a meaningful way with a discovery process that would permit the victims to obtain information relevant to their claims. Of course, the purpose of a privilege log "is to provide a party whose discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege . . . with information to sufficient to evaluate such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified." Tulle v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Reinforcing that command, this Court required the Government's privilege log to "clearly" indicate what materials were covered. The Government has not begun to provide the victims with sufficient information to resist claims of privilege. One of the most basic problems with the Government's action is that it is not identified which of the "privileged" documents apply to which of the victims' document production requests. Instead, the Government has simply taken more than 13,000 pages of documents, Bates stamped them in no particular order (or at least no order that the victims can discern), and then asserted that they are all privileged for various reasons. The resulting "log" is wholly inadequate for multiple reasons, the most basic of which is that it does not signal to the victims which produced documents respond to which requests. To gather the documents to respond to the Requests for Production (RFPs),2 presumably the Government had to perform query searches in electronic databases or actual searches in paper files.3 Each search would have then produced certain documents. But rather than disclose documents on a search-by-search basis, the Government has simply taken the all documents it gathered, apparently dropped them on the 2 The victims' First and Second Requests for Production are included as attachments to the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an attachment to the victims' contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged. See, e.g., Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First RFP, ¶ I6(d) (requesting emails and other documents in which certain particular words appear). 7 EFTA00179774 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 18 floor into a random pile, and then provided a "log" of documents in no order whatsoever — and without indicating which documents are being produced in answer to each question. The resulting mishmash of thousands of documents places the victims in the impossible position of trying to determine what the documents mean without any context whatsoever. Compounding this problem and creating a critical additional problem, this lump and dump technique makes it impossible to verify that the Government has actually performed each of the searches required to make each of the responses. Indeed, it would be entirely possible that the Government could have failed to search for, or to produce, any documents whatsoever on certain requests and the victims would have no way to know one way or the other. Perhaps in theory these problems might be mitigated if the Government had produced (as the Court required) a privilege log "clearly" describing the subject matters and other particulars of the documents produced. But as the Court can confirm with just a casual glance at the privilege log, many of the documents have been described generically or not at all, leaving the victims to wonder what many of the documents really are. The upshot of the "lump and dump" approach is that the victims cannot even begin to understand what has been produced with regard to their particular discovery requests. As an illustration, consider the victims' request for production of documents about former prosecutor Bruce Reinhart's knowledge of information about the Epstein prosecution immediate before he left to become employed by Epstein. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Production, ¶ 15 (seeking this information); ¶ 21 (requesting information collected by OPR on this subject). The victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request, because in answering the victims' First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it 8 EFTA00179775 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 18 possessed information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice Department that related to the Epstein investigation. See Government's Answers to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions (RFA's), fl 15-17.4 It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior. See Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 22(a). Yet them is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages of documents) are responsive to RFP 15 because the Government has not indicated which of its documents apply to which RFP. Nor has the Government given the victims sufficient information to make this determination on their own. Indeed, the Government's privilege log does not even contain the word "Reinhart" anywhere in it. So it is simply impossible to tell which documents apply to the Reinhart issue. As another illustration, consider the victims' request for information about former prosecutor Matthew Menchel's personal/business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g., Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 16(f). Here again, the victims know that the Government possesses such information, because it admitted to having such information in answer to the victims' request for admissions — information collected by its own internal affairs unit, OPR. See Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 20. Yet once again, it is impossible for the victims to even tell which documents (if any) the Government has turned over to the Court that pertain to this issue, because the Government has not explained which documents apply to this request and none of 4 The victims' Request for Admissions and the Government's answers thereto are included as an attachment to the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an attachment to the victims' contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged. 9 EFTA00179776 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 18 the privilege log entries provide any description that indicates they cover documents regarding such a personal or business relationship? As yet another illustration, consider the victims' request for information about the OPR investigation into the possible mishandling of the Epstein prosecution and victim notifications. Here again, the victims have very specifically requested such information. See Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 17. The Government has admitted that OPR collected information about possible improper behavior by prosecutors in the Epstein matter. Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 22. Yet it is simply impossible to tell where the information that the Government collected appears among thousands of pages of documents it has produced.6 As a fourth and final illustration, the victims requested information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) was "conflicted out" of considering issues relating to the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about that conflict after the Epstein matter was referred to another district (e.g., the Middle District of Florida). See Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 18; Victims' Second FRP's at ¶ 1. The victims know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO- MDFL evaluated something as a result. Yet apart from a few preliminary cmails within the 5 Menchel is, of course, revealed in the privilege log at several points as on the e-mails chains involved in the plea bargain discussions surrounding the Epstein prosecution. But none of the vague descriptions in the privilege log appear even remotely related to a personal or business relationship. Moreover, given that many of the privilege log entries do not even include dates, it is not even possible to look for materials that might follow the date on which Menchel left the U.S. Attorney's Office. 6 The Court will notice that some pages in the Government's privilege log do deal with the OPR investigation. See Gov't Supp. Privilege Log at 12-14. But so far as the victims can discern, the documents covered there are simply e-mails about the OPR investigation, rather than the underlying substantive information collected during the OPR (or OPR-triggered) investigatio n. 10 EFTA00179777 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of 18 Justice Department regarding whether the recusal should occur, see Gov't First Privilege Log at pp. 22-23, nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal. Indeed, so far as the victims can tell, the Government may even be staking out the remarkable position that there is not even one single document in the Middle District of Florida that is responsive to the victims' requests, because (so far as the victims can tell) nothing has been provided from the Middle District of Florida. These are but four clear and illustrative examples, which the victims could multiply dozens of times. The victims respectfully ask the Court to require the Government, in its response to this motion, to indicate where (if anywhere) in the privilege log documents pertaining to these four issues appear, so that the Court can then judge for itself whether the victims have been given sufficient information to respond to the Government's claims of privilege. Again, our point in this pleading is not to try and debate the Government on its privilege assertions. The morc basic point in this pleading is that the victims cannot even begin to fairly challenge many of the Government's assertions because they do not know which (if any) of the documents at issue pertain to their discovery requests. The Government's privilege assertions are simply broken beyond repair. In view of this gross failure by the Government, the Court should simply provide the documents it has received to the victims by granting the victims' Motion for an Order to the Government not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. At an absolute minimum, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which documents apply to II EFTA00179778 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of 18 which requests, the Government should be required to provide a listing of documents on a request-by-request basis. II. THE. COURT SHOULD ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE CVRA'S BEST EFFORTS REQUIREMENT CREATES A FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO ALL PRIVILEGES. In their 2011 motion, the victims explained that the CVRA obligates government prosecutors to "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are . accorded[] their rights" under the CVRA. DE 50 at 3-5 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I)); see also DE 76 at 2-6. In light of the Government's recent assertion of privilege, the Government's failure is now even more apparent. The Government's invocation of a privilege to block disclosure of documents is simply inconsistent with the Government's statutorily-mandated best efforts obligation. Controlling circuit precedent supports the conclusion that the Government fiduciary duty bars an assertion of privilege, even in the context of the well-established and absolute attorney- client privilege. In Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), the Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over this Court held that an attorney-client privilege can give way when "the client asserting the privilege is an entity which in the performance of its functions acts wholly or partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action, noting that beneficiaries of its actions with the stockholders. Id Since that 7 See Knight v. Thompson, ---F.3d---, 2013 WI, 3843803 at *5 n.5 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Bonner v. City ofPrichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane) (11th Circuit adopts as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981)). 12 EFTA00179779 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 18 ruling, many courts (including this Court) have applied the "Garner doctrine" or "fiduciary exception doctrine" in settings outside the shareholder derivative context. See, e.g., Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass h, 644 F.3d 221, 227-28 (4th Cir. 201I) (applying Garner principles to bar assertions of privilege to communications by ERISA fiduciary and plan attorneys in suit concerning alleged mismanagement of plan assets); Maltby v. Absolut Spirits Co., Inc., 2009 WL 800142 at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ("Defendant maintains that this Court should not apply the fiduciary exception here because the Eleventh Circuit has never applied the fiduciary exception in the context of an ERISA case. Defendant provides no legal or factual explanation of why this Court should not apply this doctrine, however."); Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Assn, 144 F.R.D. 68, 71 (E.D. Va. 1992) (holding that the Garner doctrine applies because unions owe a fiduciary duty to their members). The "Garner doctrine" or "fiduciary exception" has also been applied to bar the federal government from asserting privilege against those whose interests it must protect, such as Indian tribes. See, e.g., Osage Nation and/or Tribe ofIndians of Oklahoma v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 244 (2005); Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C. 2002). For instance, in Osage Nation, the Government argued against application of the fiduciary exception in the context of a case alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or offset its obligations as trustee to be unpersuasive." Id. at 248. The situation here is parallel to situations such as a union being challenged by its members or the Government is being challenged an Indiana tribe. In this case, of course, a U.S. 13 EFTA00179780 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of 18 Attorney's Office is being challenged by recognized crime victims, who arc arguing that the Office violated its statutory obligation to act in their "best interests." Accordingly, under Garner, an attorney-client privilege is not appropriate, provided the victims to show "good cause" why the privilege should not be invoked. Id. at 1104. I lere, there is ample good cause. See generally Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (filed concurrently with this motion as an attachment to the Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Documents that Are Not Privileged) (explaining why good cause exists for production of documents requested). As a result, the Court should not allow the Government to invoke privilege but should instead simply grant the victims' motion for an order not allowing the Government to withhold relevant evidence and turn the disputed materials over to the victims. III. THE VICTIMS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT UNDER THEIR CVRA "RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS." In their 2011 motion, the victims also argued that they were entitled to receive favorable evidence in the Government's possession for the same reason that criminal defendants receive such information: fundamental considerations of fairness require that the Government not deliberately withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. DE 50 at pp. 5-9 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and arguing that they are entitled to "Brady" information contradicting the Government's position no less than criminal defendants). In light of the Government's recently-filed privilege log, the need for the Court to grant the victims' motion has become even more apparent. The Government's privilege log indicates that it is withholding significant information that is critical to the victims' arguments. For example, the Government is withholding 14 EFTA00179781 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of 18 information about its discussions concerning how to notify crime victims. See, e.g., page 16 of first privilege log (DE 212-1) regarding Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. And the Government is withholding information about its own internal investigation into the potential wrongdoing in this case. See, e.g., page 13 of supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) regarding Suppl. Box 3 P- 013940 to P-013942. As we understand the Government's position on this issue, it does not contend that it does not have important evidence for the victims' case. Nor does the Government argue that it would be difficult to identify that material. Instead, the Government's argument has been that Brady obligations are confined to criminal cases against criminal defendants. DE 59 at 5-6. But the case law is not so narrow as the Government believes. The victims have recently identified several cases in which courts have applied Brady outside of the criminal context. In Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit applied Brady in the context of a denaturalization and extradition case. In United States v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the district court applied Brady to civil commitment proceedings for sexual offenders. And in EEOC v. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1373, 1374 (D.N.M. 1974), the district court applied Brady to an employment discrimination action. The issue of Brady obligations in a CVRA action appears to be one of first impression. Thus, more important than case law is the fact that the victims here can rely on specific statute — the CVRA — that gives them a right to be "treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). Being treated with fairness means (at a minimum) treated someone with due process. As one of the CVRA's co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) explained, "The broad rights articulated in this section [§ 3771(a)(8)] are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of 15 EFTA00179782 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of 18 these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they arc in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve." 150 Cong. Rec. S4269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). In the context of this particular case, it is simply inconsistent with the "due process" requirements of the CVRA to allow the Government to withhold documents that will help the victims prove their case. The Court should accordingly enter an order, paralleling its "Standing Discovery Order" in criminal cases, directing the Government to provide favorable evidence to the victims. See Local Rule 88.10. The Standing Discovery Order typically provides: "The government shall reveal to the defendant(s) and permit inspection and copying of all information and material known to the government which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and associated local rule 88.10(O) — contains a broad, commonsense provision which the Government has plainly violated in this case. The Order provides: "The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth or existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will expedite the trial." For more than five years, the victims have been trying to get the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts, precisely as the Court's rules envision. The Government, however, has refused to do so. Accordingly, the Court should enter an order 16 EFTA00179783 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 18 requiring the Government to produce evidence which it well knows is relevant and material to the victims' case. And because the Court has in its possession thousands of pages of documents that fit that description, the Court should simply turn that information over to the victims. CONCLUSION The Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold material evidence in this case and should provide to the victims the materials it has received for in camera review. In addition, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which documents apply to which requests, the Government should be required to provide such a responsive document. DATED: August 16, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEIIRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Ilac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utakedu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 17 EFTA00179784 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafla 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lec(e)usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana®usdoj.gov Attorneysfor the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading@royblack.com (305) 37106421 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz®kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw@att.net (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counselfor Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 18 EFTA00179785 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Petitioners' Renewed Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence, and states: I. INTRODUCTION In its Omnibus Order of June 18, 2013, this Court directed that petitioners should have thirty days after service of the government's privilege log to file a motion to compel contesting any asserted privilege claim. D.E. 190 at 2. Any such motion to compel was limited to seven pages. N. Within fifteen days, the government was permitted to file its response, which was also limited to seven pages. D.E. 190 at 3. Petitioners' response to the government's filing of its privilege log has been the filing of the following: (I) the government's privilege log with its objections annotated (D.E. 224-1); (2) a motion to compel production of documents that are not privileged, numbering eight pages D.E. 225; (3) a twenty-four page, single-spaced affidavit of petitioners' counsel, addressing the EFTA00179786 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 2 of 12 various privileges asserted by the government, D.E. 225-1; and (4) a renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to withhold relevant evidence, numbering seventeen pages, D.E. 226. The renewed motion also challenges the government's assertions of privilege. I. THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROPERLY INVOKED APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES Petitioners argue that this Court should summarily dismiss the privileges invoked by the government because of the "gross inadequacies" in the privilege assertions. D.E. 226 at 6-7. Their argument is baseless because the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in camera review to determine if the privilege is valid. Petitioners go so far as to complain that the government has not identified in the privilege log which documents respond to which requests. Id. at 7. They do not explain how the validity of a privilege is contingent upon which request for production the document is responsive to. In request for production no. 18, petitioners requested documents "regarding potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL...." The government's privilege log clearly references e-mails between Assistant General Counsel Richard Sudder, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg, "regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated August 24 and August 29, 2011." D.E. 212-1 at 22. Further, the privilege log detailed cmails between Peter Mason, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee, "seeking advice regarding office-wide mensal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010." D.E. 212-1 at 23. 2 EFTA00179787 of 12 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 3 The subjects of the c-mails, office-wide recusal and "seeking advice regarding office- wide recusal," were stated in the privilege log. The attorney-client privilege was invoked for these documents, along with the deliberative process and work product privileges for a subset of these documents. Since petitioners requested these documents, they should be able to discern what document request they pertain to. Moreover, the purpose of the e-mails, seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal, was stated in the privilege log. This is sufficient factual detail to permit petitioners and the Court to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies. Petitioners' claim that the government has failed to produce relevant documents is based on fallacious assumptions. They use as an example of a failure to produce documents the request for documents regarding former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Reinhart. D.E. 226 at 8-9. "The victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request, because in answering the victims' First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it possessed information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice Department that related to the Epstein investigation." Id. Continuing, petitioners state, "It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior." They then argue that "there is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages of documents) are responsive to REP 15 because the Government has not indicated which of its documents apply to which RFP."I Id. at 9. The fallacy in petitioners' reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government's response to the request for admission was a document, rather than personal observation. If it was based on the latter, there would be no document to produce. Petitioners make the same fallacious assumption in the case of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Mcnchcl. D.E. 226 at 9-10. The admission in Request for Admission No. 20 need not have been based upon a The RFP which seeks documents pertaining to Reinhart is actually number 16, rather than 15. 3 EFTA00179788 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 4 of 12 document. Petitioners admit that the government has included documents from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in its privilege logs. D.E. 226 at 10 n.6. The government has properly invoked the attorney-client, work product, and deliberative process privileges for many of the OPR documents. D.E. 216-1 at 12-14. In Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100, 600 P.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's finding that the attorney-client and work product privileges did not apply to notes of witness interviews, and memoranda prepared from those interviews, by a law firm retained by a school district. A teacher in the school district was charged with sexually molesting numerous students over several years. Id. at 615. A civil lawsuit was filed against the school district and the principal. The school district hired Sidley Austin LIP to conduct an internal investigation and provide legal advice to the school board. Sidley Austin was not the school district's litigation counsel in the civil lawsuit. Attorneys from Sidley Austin interviewed current and former school district employees, as well as third-party witnesses. The attorneys took handwritten notes and later drafted memos summarizing the interviews. Id. During discovery in the civil litigation, the plaintiffs sought documents in Sidley Austin's possession regarding its investigation. The law firm invoked the attorney-client and work product privileges as to its notes and internal memoranda relating to the employee witness interviews, as well as other legal memoranda. The district court rejected the privilege claims, finding that Sidley Austin had been hired to provide investigative services, not legal services. Id. The appellate court found, based on the engagement letter between Sidley Austin and the school district, that the law firm had been hired to "investigate the response of the school administration to allegations of sexual abuse of students," and "provide legal services in 4 EFTA00179789 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 5 of 12 connection with the specific representation." Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 383 (1981), "which explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within the protection of the attorney-client privilege." 600 F.3d at 619(emphasis in original). Despite the fact that Sidley Austin was not the school district's litigation counsel, the appellate court found that Sidley's investigation of the factual circumstances surrounding the abuse was an integral part of the package of legal services for which it was hired and a necessary prerequisite to the provision of legal advice about how the school district should respond. Id. at 620. The Court also found the witness interview notes and memoranda were entitled to protection under the work product privilege because they were prepared "with an eye toward" the pending litigation. Js1at 622 In this case, OPR is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of misconduct committed by DOJ attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(I). The counsel heading OPR reports to the Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a. One of OPR's functions is to "[deceive, review, investigate and refer for appropriate action." § 0.39a(aX2). In discharging this function, OPR attorneys interviewed DOJ attorneys regarding the allegations of misconduct lodged by petitioners' counsel, took notes, and prepared memoranda, just like the law firm retained by the South Berwyn School District. The documents generated by these investigative actions are covered by the work product privilege because notes and memoranda prepared by OPR attorneys are created with an eye toward potential litigation. Under § 0.39a(a)(3), OPR Counsel shall, "[deport to the responsible Department official the results of inquiries and investigations arising under paragraphs (a)(I) and (2) of this section, and, when appropriate, make recommendations for disciplinary and other corrective action." 5 EFTA00179790 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 6 of 12 In their fourth example, petitioners claim they "know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-MDFL evaluated something as a result." D.E. 226 at 10-11. They contend that, other than a few preliminary emails within the DOJ regarding whether the recusal should occur, "nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal." Petitioners appear to believe that, because the USAO-SDFL was recused from the Epstein case, the USAO-MDFL "evaluated something as a result." In U.S. v. Wevhrauch, 544 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit noted that, "the General Counsel's Office of the EOUSA coordinates office-wide recusals, obtains necessary approvals and helps arrange the transfer of responsibility to another office ... ." Id. at 973-74. Office-wide recusals are frequently based upon a finding that a reasonable person could question the impartiality of a particular U.S. Attorney's Office, such as when the Office is prosecuting a crime where the victim is an employee in that U.S. Attorney's Office, or a defendant is a close family member of a U.S. Attorney's Office employee. Petitioners seem to believe that the recusal of the USAO- SDFL was based on a finding that misconduct had occurred in the Epstein case, which is incorrect. Further, the transfer of responsibility to the USAO-MDFL was not a charter for it to investigate the USAO-SDFL. Instead, the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein case, and exercises its own independent judgment and discretion in deciding what action to take, if any. II. THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE Petitioners argue that government should be ordered to produce the requested documents because there is a fiduciary exception to all privilege. This wholesale attempt to overcome the 6 EFTA00179791 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 7 of 12 government's claims of privilege should be rejected because it lacks any legal basis. The premise of petitioners' argument is that the CVRA provides that government prosecutors are to "make their best efforts to see that crime victims are accorded their rights." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX1). They provide no legal authority for the contention that the CVRA creates a fiduciary obligation between the government and crime victims. Instead, petitioners attempt to engraft such a duty from other cases, involving duties owed by a corporation to its shareholders, Gamer v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), and the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. None of those cases are apposite. In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. 2313 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Federal Claims' finding that the government was required to produce documents in litigation involving the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The Tribe had instituted a breach of trust action against the United States, claiming the government had mismanaged funds held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe sought various documents in discovery, which included materials for which the government claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court of Federal Claims applied the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege, applied in the context of common law trust, and found the documents were not privileged. 131 S.Ct. at 2319. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the government is not a private trustee, and the trust defined between the government and the Tribe was governed by statutes, rather than the common law. Id. at 2323. Further, the United States did not obtain legal advice as a "mere representative" of the Tribe, nor was the Tribe the "real client" for whom that advice was intended. a at 2326. Assuming any fiduciary relationship exists between the government and a crime victim, such relationship would be based on the CVRA, not the common law. Further, the government would be managing any trust relationship as a sovereign function, pursuant to 7 EFTA00179792 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 8 of 12 the plenary authority of Congress, not as a private trustee. In Jicarilla, the Supreme Court distinguished Garner: The United States has a sovereign interest in the administration of Indian trusts distinct from the private interests of those who may benefit from its administration. Courts apply the fiduciary exception on the ground that "management does not manage for itself." Garner, 430 F.2d at 1101; Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 232 ("[Ojf cental importance in both Garner and Riggs was the fiduciary's lack of a legitimate personal interest in the legal advice obtained"). But the Government is never in that position. While one purpose of the Indian trust relationship is to benefit the tribes, the Government has its own independent interest in the implementation of federal Indian policy. For that reason, when the Government seeks legal advice related to the administration of tribal trusts, it established an attorney-client relationship related to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law. In other words, the Government seeks legal advice in a "personal" rather than a fiduciary capacity. See Riggs, 355 A.2d at 711. 131 S.Ct. at 2327-28. In this case, the government had its own independent interest in the exercise and implementation of its sovereign authority to prosecute an individual for violating federal law. Therefore, the fiduciary exception does not apply.2 III. PETITIONERS HAVE NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE CVRA, Petitioners argue that they have a due process right to documents in the government's possession. D.E. 226 at 14-17. The basis for a due process right, according to petitioners, is the CVRA's provision that crime victims have a right "to be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). In making this due process argument, petitioners dispense with any analysis of whether the CVRA creates any protected liberty or property interest, sufficient to trigger the due process clause. "The necessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining 2 The two cases cited by petitioners in support of a fiduciary exception due to the government's relationship with Indian tribes Osage Nation and/or Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 244 (2005), and Cobell v. Norton 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C. 2002), are of dubious vitality in light of iicarilla Apache Nation. 8 EFTA00179793 FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." 782 F.24 952, 95455 (11th Cir. 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), EijilEl Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim due process a court must 1986)("in assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural a constitutionally protected first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of be no denial of due process."). liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation, there can , and courts are There is no life, liberty, or property interest implicated in the CVRA d. Site Collins v. City of hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been create al matter, the Court has always Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992X"As a gener se guideposts for been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process becau and open ended. (citation omitted). responsible decisionmaking in this uncharted area are scarce utmost care whenever we arc The doctrine ofjudicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the ted life, liberty, or property interest, asked to break new ground in this field."). Without a protec compelling the government to petitioners cannot invoke the due process clause as a basis for disclose documents to them. ), is similarly unavailing. Petitioners' reliance upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963 position of having their liberty Petitioners are not charged with any crime, nor are they in the a defendant charged with deprived at the hands of the government, such as the case with they claim demonstrate the committing a crime. Petitioners rely upon three cases, which at IS. In Demjanjuk v. Petrovskv, application of Brady outside the criminal context. D.E. 226 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit observed: We believe Brady should be extended to cover denaturalization and extradition cases where the government seeks al denaturalization or extradition based on proof of alleged crimin activities of the party proceeded against. If the government had sought to denaturalize Demjanjuk only on the basis of his misrepresentation at the time he sought admission to the United 9 EFTA00179794 Cas e 9:08 -cv- 807 36- KAM Doc ume nt 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Pag e 10 of 12 States and subsequently when he applied for citizenship, it would have been only a civil action. kl at 353. Demjaqjuk has no application to this case since the government does not seek to deprive petitioners of their United States citiz enship, or anything else. The Sixth Circuit foun d Brady should apply because of two factors. First, the government was seeking to denatur alize Demjanjuk. Second, it was seeking to do so on the ground that Demjanjuk engaged in crim inal activities. The appellate court's specific focu s on the government's reliance upon Demjanjuk's participation in criminal activities, demonst rates that was the legal basis for its finding that Brady applied. Their reference to the denaturaliza tion case being "only a civil action," if the government had relied solely upon Demjanj uk's misrepresentations, suggests that seeking to denaturalize, without an allegation of criminal acti vity, would not be a sufficient basis for applying Brady. Similarly, in U.S. v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2 d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the government was seeking to civilly commit Edwards for bein g a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S .C. § 4248(a). The district court found that Edwards had a liberty interest in avoiding detention and civil commitment. L at 990. Consequently, the due process clau se was implicated because the government was seeking to deprive Edwards of a liberty interest in avoiding detention. In this case, the government does not seek to deprive petitioners of anything. The third case cited by petitioners is EEOC v. Los Alamos Constructors. Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1373 (D.N.M. 1974). The district cou rt's analysis of the due process issue is contain ed in one sent ence in the follo win g foot note : "Bra dy v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.83 S.C t. 1194. 10 L.Ed.2d 215, orders that exculpatory information must be furnished a defendant in a criminal case. A defendant in a civil case brou ght by the government should be afforded no less due process of law." a at 1383 n.5. This is no authority for petitioner's due process argument 10 EFTA00179795 on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 11 of 12 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered , or property interest is implicated by since there is no analysis of whether a protected life, liberty this district court decision is the government's actions. Moreover, by its own terms, case brought by the government. inapplicable because petitioners are not defendants in a civil CONCLUSION log provided by the Petitioners' renewed motion should be denied. The privilege ges are being asserted. government adequately describes the documents for which privile t privilege invoked by the Further, there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-clien provided in the CVRA. government, nor is there any due process right to documents DATED: September 3, 2013 Respectfully submitted, WILFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ILDexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee®usdoj.gov ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE onically filed the foregoing I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 3, 2013, I electr document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST 11 EFTA00179796 Case 9:08 -cv- 80736-K AM Doc ume nt 230 Ent ered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Pag e 12 of 12 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad©pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: ragselp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 371-6421 Fax: (305) 358-2006 E-mail: rblacIctarovblack.com inerczekarovblack.com Attorneys for Intervenors 12