| Subject: | Re: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests |
| Date: | Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:28:48 +0000 |
Yes, thanks. Same thing.¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
Is the 3500 folder just the Witnesses & Cooperators folders, or is there another spot? Sorry if I’m missing / forgetting something.¶
Subject: Fwd: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
With this in mind, could you please save the Touhy correspondence in the 3500 folder? Thanks.¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
Begin forwarded message:¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Determinations under Touhy are somewhat discretionary and to the extent our Office exercised discretion to give the W something the W wanted, that could be construed as a benefit. Here, it’s a benefit to her civil case. You can see how that might be developed on cross.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
EFTA00088111¶
Curious about that view – it’s not a benefit conferred upon her, in the sense that this avenue to obtain documents is available to literally any person. And the witness herself makes no statements whatsoever in the communications, nor are we providing anything that we aren’t also providing to the defense in discovery. Is your view that the fact of production of materials is Giglio? Or that the substance of her attorney’s request and the government’s responsive letter is Giglio? Just want to make sure we understand the theory.¶
thanks,¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
BTW, I probably don’t need to tell you, our Touhy communications with are probably disclosable as Giglio info.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Per our call yesterday, please find attached an updated letter responding to the Touhy request from the Epstein victim. The Maxwell team is okay with this version of the letter. Please let me know if this is what you had in mind, or happy to discuss/change things if not.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Please find attached a letter responding to a Touhy request from an Epstein victim and the documents to be produced with it. The Maxwell team has signed off on this response. We anticipate that requester’s counsel understands that the government has additional documents here and may press on why more are not being released. To attempt to address that issue up front, the letter notes that documents governed by 6(e) cannot be produced.¶
EFTA00088112¶
Please let us know if you have any concerns.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Good by me¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
We have received another informal Touhy inquiry from an Epstein victim. Please find attached a letter to victim’s counsel, outlining the Touhy process. This is basically the same letter we sent to Roberta Kaplan at the outset of the prior Touhy process. We intend to proceed along the same lines with this request as with the prior request. Please let me know if you have any edits or concerns.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Thanks for the further info. With apologies, I now think was right in the first place: if plaintiffs ask us for the docs and we don’t have them then I guess it does make most sense for us to simply say, we don’t have them, try SDFla and/or NDGA. SDFLa and NDGA may say, pound sand, and if plaintiffs subpoena one or the other of those districts, then we see if the subpoenaed district Touhy-refers the subpoena to Geoff as the “responsible” USA, and take it from there. So I am OK with plan for dealing with plaintiff’s further requests as he outlines in his May 20 email.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
EFTA00088113¶
We do possess the FBI investigative files from the SDFL investigation. What we do not have, and avoided obtaining for a variety of reasons (including conflict issues, discovery issues, and a desire not to create even an appearance that we were stepping into the shoes of a district that was unable to prosecute due to the prior non-prosecution agreement) are any files specifically from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in SDFL. As relevant here, for example, we do not have any materials relating to the purported immunity discussions relating to ; we have not identified any such materials in the FBI files, and we assume that any discussions or correspondence on that issue likely would have been between defense counsel and the SDFL USAO.¶
On the civil side, I can’t immediately think of a reason you guys shouldn’t be able to make a request to either SDFL or NDGA, whichever is the right entity, for any such materials. We’ve just avoided literally any contact with SDFL on the criminal side.¶
Let us know if any additional questions on this at all, we realize it’s a little complex.¶
Understood. Thanks, . thought this approach was reasonable, but I’ll check with too. Overall, I don’t think we have a ton of precedent for referring folks to another USAO on a Touhy, and certainly not to a third USAO in the referral context.¶
Some information that might be useful in this that I don’t have a complete understanding of—are the materials from the S.D. Fla. investigation available to us? As in, have we ever seen or used them? If not, is there a particular reason for that? We may be in the odd situation of technically having some purview over those materials by virtue of the Touhy regs, but without access to them. But please let me know if I’m overlooking some dimension of our cooperation (if any) with the other USAOs.¶
I have some hesitation on just referring them to NDGa for the SDFla investigative stuff. First, under Touhy section 16.22(b), the responsible USA is the USA for the district “where the issuing authority” is located. They actually have an action filed in this district, no? Like it or not, we may be stuck with dealing with their requests for docs from the Florida investigation. Stephen, you might want to consult wiser Touhy heads in civ div, like for instance. Also, it is possible that Touhy does not fall within the scope of SDFla’s recusal. I can’t see NDGA racing to embrace doing Touhys on this.¶