EFTA00088121¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Good by me¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
John,¶
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.¶
Thanks,¶
Steven¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Thanks for the further info. With apologies, I now think Steven 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 Steven’s plan for dealing with plaintiff’s further requests as he outlines in his May 20 email.¶
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 Lacerda; 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.¶
EFTA00088122¶
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, John. David Jones thought this approach was reasonable, but I’ll check with Sarah 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.¶
Thanks,¶
Steven¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
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 Sarah 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.¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
All,¶