| Subject: | RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests |
| Date: | Fri, 22 May 2020 21:37:05 +0000 |
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.¶
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¶
EFTA00093669¶
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.¶
All,¶
Closing the loop on this: we produced documents responsive to an Epstein victim’s Touhy request about a month ago. The requesters got back to us (by phone) with a fairly lengthy list of follow-up questions about what we produced and additional/related demands. We don’t have much responsive to many of their follow-ups, or do not think it would be appropriate to produce additional material they’re seeking—for example, materials that are part of the ongoing investigation. Alex and I intend to have a call with requester’s counsel to explain to them that we will not be producing anything further at this time. At this point, we don’t plan to send them anything else in writing.¶
One small wrinkle: they have asked us for materials from S.D. Fla.’s investigation (which we don’t have) and asked whether they need to submit a separate request to that office. We intend to tell them that N.D. Ga. has stepped into the shoes of S.D. Fla. For Epstein purposes, that they can submit a request there (or to S.D. Fla.) for the materials they’re seeking, and possibly provide them with a contact at N.D. Ga. if they ask.¶
Please let us know if you have any concerns. We hope that this will be the last step on this request.¶
Thanks,¶
Steven¶
I take it we fully know that Jane Doe is Maria Lacerda?¶
I had a little pause on handing out the GJ subpoena, but since it’s something previously disclosed to her, I can’t see much of a problem disclosing it to her again.¶
So I don’t have a problem with you sending this out. Thanks for your work on this, Steven.¶
-John¶