| Subject: | RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:32:26 +0000 |
Attachments: 072720_Letter_to_Glassman_re_Request_for_Information_Relating_to_Jeffrey_Epstein.docx¶
John,¶
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.¶
Thanks,¶
Steven¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
John,¶
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.¶
Please let us know if you have any concerns.¶
Thanks,¶
Steven¶
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests¶
Good by me¶
EFTA00104583¶
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.¶
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.¶