From: ’¶
To: ’¶
Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials - three ideas¶
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:17:13 +0000¶
Importance: Normal¶
We should probably talk about this as well.¶
From: Paul Cassell¶
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:36 PM¶
Cc:¶
Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials - three ideas¶
Dear □,¶
Thanks for getting back to us. We’re happy to let you find a convenient time to work through these issues with¶
Brad and I obviously continue to believe that everything we are asking for is appropriate. But to simplify things for now, here are three quick areas where we think the Government could produce things that would be helpful to us without burdening the Government. In advancing these three, we are obviously not conceding away other requests or limiting us in any way on other pending requests:¶
(1) Can you at least agree to turn over to us the e-mails from Epstein’s lawyers regarding the non-prosecution agreement? We have received the Government’s half of the communications but not Epstein’s for a number of the emails. (Epstein improperly withheld some of the e-mails without telling us, such as e-mails from Lillian Sanchez.) So turning over what Epstein said certainly can’t be regarded as privileged. And the e-mails regarding the NPA are clearly within the scope of discovery that Judge Marra envisioned. So please just give us the e-mails regarding the NPA.¶
(2) Also, can you at least agree to make your initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. At various points in the litigation, the Government seems to have regarded Rule 26 as controlling and then later not controlling. But without conceding whether it controls or not, can’t you at least agree to make the normal disclosures that the Government makes in any civil litigation?¶
(3) Can you agree to turn over to us any information that Bruce Reinhart was aware of the Government’s efforts in the Epstein case. That would be useful to us in proving conflict of interest issues.¶
Thanks in advance for any voluntary help you can extend. Of course, in producing things, you would not be waiving any right to object to other production. And, of course, we are not waiving any right to seek other production.¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶
Paul Cassell¶
Paul G. Cassell¶
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law¶
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah¶
EFTA00205507¶
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you.¶
From:¶
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:06 PM¶
To: Paul Cassell¶
Cc:|¶
Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?¶
Paul:¶
Sorry it has taken us so long to get back to you.¶
You and Brad are certainly correct that, notwithstanding our motion to stay discovery, we wish to cooperate to facilitate any discovery that may be required in this matter.¶
As our filings make clear, we do not believe that any discovery is legally appropriate in this case due to the jurisdictional issues we have raised. It is also our position that your clients’ discovery requests are objectionable for a variety of reasons, including because they seek information protected by a variety of privileges, which include the attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process privilege, because they are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and because they are beyond the scope of the discovery contemplated by the court’s order¶
Nonetheless, we remain willing to work with you and Brad to identify and reach an accommodation concerning certain non-privileged items that might be producible by the government at this time notwithstanding the government’s motion to stay. In order to accomplish this, however, we would need some narrowing of your discovery requests that would identify those items that we could then evaluate for early voluntary production. That narrowing might perhaps be achieved through a joint cooperative discussion. Potentially, we might even reach accommodation on some items through joint stipulations. Let me make clear that by asking you to narrow your discovery requests, we are not requiring you to abandon any of your pending discovery requests – although it is our hope that cooperative discussion might resolve, or even eliminate the need for, some of those requests; rather, we are simply trying to jointly define a subset of those requests so that we could evaluate them for early voluntary production.¶
Unfortunately, my knowledge of the materials that might be responsive to the discovery requests is extremely limited, and will thus need to be part of any discussions aimed at an early voluntary production. Can we set up a meeting to work through these matters after has concluded his impending trial and has concluded her § 2255 evidentiary hearing?¶
Thanks,¶
From: Paul Cassell¶
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:31 PM¶