EFTA00206092
From:(USAFLS)
Sent:Friday, January 06, 2012 2:36 PM
To:(USAFLS);
Subject:RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue
Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don’t agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule. My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks. **Sent:** Friday, January 06, 2012 2:24 PM Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a “motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days” and none is a “motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing.” Cassell’s concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the “the movant or applicant.” Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be “serve[d] on all parties and any affected non-parties.” The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule. As to “initial discovery,” my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don’t recall any representation that we would provide “a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners’] motion to dismiss is denied,” or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree.
From:[Image][Image][Image](USAFLS)
Sent:Friday, January 06, 2012 12:37 PM
To:[Image][Image](USAFLS); [Image][Image](USAFLS)
Subject:Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue
EFTA00206093 There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners’ Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was “held in abeyance” while the Court ordered “limited discovery”). DE51: Petitioners’ Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. The 90-day mark on DE93 will be January $12^{\text{th}}$. My reading of Rule 7.1(b)(3)(B) is that if there is a hearing, even with supplemental briefing thereafter, one counts from the date of the hearing, and that date has long since passed, so there is nothing to report on DE50, DE51, and DE56. With regard to the outstanding motions, there are: DE119: Our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does’ Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121: Our motion to stay discovery was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does’ Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE128: Petitioners’ Protective Motion for Remedies was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Opposition has not yet been filed. DE130: Petitioners’ Protective Motion to Compel was filed on 12/5/2011. We have not yet filed our Opposition. One does not begin calculating the 90 days on these motions until briefing is completed. As to the rest of Mr. Cassell’s email, I don’t recall promising early discovery, I only remember promising that, if the motion to stay was denied, we would be ready with our production. Is my memory off? I was going to recommend that I talk to Brad about some of the requests and ask if they have information that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my knowledge and find out later about some obscure contact in DC. Thoughts? To be ready with our production, though, I really need a legal assistant or attorney from Miami to come up here and sort through all of my boxes with me. And someone needs to order Jeff and Alex’s records back from Archives (I don’t know if Matt or Andy’s materials are in archives or any closed file rooms). And someone needs to reach out to CEOS and the DAAG and AAG’s offices, as well as DOJ Appellate. EFTA00206094 This discovery issue is going to be massive if we are ordered to respond, so it would help to have a civil legal assistant assigned. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 FYI – I assume they are trying to get some information on Brad Edwards. Larry – are you handling this? I will be out next week. and are handling the Epstein matter, so can you keep them up to date on this? Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
From:
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:22 AM
To: [email] , [email] . (USAFLS)
Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein lawyers want to depose Scott Rothstein