EFTA00206139¶
| From: | (USAFLS) |
|---|
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:15 AM¶
To: [ ] , [ ] . (USAFLS); [ ] , [ ] (USAFLS)¶
Cc: Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS)¶
Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe . Enited States¶
I just received a call from Bentley’s assistant. Bentley is canceling today’s conference call; he is feeling a little under the weather and is not coming into the office today. She told me that he will call me tomorrow to reschedule. Sorry. Given that it is unlikely that we are going to have a substantive discussion with Bentley this week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather.¶
| From: | , | (USAFLS) |
|---|
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM¶
To: Bentley, ■ (USAFLM)¶
Cc: [ ] , [ ] [ ] . (USAFLS); [ ] , [ ] (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS)¶
Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe . Enited States¶
We’re on for 1:30 tomorrow. I’ll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information.¶
Thanks,¶
From: | | (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:11 PM¶
To: Bentley, (USAFLM)¶
Cc: [ ] , [ ] . (USAFLS); [ ] , [ ] (USAFLS); Greenberg, Benjamin (USAFLS)¶
Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States¶
$$\text{Hi}_3$$¶
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.¶
As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents’ pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file.¶
EFTA00206140¶
We (Villafaña, who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule.¶
Thanks,¶
I. Sánchez¶
Counselor to the United States Attorney¶
United States Attorney’s Office¶
99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 800¶
Dear Mr.¶
We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests — discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government’s position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government.¶
If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following:¶
(1) The Government’s initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26;¶
EFTA00206141¶
(2) Answers to all of the victims’ requests for admission;¶
(3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and¶
(4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims’ discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege.¶
And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules?¶
Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have.¶
Sincerely,¶
Paul Cassell¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶
| Paul G. Cassell |
| Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah |
| 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 |
| Voice: |
| Fax: |
| Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu |
| http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul |
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: |
| To: |
| Cc: |
| Subject: |
RE: Redacted Pleading Rather than Sealing the Entire Pleading¶
Dear Mr.¶
We haven’t heard back from you on the issue regarding sealing of the Government’s pleading in the Epstein case. (See email below sent earlier this week.) I was hoping that you (or Ms. or Mr. ) could get back to Brad and me quickly on this issue.¶
As you know, we have a series of pleadings that we need to file on Monday. We are trying to understand the Government’s position on sealing these pleadings.¶
As you also know, we think there is absolutely no basis for sealing the majority of the Government’s pleadings. We hope you agree so that we can move forward consensually, at least on this issue.¶
Thank you in advance for your assistance.¶
Paul Cassell¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶
| Paul G. Cassell |
| Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah |
| 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 |
EFTA00206142¶
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730¶
Voice: Fax: Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul¶
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.¶
-----Original Message-----¶
From: Paul Cassell¶
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:29 PM¶
To: ’ [ ] , [ ] . (USAFLS)’;¶
Cc: ‘Brad Edwards’¶
Subject: RE: Redacted Pleading Rather than Sealing the Entire Pleading¶
Dear Mr.¶
I am writing as co-counsel in the Jane Doe case. I understand that you are supervising the case for U.S. Attorney’s Office there.¶
I am writing to request that the Government file new, redacted copies of its currently pending motion to dismiss and motion for stay. As you may know, the Government has filed these two motions entirely under seal. Yet the vast bulk of both motions do not deal with any material that needs to be under seal.¶
As you may know, Judge Marra has previously unsealed other pleadings in this case, recognizing the considerable public interest in the issues being discussed. As you also know, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have tried to work cooperatively with the Government wherever possible. For example, we earlier stipulated to proposed redactions of material proposed by Ms. to avoid disclosing information that she viewed as confidential.¶
In light of all this, the victims are writing to inquire whether the Government would file a motion to place redacted copies of its two motions in the public court file in the case. Attached are two redacted pleadings that we believe remove all information that is properly subject to sealing to protect confidential grand jury material - but no more.¶
Please let me know whether the Government is willing to move forward on that basis.¶
Sincerely,¶
Paul Cassell¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶
Paul G. Cassell¶
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101¶
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730¶
Voice:¶
Fax:¶
Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu¶
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul¶
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:¶
Paul Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu¶
Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:22 PM¶
EFTA00206143¶
To: Cc: Subject:¶
RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein - conference call at 5 PM today?¶
and Co.,¶
Thanks for the call. Sorry I was on the other line.¶
Can we set up a time certain? That way Brad can participate.¶
He is in a depo until 4:30, but should be free at 5 PM your time today (Thursday). Does that work?¶
Looking forward to chatting. PC¶
| Paul G. Cassell |
| Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law |
| S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah |
| 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 |
| Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 |
| Voice: |
| Fax: |
| Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu |
| http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul |
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.¶
-----Original Message-----¶
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:25 AM¶
Subject: RE: Discovery Issues in Epstein¶
Dear Mr.¶
We will shortly be filing a motion to compel Government responses to our discovery requests — discovery which, as you know, Judge Marra has already ordered. We realize, of course, that the Government has filed a motion to dismiss/stay. But if the Government’s position is rejected on those motions, then the next issue is what discovery can we expect to receive from the Government.¶
If the motions are denied, will the Government voluntarily produce anything to us? Will the government at least agree to produce the following:¶
(1) The Government’s initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26;¶
(2) Answers to all of the victims’ requests for admission;¶
(3) All documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government distributed to persons or entities outside of the federal Government or received from persons or entities outside of the federal government; and¶
(4) All documents, correspondence, and other information covered by the victims’ discovery request that is not subject to a claim of privilege.¶
And, for all other information withheld, will the Government agree to produce a document-by-document privilege log, as required by the local rules?¶
Thanks for your help on these questions and Brad and I have.¶
Sincerely,¶
Paul Cassell¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶