EFTA00206376¶
I would like to respond to Cassell’s requests today. As to paragraph 1, I provided him a phone number and contact person yesterday, March 16.¶
As to paragraph 2, I would like to tell Cassell we won’t be making initial disclosures, because we don’t believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies in this hybrid civil matter.¶
As to paragraph 3, I would like to tell Cassell that the CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a “victim,” not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those rights. Any rights to discovery in an action to enforce the CVRA would emanate from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if at all. Moreover, I would like to tell him that whatever Ken Starr said to our office, and what our office said to Ken Starr, has no bearing on whether a legal duty to consult, in the absence of any charge filed in the district court, existed. We will respond to any motion he files, claiming he has a right of access to these materials.¶
As to paragraph 4, I discern no privilege attaching to e-mail and mail correspondence our office had with Epstein’s attorneys. These could be considered plea discussions, but normally, one of the parties to the negotiation is complaining about the other side using information gleaned from such discussions improperly in the merits of the case. We could argue that disclosure to third parties could assert a chilling effect, but that seems to be a stretch. In any event, I think we should advise Cassell the U.S. Attorney’s Office has no independent objection to the release of this correspondence between our office and Epstein’s attorneys. It will be the victims’ burden to notify Epstein, and respond to whatever objections he lodges.¶
Thanks.¶
From: Paul Cassell [mailto:¶
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:21 PM¶
To: (USAFLS)¶
Cc: . (USAFLS); Brad Edwards¶
Subject: RE: Government’s Position on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer¶
Dear¶