![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg) MAY 3 0 2017 STEVEN P. LARJp,topE C. ":IS' SC OF ELI., • woo #### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISI ILED BY D.C. FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: ### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### MOTION TO SEAL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to seal its "Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material" for the following reasons: 1. The Application contains information regarding proceedings before West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury 07-103, which is subject to the secrecy protections of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6. 1. Pursuant to Rule 6(eX6), "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Application and any Order related to the Application be sealed. Dated: May 30, 2017 Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN G. GREENBERG ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Tel: ### FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: ### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### SEALED ORDER / It is hereby ordered that the United States' Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court, except that a copy of this Order, the Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and the Order granting same shall be provided to counsel for the United States. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of May, 2017, at West Palm Beach, Florida. > DANIEL T. K. HURLEY SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: AUSA ### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FGJ 07-103(WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### SEALED MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY MATERIAL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves the Court for permission to disclose certain materials relating to matters occurring before West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury # 07-103. In support thereof, the Government states: 1. In September 2006, as part of its investigation named "Operation Leap Year," the United States served a grand jury subpoena on a witness named See Exhibit 1 at P-003734 thru P-003735. Based upon the investigation, Ms. was identified as a potential victim of the lead target, Jeffrey Epstein. 1. After service of the subpoena, Ms.= retained the services of James Eisenberg, Esq. to represent her. Jeffrey Epstein paid for that representation. 1. Mr. Eisenberg communicated to me orally and in writing that Ms. would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege if she were forced to appear before the grand jury, and that the government needed to obtain immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6003 and a compulsion order from the Court to avoid the assertion of the privilege. Exhibit 2. 1. Due to the expiration of the original grand jury, in January 2007, a new grand jury subpoena was issued on behalf of West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury #07-103. Exhibit 1 at P-003738. 1. On January 24, 2007, the undersigned sent a letter to Mr. Eisenberg enclosing the subpoena and discussing the investigation and grand jury proceeding. Exhibit 1 at P-003736 thru P-003737. 1. On February I, 2007, Mr. Eisenberg responded via letter. His letter discusses the grand jury subpoena, the investigation, and Ms. likely testimony. Exhibit 1 at P-003732 thru P-003733. 1. On February 5, 2007, I provided Mr. Eisenberg with two proposed Kastigar letters that, again, discuss the grand jury's investigation. Exhibit 1 at P-003739 thru P-003743, P-003745. 1. In response to a complaint from Mr. Eisenberg (see Exhibit 3), I prepared an "Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact Witnesses" to pay for Suring Ms. grand jury testimony. Exhibit 1 at P-003744. 9. On February 12, 2007, Mr. Eisenberg sent a letter detailing the reasons for Ms. refusal to testify without a compulsion order. This letter, again, discusses the grand jury's investigation and matters occurring before the grand jury. Exhibit 1 at P-003730 thru P-003731. 1. Based upon Mr. Eisenberg's letter and representations, the U.S. Attorney's Office applied to the Justice Department for authorization to grant immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6003. After receiving that authorization, in April 2007, the United States filed a Sealed Motion for an Order compelling the testimony of == Exhibit 1 at P-003714 thru P-003721. 1. On April 16, 2007, the Court granted the government's Sealed Motion in a Sealed Order. Exhibit 3. Judge Middlebrooks was the judge who empaneled Federal Grand Jury 07-103. The Sealed Order states, in part, that the "Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order [to a list of persons]. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others." 12. In 2008, Ms. became a petitioner in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra ("the Jane Doe suit"). Ms. was allowed to proceed, at her request, via the pseudonym "Jane Doe 2" because she was a minor during the criminal activity committed by Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. was an adult during all proceedings related to the grand jury subpoena. 01. In her suit against the United States, Ms. avers, in part, that her "right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case" and her "right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), (a)(7), were violated. I was the "attorney for the Government," although there was no "case" because the U.S. Attorney's Office never filed charges against Jeffrey Epstein or any other person involved in criminal activity with Ms.M. 01. In the Jane Doe suit, U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra allowed limited discovery. Exhibits 1 and 2 were listed on a privilege log and provided to Judge Marra in camera for review. The United States asserted that the items should not be produced because they were governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) and included "[d]ocuments under seal pursuant to court order." Exhibit 4 at DE212-1 pp. 1, 6. 01. There was extensive litigation regarding the privilege log, including the assertion of the confidentiality of grand jury materials. Judge Marra agreed with the government's assertion that Exhibit I involved matters occurring before the grand jury and ordered that they need not be produced. Exhibit 5 at pp. 5-10, 26, 28. 01. In the Jane Doe suit, Ms. has filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that there is no issue of material fact regarding her claim that her rights to confer and to be treated with respect were violated. In support of that motion, Ms. filed a Declaration. Exhibit 6. 01. In the declaration, Ms. makes a number of assertions, including that "there could not have been any doubt in anyone's mind ... that Epstein sexually molested me as a minor"; "I believed that if I told the truth about what happened at Epstein's house, the police "; "I had been greatly intimidated, which is why I could not be truthful initially and I wanted to end the threat of the possibility of "; and "I wanted to assist the prosecutors in the investigation." Id. 18. These statements are contradicted by Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, and, accordingly, the U.S. Attorney's Office now respectfully requests that the Court unseal redacted versions of Exhibits I, 2, and 3. 01. This matter relates to issues occurring before the grand jury and, accordingly, is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). Under that Rule, the "court may authorize disclosure — at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs — of a grand-jury matter: (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) provides that the traditional rule of grand jury secrecy may be placed aside under certain circumstances to allow for disclosure. Specifically, Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) states that a district court "may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand jury matter ... preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." The Supreme Court has explained that a party seeking disclosure of grand jury materials must make a showing of a "particularized need" by demonstrating that (1) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding; (2) the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to cover only needed materials. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). 20. Portions of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are relevant to a judicial proceeding, that is, the Jane Doe suit. The portions that the U.S. Attorney's Office wishes to disclose are attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Disclosure of these portions of the documents are necessary to avoid injustice in the Jane Doe suit, that is, to properly inform Judge Marra that Ms. did not, in fact, wish to confer with an attorney for the Government during the relevant time frame and she was treated with respect by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the investigative team. Given that Jane Doe 2 herself has made these materials relevant to the Jane Doe suit, the need to disclose Exhibit 7 outweighs the need for secrecy, and Exhibit 7, which is a redacted version of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, properly limits the disclosure of the grand jury materials only to what is needed. 01. Prior to filing this Motion, I inquired of Judge Marra's courtroom deputy whether the motion should be filed with Judge Marra. After speaking with the Clerk's Office, Judge Marra's courtroom deputy informed me that, because this related to the grand jury, the motion should be directed to the District Judge on duty. Pursuant to the Court's website, Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley is on duty for the month of May 2017. //I //I //I #### CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that it be permitted to disclose Exhibit 7 and file it in support of its Response to Ms. summary judgment motion. The United States further respectfully requests that the Court's Order make clear that, by filing Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 in support of this motion, it does not seek to have them sealed in the Jane Doe suit, and that they remain part of the public record in that matter. Respectfully submitted, ![](_page_7_Figure_3.jpeg) By: | Assistant United States Attome | | -------------------------------------- | | | | Florida Bar No. | | 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 | | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | | Telephone: | | Facsimile: I | GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-001713 #### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FCII 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: | GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | --- | | Party Filing Matter Under Seal
Name: | ORDER RE: SEALED FILING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | | | | | Addreas: | AUSA | S0CI S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 | | | | Telephone' | | West Palm Bach, FL. 33401 | | | | On behalf of (select one): | •
THE APPLICANT | RESPONDENT | | | | Date sealed document filed: | 04/16/07 | | | | | If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: | Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 | | | | | If sealed pursuant to previously enteral protective order, dale of order and docket entry. | | | | | | The matter will remain soiled until: | | | | | | O Conclusion of Trial | U Anot of First Defendant | | | | | U Case Closing | O Conclusion of Direct Appeal | | | | | End of Proem:lines
■ Other | | | | | | O Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, Me. court order | | | | | | The moving party requests that when the sealing period tapirs, the filed matter should he (select one): | | | | | | O Unseakd and placed in
the public portion of the court Me | • Destroyed | U Returned to the party or counsel for the
party, as identified above | | | | | | | | | | It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the proposed sealed document is hereby: | | | | | | O Sealed | O NOT Sealed | O Other | | | | The matter may be unsealed atter. | | | | | | O Conclusion of Trial | Cl Arrest of First Defendant | O Remain Sealed | | | | U Case Closing | U Conclusion of Direct Appeal | t3 Other | | | | DONE and ORDERED at West Palm finch Florida this | day of | 2007. | | | | | | Uttard.Stalm.Disuic lease | | | | This documan has been disposed of lo the following manner | | by | | | | on | | | | | ### FGJ NO. 07403 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### MOTION TO SEAL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Application for Order Compelling Witness Testimony before the Grand Jury for the following reasons: 1. The Application contains information regarding proceedings before West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury 07-103, which is subject to the secrecy protections of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6. 1. Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(6), "Erjecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Application and any Order related to the Application be sealed. Dated: April 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA ASSISTANT UNITED STA1 ES A ORNEY Florida Bar No. 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tel: Fax: Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003715 #### FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### ORDER It is hereby ordered that the United States' Application for Order Compelling Witness Testimony before the Grand Jury and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of April, 2007, at West Palm Beach, Florida. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: AUSA Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003716 FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING WITNESS TESTLMONY / The United States of America, through its undersigned attorney, makes application to this Court for an Order pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 6001, et seq., compelling== to give testimony and to provide other information, which she is likely to refuse to give or provide, on the matters about which she may be interrogated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as subsequent proceedings or trial, and respectfully alleges as follows: 1. That ==. has been called to testify and provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including before a Grand Jury impaneled therein. - 2. That, in the judgment of the undersigned, the testimony or other information from may be necessary to the public interest. 3. That is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination. 1. That this Application is made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). A copy of the letter from said Assistant Attorney General or his designee expressing such approval is attached hereto. 5. That a Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury 07-103 (WPB) has been served upon counsel for =, who has informed the undersigned that an Order compelling testimony is required before will appear and testify. Upon receipt of the Court's Order compelling such testimony, a new Grand Jury Subpoena will be issued commanding "•==l appearance on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, #### R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ![](_page_13_Picture_4.jpeg) IO'd ild101 ![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg) ![](_page_14_Picture_2.jpeg) 0 fox ..//as Au ay.:Asa" Cooed Wasespren AC 2efillalet APR 13 2007 The Honorably R. Alexander Acosta Unitcd States Attorney • ' " •SouthemliittriciofFlorida West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attention: Asstetantlinited States Attorney Re: Grand Jury Investigpuion, terfrey Epstein, et al. Dcar Mr. Acosta: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6003(h) and 28 C.P.R., § 0.175(a), I hereby approve ycur request for authority to apply to °milt:Med States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for an order pursinuu to 1811.5 C. §§ 6002-6003 requiring to give testimony of provide other information in the above malt, and in any further proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto. Sincerely, ![](_page_14_Figure_13.jpeg) 6 :?T Mi0e-9I-OdU ### FGJ 07-103(WPB) LN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### SEALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impanelled therein; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest; and 1. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses to give or to provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. DONE and ORDERED this day of April, 2007, at West Palm Beach, Florida. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: AUSA 2 #### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FGJ 07.103 (WPB) IN RE: | GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS | | | ---------------------- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | Party Filing Matter Under Seal | | ORDER RE: SEALED FILING
UNITED STATES OP AMERICA | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | | Name:
Address: | AUSA | SOO S. Australian Are, Ste 400 | | | Telephone: | | Wan Pam Back FL 33401 | | | CM behalf of {select one): | 'rim Appucwr
• | RESPONDENT | | Date sealed document filed: | | 04116/07 | | | If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: | | Fed. It Crisis. P.6 | | | If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective other, date of order and docket emery: | | | | | The room will remain sealed until: | | | | | 0 Conclusion of Trial | | fa Arrest of First Defendant | | | O Case Closing | | 0 Conclusion of Direct Appeal | | | End of Promedines
• Other | | | | | U Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, nile, court order. | | | | | The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): | | | | | 0 Unsealed and placed in | | • Destroyed | 0 Returned to the party or counsel for the | | the public portion of the coun file | | | party, as identified above | | | | | | | | | | | | It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the proposed sealed document is hereby: | | | | | Sealed | | 3 NOT Scaled | 0 Other | | The matter may be unsealed after. | | | | | O Conclusion of Trial | | 0 Arrest of Pint Defendant | U Remain Sealed | | CI Case Closing | | 0 Conclusion of Direct Appeal | U Other | | | | | | | DONE sod ORDERED at West Palm Beach. Florida this | | day of | 2007. | | | | | | | | | | linked Stales District Judge | | This document has been disposed of in the following manner | | | by | | | | | | | | on | | | #### FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### MOTION TO SEAL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves to seal its Application for Order Compelling Witness Testimony before the Grand Jury for the following reasons: 1. The Application contains information regarding proceedings before West Palm Beach Federal Grand Jury 07-103, which is subject to the secrecy protections of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6. 1. Pursuant to Rule 6(6)(6), "[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Application and any Order related to the Application be sealed. Dated: April 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITJ.,DATATES ATTORWY | ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY | | ----------------------------------- | | Florida Bar No. | | 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 | | Palm Beach, Florida 33401
West | | Tel: | | Fax: | ### FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### SaWER It is hereby ordered that the United States' Application for Order Compelling Witness Testimony before the Grand Jury and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of April, 2007, at West Palm Beach, Florida. ### DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: EMI, AUSA FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING WITNESS TESTIMONY The United States of America, through its undersigned attorney, makes application to this Court for an Order pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 6001, et seq., compelling to give testimony and provide other information, which she is likely to refuse to give or provide, on the matters about which she may be interrogated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as subsequent proceedings or trial, and respectfully alleges as follows: 1. That has been called to testify and provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including before a Grand Jury impaneled therein. 1. That, in the judgment of the undersigned, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest. 1. That is likely to refuse to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination. 1. That Ibis Application is made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Tide 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). A copy of the letter from said Assistant Attorney General or his designee expressing such approval iS attached hereto. 5. That counsel for has informed the undersigned that an Order compelling testimony is required before will appear and testify before the Grand Jury. Upon receipt of the Court's Order compelling such testimony, a Subpoena to Testify before Grand Jury 07-103 (WPB) will be issued commanding appearance on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, #### R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: | MEW | | -------------------------------- | | | | | | ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY | | Florida Bar No. | | 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 | | West Palm Beach, FL 33132 | | | | FAX | 2 | | pirm— Au —evict | | | | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | | | U.S. Department et JliSrICC | | | | | Criminal Division | | | | | | | | | | | | | | WiedlOPUM.PIAWARIIIMOORIrel | MoMmihmiDC.M3AOMPI | | | | | | | | | | APR 13 2001 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta | | | | | . United States Attorney
, | | | | {r.; | west Palm Beach, Florida 33401 | • • | | | | | | | | | Attention: | Assistant United States Attorney | | | | | | | | | Grand fury Investigation,
Re:
Joints/S.226n. et 41. | | | | | | | | | | Dear Mr. At0Sra: | | | | | | Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6011100 and 28 C.F.R\_ § 0.17500, | | | | | I hereby approve your request for authority to apply to the United Stites District Court for
the Southern District of Ronda for an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 requiring | | | | further proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto. | to give testimony or provide other information in the above matter and in any | | | | | | | | | | Sincerely. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Assistant Attorney General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | #### FGJ 07-1 03(WPB) IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### BALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: I. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein; and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest; and 1. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0. I 32(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses to give or to provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. DONE and ORDERED this day of April, 2007, at West Palm Beach, Florida. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: , AUSA # EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Cellfiled Criminal Mal Advocate KAI LI ALOE FOUTS Oat ClearlakeCentre, Suite 704,250Australian Avenue South,WestPalm Beach, FL3340I Fax: February 12, 2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear As always, it was a pleasure speaking to you the other dilursuant to our telephone conference I am writing this letter to proffer my concerns for should she testify without immunity before a federal grand jury. Therefore, allow me to reiterate that Ms. will refuse to voluntarily cooperate with the federal government. She has a good faith basis for her position under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We, of course, do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many inflammatory remarks the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The police chiefs remarks frighten both mysel rand my client. I am aware that the town police have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push to have one lady charged I remain unconvinced that they do not have the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms.= charged. The proffered facts that raise my concerns are being provided via this proffer letter. Pursuant to our telephone conference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. =. Ms.= is not at all certain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Epstein about three years ago. She is not certain of her age. it could have been when she was sixteen. A girlfriend asked her if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms.= agreed because she had knowledge of massages through her mother, who was a masseuse. Ms. = went to Mr. Epstein's house via taxi. Ms. girlfriend instructed Ms.=r that, if asked, she had to tell Mr. Epstein that she was eighteen years old. The friend was nineteen years old and looked old for her age, so passing for eighteen was not a problem. At the home Ms.= met Mr. Epstein and later "Tim a massage. The friend had told Ms. to give the message topless. Mr. Epstein told that if she were at all uncomfortable being topless, not to do it and it was not a requirement of employment as a masseuse. Ms. never touched Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. is. all. one Ms. At touched never point, /et Mr. Epstein did ask Ms. her age. Ms. insisted that she was eighteen years old. Ms. = continued to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion. She was later asked if her friends wanted to work in a similar way and she asked some girls who did give Mr. Epstein massages. Ms.=r was never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's home. When she did have her friends come over, she instructed all of them that if asked, they insist that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. In summary, our concern is that if the government believes that Mr. Epstein comm itted some federal offense, then Ms.= could he considered a co-conspirator. We believe no crime was committed. The Fifth Amendment was not intended to protect the guilty, however. It was enacted to protect citizens who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence. Our fear of any prosecution, especiallyjltt ligh f the Town police chiefs public remarks, is clearly in good faith. Sincer ISENE5R6r--- # EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. ### Attorneys At Law #### JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Crimisal trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified ethnical Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE POUTS OneClear lake Centre,Su ite 704,250 Australian Avenue Sou CIL, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: February 1,2007 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard to ME= I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond in order to "cool off' and not say anything I would regret later. Now that time has passed, allow me to respond appropriately. I. If you want to force Ms. MI to come to the grand jury room to personally invoke her Fifth Amendment ri lts, she will be there. That does remain her position. M onl re uest is that provide I will be there, but I am not and Ms. should not have It is this type of attitude, that your office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms. decision not to cooperate with the government aitk sets her. Your office fails to recognize that merely corning to court is a problem for like Ms. M: and, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in her mind, personal harassment. 2. Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms. I= In this case I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter arc really none of the Government's business. 1. 1 will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Ms. will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case. The history of this case has been in the newspapers. The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state court prosecution, the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be , Asst. U.S. Attorney February 1, 2007 Page 'Iwo described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, T have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political ease in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although I am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief's agenda is very real. Under these circumstances I don't see how any lawyer could advise any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special concern is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages. One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the distinct impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOJ immunity for Ms. Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the nuriabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone. directed at you personally. I want to repeat that you have always treated us with office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion. | 09/06/2006 14:53 FAX | USA0 ISPB FL | 2001 | | -------------------- | ----------------------- | ---- | | | \*\*\*
TX REPORT
sea | | | TRANSMISSION OK | | | | TX/RX. NO | 2683 | | | CONNECTION TEL | 6592380 | | | SUBADDRESS | | | | CONNECTION ID | | | | ST. TIME | 09/06 14:62 | | | USAGE T | 01'00 | | | PGS. SENT | 2 | | | RESULT | OK | | ![](_page_29_Picture_1.jpeg) ### U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Facsimile ### . FACSIMILE COVER SHEET | TO: | JIM EISENBERG; ESO. | DATE: | September 6. 2006 | | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------- | | FAX NO. | | # OF PAGES: | 2 | | PHONE NO. | | RE: | | | FROMt
PRONE NO. | | ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY | | | | commas; Dear Jim: Here is the copy of the original subpoena that you | | | requested. Also, I confirmed with the secretary who rod the September 8th subpoena that it was signed by AUSA Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003734 | | | U.S. Department of Justice | | | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | | | | United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida | | | | | 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Facsimile | | | | | FACSIMILE COVER SHEET | | | TO:
JIM | EISENBERG, ESQ. | DATE: | September 6,
2006 | | FAX NO, | | # OF PAGES: | 2 | | PHONE NO. | | RE: | | | FROM:
PHONE NO. | | ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY | | | | COMMENTS: Dear Jim: Here is the copy of the original subpoena that you
requested. Also, I confirmed with the secretary who
September | 8th subpoena that it was signed by AUSA | re ared the | | | does not need to appear before the
As we discussed.
grand jury until you have had a chance to confer with her and we
have spoken and agreed to a mutually convenient date. | | | | | Thank you for your
assistance. | | | ![](_page_31_Picture_0.jpeg) ### U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: January 24, 2007 ### DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 ### Re: Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Jim: A new grand jury has been tided and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= MI. As 1 mentioned earlier, Ms is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/winless. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms.= is inclined to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Ms. In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with information regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. MI, the scope of your representation and whether you are taking direction on this matter from anyone other than Ms. =. If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms. JAMES EISENBERG, ESQ. JANUARY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 I look forward to your response. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta 04 k44 By: Assistant United States Attorney | United States District Court | | | | ------------------------------ | --- | --- | | ------------------------------ | -- | -- | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ![](_page_33_Picture_2.jpeg) # TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 07-103(WPB)-TuesJNo. OLY-13/2 | SUBPOENA FOR: | | | | ------------- | --- | --- | | | | | PERSON X DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT\[SI YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury oftheUniteri States District Court at the place, date and time specified below. | PLACE:
United States District Courthouse | ROOM:
Grand Jury Room | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 | DATE AND TIME:
February 6, 2007
1:0Oprn\* | | YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): | | | ANY AND ALL NOTES, LEVIERS, CARDS, GIFTS, PAYMENTS. AND PHOTOGRAPHS YOU HAVE RECEIVED
FROM JEFFREY EPSTEIN | | | ANY AND ALL PHOTOGRAPHS WHETHER PRINTED OR DIGITAL, OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN | | | ANY AND ALL E-MAILS, INSTANT MESSAGES, CHATS, TEXT MESSAGES, VOICEMAILS OR TELEPHONE
MESSAGES THAT YOU HAVE SENT TO AND/Oft RECEIVED FROM JEFFREY EPSTELN, | | | \*Please coordinate your compliance with this subpoena and
our a
earance with Special Agent | confirm the date and time, and location of
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: | | This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf
of the court. | | This subpoena is issued upon application DATE: January 23, 2007 Narns_Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann= C. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 nr not applicable, cola None. To In teal a acv ofA0110 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA West Palm Beach FL 33401.6235 Fax: (561) 802-1787 saw ORD-227 P-0001788 ### U.S. Department of Justice ![](_page_34_Picture_1.jpeg) United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND Ms. do James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Grand Jury Testimony of Dear Ms. M: This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of prostitutes, amongst others. You will supply complete and truthful information to the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government and to any Federal Grand Jury which may conduct an investigation, as welt as in any other proceeding related to or growing out of this investigation. The obligation of truthful disclosure includes your obligation to provide the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government with any documents, records or other tangible evidence within your custody or control relating to the matters about which you are questioned. You will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or entity. No statements provided by you on this date in this matter pursuant to this agreement will be offered into evidence in any criminal case against you, except during a prosecution for perjuryand/or giving a false statement. However, if it is determined that you have materially violated any provision of this agreement, all statements made by you shall be admissible in evidence against you in any proceeding. The federal government remains free to use information derived from the grand jury testimony directly or indirectly for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence, which may be used against you. You expressly waive any right to claim that such evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the grand jury testimony. Furthermore, the federal government may use statements made in the grand jury testimony and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross-examination, if you testify at any trial or if you | Ms. | | | ---------------- | --- | | FEBRUARY 5, 2007 | | | PAGE 2 | | suborn testimony that contradicts your prior statements and testimony. No additional promises, agreements and conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this letter and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney I have read this agreement and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my agreement with the office of the United Stales Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises, agreements or representations made to me by any officials of the United States in connection with this matter. Dated: February 2007 West Palm Beach, Florida ![](_page_35_Picture_9.jpeg) Witnessed by: | | James L Eisenber • Es | | | ------------ | --------------------- | --- | | Attorney for | | | ![](_page_36_Picture_0.jpeg) ### U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Ft 33401 Facsimile: February 5, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Dear Mr. Eisenberg: I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client, ("your client"), to occur February, 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. is not a target or subject of this investigation, but instead is being interviewed solely as a victim/witness. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(0 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by her during the interview from being used against her directly. To guard against any misunderstandings concerning the interview of your client, this letter sets forth the terms of this agreement. Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your client's knowledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited to the procurement of prostitutes. The protection of this letter applies to an interview that will be conducted by this Office, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of investigation, and any other federal law enforcement agency this Office may require. Under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the interview will be offered in evidence against her in any criminal or civil proceeding, provided that your client complies with this agreement and that the information your client furnishes is truthful, complete, and accurate. I f, however, your client gives materially false, incomplete, or misleading information, JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 2 then this Office may use such information in any matter or proceeding and your client is subject to prosecution for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to government agencies. Any such prosecution may be based upon information provided by your client during the course of the interview, and such information, including your client's statements, will be admissible against your client in any grand jury or other proceeding. The government also may use statements made by your client in the interview and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of impeachment or cross-examination if she testifies at any trial or hearing, and/or in any rebuttal case against your client in a criminal trial in which she is a defendant or a witness. These provisions are necessary to ensure that your client does not make or offer any false representation or statement in any proceeding or to a government agency or commit perjury during any testimony. Your client further agrees that attorneys for the United States may be present at the interview, and agrees not to seek disqualification of any such govermnent attorney from any proceeding or trial because of their participation at the interview. The entire agreement between the United States and your client is set forth in this letter. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the foregoing accurately reflects the understanding and agreement between this Office and your client, it is requested that you and your client execute this letter as provided below. > Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney have received this letter from my attorney, James L. Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding and agreement with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern JAMES L. EISENBERG, ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 PAGE 3 District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises or representations made to me by any official of the United States Government or by my attorney in connection with this matter. Witnessed by: Dated: James L. Eisenberg, Esquire Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003743 #### U.S. Department of Justice Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact Witnesses ### Request for Unusual Expense(s) of Fact Witness (For United States Attorney's Office Use Only) | | | Control if
• | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | 1. Case Name | 2. Court Docket Number | | 3. Requesting AUSA | | | | | | | 4. Lbcatlonof Court | 5. Contact Person | | 6, contact Person Number | | task
Pole-n | | | | | | | | 8. Vendor Name & Address. Phone #, TIN/SSN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9. Payment to be made to: | | 10. Receiptfinvolce Is: | | | | | | | | | | | | | 11. Type of Unusual Expense: | | 12. Explanation: | | | El Medically Necessary Item | | | | | (Attached Supporting Statement) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | •
Excess Lodging/Per Diem
Ei Travel & Transportation | | 1 | | | | | | | | •
Pretrial Conference Waiver | | | | | •
Other | | | | | 13. Start Date of Service (MO/DA/YR) | | 14. End Data of Senile. (MOIDANR) | 15. Amount | | 2-A/O 7 | /0 7
24
1 | | | | | | | | 16. Justification: 01. I hereby certify that the eXpenses and services listed on this document are appropriate and are within the Federal laws and regulations. I fully understand that I can be held personally liable or be subject to disciplinary action for improperly using government funds or services that exceed delegated authority or that violate Federal laws or regulations. | Signature of Requesting AUSA | Date | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ---------- | | 18. Name & Title of Approving Official 19. Date (MO/DA/YR) | 20. Signature of Approving Official | | | | | UfVVE Form | | | U.S. Department of Justice | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida | | | 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400.
West Palm Beach. Florida 3340)
Facsimile | | | FACSIMILE COVER SHEET | | JIM EISENBERG
TO:
E_SQ. | February
5,
2007
DATE: | | FAX NO. | # OP PAGES: | | PHONE NO. | | | FROM: | ASSISTANT U. S .
ATTORNEY | | PHONE NO. | | | 3(1/1\_-
COMMENTS:
&at-
itifft
I
t
°L4191-fr\\k'
-61r | 'an
t\_
IA P i t
' V
1 1 '6
attia | | ffidgAgr.
ougar&cLau | | | | | ## EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW #### JAMES L. EISENBERG Suitt 704. Oat Cleartake Centre 250 Australian Avenue So. Wen Palm Beach. FL 33401 BOARD CERTIFIED CRIMINAL TRIAL LAW5'ER 561-659-2009 Fax # EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law #### JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Cele°Iasi Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE FOUTS One Clearlake Centre, Suite 704, 250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Bach, FL 33401 Fax September 21, 2006 , Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Dear Please allow me to confirm my latest e-mail to you. I did receive your e-mail of last week with attachments and passed them on to my client. At this time, I can only say that my client does not want to do eit of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the immunity ed with its Kastigar exception and she does not want to testify before the grand jury 5" Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant e she will say anything. I GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 2 ### FGJ 07-103(WPB) ### IN RE: #### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ### SEALED ORDER On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury itnpanelled therein; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, has refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest; and 1. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that give testimony and provide other information which she refuses ![](_page_43_Picture_13.jpeg) provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Court, including a Grand Jury impaneled therein, as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against •M in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to members of the Grand Jury, to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation pending before the Grand Jury. Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. DONE and ORDERED this AC day of April, 2007t Palm Beach, Florida. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: AUSA 2 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 2 ### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA #### Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, l'et itioners, v . #### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ### UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: | Assistant United States Attorney | | | | | | ----------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Florida Bar No. | | | | | | 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 | | | | | | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | | | | | | Telephone: | | | | | | Facsimile: | | | | | | | | | | | | | GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT | | | --- | --------------------- | --- | | | | | | • | | • | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 2 of 2 ### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 19, 2013,1 electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. ![](_page_46_Picture_3.jpeg) Assistant United States Attorney ### SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-C1V-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida | Fort Lauderdale FL 33301-3268 | | | ---------------------------------- | --- | | | | | Fax: | | | | | | Paul G. Cassell | | | S.J. Quinney College of Law at the | | | | | University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake Ci Utah 84112 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 | PRIVILEGE LOG | | | --------------- | --- | | --------------- | -- | | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "CORR RE GJ | 6(e) | | P-000001 | SUBPOENAS" containing correspondence | Work Product | | thru | related to various
d jury subpoenas and | | | P-000039 | attorney
handwritten notes | | | Box #1 | Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log | 6(e) | | P-000040 | containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, | Work Product | | thru | correspondence and research related to | Contains documents subject | | P-000549 | enforcement of same, documents produced in | to investigative privilege | | | response to some subpoenas; and attorney | Also contains documents | | | (la
handwritten notes | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Ritz Compact Flash SW" | 6(e) | | P-000550 | containing copies of a sealed search warrant | Contains information subject | | thru | application, warrant, and supporting documents | to investigative privilege | | P-000621 | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "PNY Technologies Compact | 6(e) | | P-000622 | Flash SW" containing copies of a sealed search | Contains information subject | | thru | warrant application, warrant, and supporting | to investigative privilege | | P-000693 | documents | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing | this litigation
Work Product | | Box #1
P-000694 | attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations | Contains information subject | | thru | and prior litigation | to investigative privilege | | P-000781 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Capital One" | 6(e) | | P-000782 | containing subpoena and correspondence | | | thru | | | | P-000803 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "DTG Operations/Dollar | 6(e) | | P-000804 | Rent-a-Car" containing subpoena and responsive | Contains documents and | | thru | documents | information subject to | | P-000854 | | investigative privilege | | | | Also contains documents and | | | | information subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2.013 Page 2 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "JP Morgan Chase" | 6(e) | | P-000855 | containing subpoena, correspondence, and | Contains documents and | | thru | responsive documents | information subject to | | P-000937 | | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Washington Mutual" | 6(e) | | P-000938 | containing subpoena, correspondence, and | Contains documents and | | thru | responsive documents | information subject to | | P-000947 | | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Computer Search &" | Work Product | | P-000948 | containing legal research on computer search and | Attorney-Client | | thru | handwritten notes on indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | P-000982 | | to investigative privilege. | | | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Attorney Notes from | Work product | | P-000983 | Document Review" containin typed and | 6(e) | | thru | notes, target
handwritten attorney | Contains information subject | | P-001007 | letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena | to investigative privilege. | | | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled
"Notes
from Fed Ex Records" | Worts Product | | P-001008 | cor.stisin handwritten and typed attorney | 6(e) | | thru | notes and screen shots of FedEx
( | Contains information subject | | P-001056 | subpoena response electronic file | to investigative privilege. | | | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Colonial Bank Records" | 6(e) | | P-001057 | containing records received in response to grand | Contains information subject | | thru | jury subpoena | to investigative privilege | | P-001959 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "OLY Grand Jury Log Vol 2: | 6(e) | | P-001960 | OLY-51 THROUGH" containing subpoenas | Contains information subject
to investigative privilege. | | Thru | numbered OLY-51 through OLY-81 with related
correspondence | Also contains information | | P-002089 | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | | | | | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Epstein Corporate Records: | 6(e) | | P-002090 | OLY-51, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54" containing | Contains information and | | Thru | subpoenas, records received in response to | documents subject to | | P-002169 | subpoenas, and related correspondence | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Colonial Bank" containing | 6(e) | | P-002170 | subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, | Contains information and | | Thru | records received in response to subpoenas | documents subject to | | P-002246 | | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from | 6(e) | | P-002247 | Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing | Contains information and | | Thru | documents received in response to subpoenas | documents subject to | | P-002265 | | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | Indictment preparation binder containing: | Work product | | P-002266 | Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity | 6(e) | | Thru | summary ch
witness/victim names and contact | Contains information and | | P-002386 | ail
list, attorney
handwritten notes, 302s, | documents subject to | | | s of state investigative file, attorney | investigative privilege. Also | | | typed notes, of individuals listed as | contains information and | | | "Additional victims" | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | Indictment preparation binder containing: | Work product | | P-002387 | Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity | 6(e) | | Thm | summary ch
witness/victim names and contact | Contains information and | | P-002769 | list, attorney
handwritten notes, 302s, | documents subject to | | | Rion of state investigative file, attorney | investigative privilege. Also | | | in
typed notes, relevant pieces of grand | contains information and | | | jury materials, telephone records/flight records | documents subject to privacy | | | analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, | rights of victims who are not | | | DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for | parties to this litigation | | | persons identified as Jane Does #15, 16, 17, 18, | | | | 19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses | | | Box #1 | Indictment preparation binder containing: | Work product | | P4)02770 | witness/victim list with identifying information,
sexual activity sumselephone call summary | 6(e) | | Thru | | Contains information and | | P-003211 | handwritten notes,
chart, attorney
3fas.t
ions of state investigative file, attorney | documents subject to
investigative privilege. Also | | | (
typed notes, relevant pieces of grand | contains information and | | | jury materials, telephone records/flight records | documents subject to privacy | | | analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, | rights of victims who are not | | | DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for | parties to this litigation | | | persons identified as Jane Does #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, | | | | | | | | 8 | | | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | | Box #1 | Indictment preparation binder containing meta | Work product | | P-003212 | analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury | 6(e) | | Thru | information for a number of victim/witne
s, | Contains information and | | P-003545 | and | documents subject to | | | | investigative privilege. Also | | | | contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of | Work product | | P-003546 | additional witness/victim located in New York | 6(e) | | Thru | | Contains information and | | P-003552 | | documents subject to | | | | investigative privilege. Also | | | | contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | Printout of filenames from Federal Express | Work product | | P-003553 | subpoena response with Attorney notations | 6(e) | | Thru | | | | P-0035558 | | | | Box #1 | Document entitled "Identified Numbers" with | Work product | | P-003556 | accompanying handwritten attorney list compiled | 6(e) | | Thru | from grand jury materials and attorney analysis of | Contains information subject | | P-003562 | records | to investigative privilege | | Box #1 | Folder entitled "Flight Manifests" containing | 6(e) | | P-003563 | manifests received pursuant to grand jury | Contains information and | | Thru | subpoena | documents subject to | | P-003629 | | investigative privilege | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Recent AttonStes" | Work product | | P-003630 | ) notes
containing handwritten attorney | 6(e) | | Thru | regarding document review and case strategy | Investigative privilege | | P-003633 | | Deliberative process | | Box #1 | File folder bearing victim name containing FBI | Work product | | P-003634 | interview report from May 2008 tele
one | Attorney-client privilege | | Thru | )
activity report with attorney | 6(e) | | P-003646 | handwritten notes, related grand jury material | Investigative privilege | | | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Summary of Sexual Activity" | Work product | | P-003647 | containing chart bearing handwritten title "Sexual | 6(e) | | Thru | Activity — Summary" with meta-analysis of | Investigative privilege | | P-003651 | information, sorted by name of each | Deliberative process | | | victim/witness, including name and identifying | Also contains information and | | | information of each victim/witness | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Victim Civil Suits" | Not privileged. | | P-003652 | | Produced to counsel for | | Thru | | Petitioners | | P-003663 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Research re JE Websites" | Work product | | P-003664 | containing attorney research | | | Thru | | | | P-003678 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled
(N.Y. AUSA)" | Work product | | P-003679 | containing attorney I
I handwritten notes | | | Thru | | | | P-003680 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Dr.
" containing | Work product | | P-003681 | attorney a)
memo to expert witness and | Investigative privilege | | Thru | handwritten attorney notes | | | P-003687 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "I\[j GO Interview" containing | Work product | | P-003688 | attorney handwritten notes of interview, and | Investigative privilege | | Thru | attorney handwritten notes regarding potential | Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of | | P-003693 | charges | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Research re Travel for | Work product | | P-003694 | Prostitution" containing attorney a | 6(e) | | Thru | handwritten notes regarding grand jury | Investigative privilege | | P-003711 | presentation, chart entitled "Brought to Epstein's | Also contains information and | | | House" with handwritten notes, Message Pad | documents subject to privacy | | | meta-analysis chart, summary of evidence related | rights of victims who are not | | | to one victim/witness, and relevant grand jury | parties to this litigation | | | information | | | Box #1 | Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness | Investigative privilege | | P-003712 | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victim who is not a party to | | | | this litilation | | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "TO MO" containing grand | 6(e) | | P-003713 | jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel | Documents under seal | | Thru | testimony, and correspondence regarding same | pursuant to court order | | P-003746 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled'
'containing | 6(e) | | P-003747 | subpoena and correspondence regarding same | | | Thru | | | | PM03751 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "PBPD Investigative File" | 6(e) | | P-003752 | obtained via subpoena | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | Also contains information and | | P-004295 | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder bearing name of victim/witness | Work product | | P-004296 | containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone | 6(e) | | Thru | calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to | Investigative privilege | | P-004350 | possible charges | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | es to this liti ation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled
Documents | Work product | | P-004351 | 53909-004" containing attorney research related | | | Iliru | to bias issue | | | P-004381 | | | | Box #1 | File Folder entitled "FEDEX" containing | 6(e) | | P-004382 | documents obtained via subpoena | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | | | P-004478 | File Folder entitled "State of Delaware Records" | | | Box #1
P-004479 | containing documents obtained in preparation for | 6(e)
Investigative privilege | | Thru | indictment | Work product | | P-004551 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Jet Blue Records" containing | 6(e) | | P-004552 | documents obtained via subpoena | Work product | | Thru | | Investigative privilege | | P-004555 | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "FL EMPLOYMENT | Investigative privilege | | P-004556 | RECORDS" containing FDLE records on targets | Work product | | Thru | and witnesses obtained at attorney request | | | P-004560 | | | | Bates Ran e | Descri don | s Asserted
Privil | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | Box #1 | Filed folder entitled " | Work product | | P-004561 | containing attorney
handwritten notes | Investigative privilege | | Thru | of interview | | | P-004565 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled | 6(e) | | P-004566 | RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing | Work product | | Thru | documents obtained via subpoena | Investigative privilege | | P-004716 | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not
ies to this liti
tion | | Box #1 | File folder entitled " | Work product | | P-004717 | containing attorney research regarding witness | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | | | P-004722 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "BEAR STEARNS | Work Product | | P-004723 | RESEARCH" containing attorney research | Investigative privilege | | Thru | regarding potential witness and subpoena | | | P-004725 | recipient | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "LAWSUITS INVOLVING | Work Product | | P-004726 | EPSTEIN CORP'S" containing attorney research | Investigative privilege | | Thru | regarding Epstein's past personal and business | | | P-004819
Box #1 | liti ative practices | | | P-004820 | Filed folder entitled "SEC RECORDS"
containing attorney research regarding Epstein | Work Product
Investigative privilege | | Thru | financial relationships | | | P-004959 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Message Pads" containing | Work Product | | P-004960 | selected items from evidence obtained via | 6(e) | | Thru | subpoena | investigative privilege | | P-005059 | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder bearing name of victim/witness | Work Product | | P-005060
Thru | containing correspondence with counsel for
victim/witness, attorney witness outline with | 6(e)
Investigative privilege | | P-005081 | attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten | Also contains information and | | | notes regarding witness reports and case | documents subject to privacy | | | preparation | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "New York Trip" containing | Work product | | P-005082 | attorney notes re witness interview | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | | | P-005083 | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 8 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive | | | | documents and have been removed | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "
containing | Work product | | P-005108 | attorney research on select expert, use of experts | Investigative privilege | | Thru | at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional | | | P-005193 | research materials on offenders and victims | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Extra Copies" containing | Work product | | P-005194 | meta-analysis chart and 302's of victim/witnesses | 6(e) | | Thru | used in preparing indictment package | Investigative privilege | | P-005300 | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | rties to this liti ation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled | 6(e) | | P-005301 | STATEMENT" containing transcript obtained via | Investigative privilege | | Thru | subpoena | | | P-005331
Box #1 | File folder entitled'
containing | Work product | | P-005332 | attorney research on select expert, including | Investigative privilege | | Thru | attorney handwritten notes | | | P-005341 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Info re Planes" containing | 6(e) | | P-005342 | correspondence regarding subpoenas and | Investigative privilege | | mm | documents received in response to subpoenas | | | P-005387 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Police Reports & PC | Work product | | P-005388 | Affidavit" containing portions of police reports | 6(e) | | Thru | with attorney notes, related phone records, a list | Investigative privilege | | P-005442 | entitled "Victims" with identifying information | Also contains information and | | | and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and | documents subject to privacy | | | DAVID information, and additional attorney | rights of victims who are not | | | research regarding Epstein sexual activity | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "[Victim name] Transcript of | 6(e) | | P-005443 | Interview & GJ Transcript" | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | Also contains information and | | P-005496 | | documents subject to privacy
rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "Bear Steams Subpoena | 6(e) | | P-005497 | Resp." containing material received in response | Investigative privilege | | Thru | to subpoena | | | P-005556 | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 9 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | | Box #1 | U.S. Attorney's Office Criminal Case File Jacket | Work product | | P-005557 | containing file opening documents, expert | Deliberative process | | Thru | witness payment documents | | | P-005576 | | | | Box #1 | U.S. Attorney's Office Asset Forfeiture Case File | Work product | | P-005578 | Jacket containing file opening and file closing | Deliberative process | | Thru | documents | | | P-005583 | | | | Box #1 | File folder entitled "6001 Immunity Request" | 6(e) | | P-005584 | containing internal memoranda seeking witness | Work product and | | Thru | immunity and correspondence with counsel for | deliberative process (as to | | P-005606 | witness regarding same | internal memoranda) | | | | Investigative privilege | | | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "MASTER PHONE | Work product | | P-005607 | RECORDS" containing meta-analysis of all | 6(e) | | Thru | phone, travel, and grand jury data for all | Investigative privilege | | P-005914 | victim/witnesses for indictment preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder bearing name of victim/witness | Work product | | P-005915 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-005977 | indictment preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | File folder bearing name of victim/witness | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | Work product
6(e) | | P-005978
Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-006050 | indictment preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder bearing name of victim/witness | Work product | | P-006051 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-006065 | indictment preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 10 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege® Asserted | | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "JANE DOE #4" containing | Work product | | P-006066 | meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury | 6(e) | | Thru | data related to that victim/witness for indictment | Investigative privilege | | P-006220 | preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled ""JANE DOE #12" containing | Work product | | P-006221 | meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury | | | Thru | data related to that victim/witness for indictment | 6(e)
Investigative privilege | | P-006222 | preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "CORRECTED PHONE | Work product | | P-006223 | RECORDS 5/31/07" containing meta-analysis of | 6(e) | | Thru | all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to all | Investigative privilege | | P-006522 | victims/witnesses for indictment preparation | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim Name] Phone | Work product | | P-006523 | Records" containing telephone records received | | | Thru | in response to subpoena | 6(e)
Investigative privilege | | P-006802 | | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Lists of Identified Phone | Work product | | P-006803 | Numbers" containing charts of information culled | 6(e) | | Thu | from grand jury materials, interviews, and other | Investigative privilege | | P-006860 | investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, | Also contains information and | | | and information to issue follow-up grand jury | documents subject to privacy | | | subpoena | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "EPSTEIN.
CELL | Work product | | P-006861 | PHONE RECORDS" containing documents | 6(e) | | Thru | received via subpoena with attorney handwritten | Investigative privilege | | P-007785 | notes and highlighting | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 11 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | | Box #2 | Folder entitled "OLY GRAND JURY LOG: | Work product | | P-007786 | OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50" containing | 6(e) | | Thru | subpoenas, correspondence regarding same, 6(e) | Investigative privilege | | P-008120 | letters, attorney handwritten notes regarding | Also contains information and | | | records received in response to subpoenas | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | Handwritten flight logs received in response to | 6(e) | | P-008121 | subpoena | Investigative privilege | | Thru | | | | P-008139 | | | | Box #2 | Grand jury presentation folder containing | Work product | | P-008140 | attorney handwritten notes, typed outline with | 6(e) | | Thru | additional handwritten notes, complete indictment | Investigative privilege | | P-008298 | package dated 2/19/2008, victim list with | Also contains information and | | | identifying information, photographs, and | documents subject to privacy | | | summary of activity | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this litigation | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "FINAL AGREEMENTS" | | | P-008299 | containing subfolder entitled "Agrints Filed in | | | Thru | State Court" (P-008300-P-008327 \[not being | | | P-008363 | withheld as privileged — have been produced to
opposing counsel\]); signed Non-Prosecution | | | | Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of | | | | 12/19/2007 nAcosta
letter (P-008328-P | | | | 008343 \[not being withheld as privileged — have | | | | been produced to opposing counsagiubfolder | | | | entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-
Ltr" | | | | containing unredacted copies of that letter (11- | | | | 008344-P-008363 \[pursuant to Court's Order, not | | | | being withheld as privileged — will be produced | | | | to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11d' | | | | Circuit | | | Box #2 | Immunity Request"
File folder entitled | 6(e) | | P-008364 | containing internal memoranda, Justice | Work Product | | Thru | Department documentation, and subpoena | Deliberative Process | | P-008382 | regarding immunity request | Investigative privilege | | Box #2 | File folder containing March 18, 2008 grand jury | Work product | | P-008383 | presentation materials, including "Operation Leap | 6(e) | | Thru | Year Revised Indictment Summary Chart (by | Investigative privilege | | P-008516 | victim)," grand jury materials, draft indictments, | Deliberative process | | | victim reference list, grand jury subpoena log | Also contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | liislitiation g
esti: | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 12 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Box #2 | 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lef
urt to | | | P-008517 | and | | | Thru | \[pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as | | | P-008535 | privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel | | | | upon lift of stay by I Ith
Circuit\] | | | Box #2 | Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for | Work product | | P-008536 | interview of Jane Doe #2 | Investigative Privilege | | Thru | | Contains information subject | | P-008542 | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | Handwritten attorney notes regarding May 8, | Work product | | P-008543 | 2007 grand jury presentation | 6(e) | | Thru | | Investigative privilege | | P-008549 | | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Most Recent Indictment & | Work product | | P-008550 | Good Cases" containing draft indictment and | 6(e) | | Thru | legal research | Investigative privilege | | P408615 | | Deliberative process | | | | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "FBI Summary Charts" | Work product | | P-008616 | containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, | Attorney-Client Privilege | | Thru | containing victim names, identifying information, | 6(e) | | P-008686 | summary of activity, and other information | Investigative privilege | | | relevant to indictment | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #4" | Work product | | P-008687 | containing phone records and meta-analysis of all | 6(e) | | Thru | phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that | Investigative privilege | | P-008776 | victim/witness for indictment preparation | Contains information and | | | | documents subject to privacy | | | | rights of victims who are not | | | | parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #5" | Work product | | P-008777 | containing handwritten notes and meta-analysis | 6(e) | | Thru | of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to | Investigative privilege | | P-008808 | that victim/witness for indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 13 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #6" | Work product | | P-008809 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-008847 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #7" | Work product | | P-008848 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-008862 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #8" | Work product | | P-008863 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-008890 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Certified Copy of State Case" | | | P-008891 | containing certified copy of Epstein state criminal | | | Thru | cases and change of plea transcript \[not being | | | P-009103 | withheld as privileged — copy provided to | | | | opposing counsel\] | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Meeting Timeline" | Work product | | P-009104 | typed notes summarizing
containing | Deliberative process | | Thru | meetings with opposing counsel prepared at | | | P-009111 | request of R. Alexander Acosta, with handwritten | | | | correction and typed guideline estimate | | | Box #2 | 11/26/2008 Email from Ro Black to | | | P-009112 | and
m Jeffrey Epstein | | | Thru | (work release) | | | P-009113 | \[pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as | | | | privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel | | | | upon lift of stab 11th
Circuit | | | Box #2 | to
7/3/2008 Email from | | | P-009114 | at PBSO re Epstein work release with | | | Thru | attachment \[not being withheld as privileged — | | | P-009115 | produced too
sin counsel | | | Box #2 | to Jay P.
12/6/2007 Letter from | | | P-009116 | Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) | | | Thru | \[pursuant to Court's Order, not being withheld as | | | P-009125 | privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel | | | | upon lift of stay by 11th
Circuit\]) | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 14 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9" | Work product | | P-009126 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-009134 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe | Work product | | P-009135 | #13" containing meta-analysis of all phone, | 6(e) | | Thru | travel, and grand jury data related to that | Investigative privilege | | P-009141 | victim/witness for indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe | Work product | | P-009141A | #12" containing meta-analysis of all phone, | 6(e) | | Thru | travel, and grand jury data related to that | Investigative privilege | | P-009141C | victim/witness for indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not arties to this suit | | Box #2 | '
File folder entitled " | Work product | | P-009142 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that individual for | Investigative privilege | | P-009152 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not
ies to this suit | | Box #2 | '
File folder entitled | Work product | | P-009153 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that individual for | Investigative privilege | | P-009156 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #1" | Work product | | P-009157 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-009208 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #2" | Work product | | P-009209 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-009213 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 15 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #3" | Work product | | P-009214 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and | 6(e) | | Thru | grand jury data related to that victim/witness for | Investigative privilege | | P-009271 | indictment preparation | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this suit | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Purpose of Travel faces" | Work product | | P-009272 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-009354 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Interstate Commerce Cases" | Work product | | P-009355 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-009403 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Attorney Conflict Research" | Work product | | P-009404 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-009536 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Mann Act/Travel to Have | Work product | | P-009537 | Sex w/Minor containing attorney research and | | | Thru | handwritten notes | | | P-009574 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Travel Act" containing | Work Product | | P-009575 | attorney research and handwritten notes | | | Thru | | | | P-009603 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Florida | Work Product | | P-009604 | Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes" containing | | | Thru | attorney research and handwritten notes | | | P-009711 | | | | Box #2 | Booklet entitled "Attorney General Guidelines for | | | P-009712 | Victim and Witness Assistance" \[not being | | | Thru | withheld as privileged — produced to opposing | | | P-009819 | counsel) | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Corporate Liability Itsrch"
containing attorney research and handwritten | Work Product | | P-009820
Thru | | | | P-009965 | notes | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Research re Knowledge of | Work Product | | P-009966 | Age Unnecessary" containing attorney research | 6(e) | | Tim | and handwritten notes and copy of grand jury | | | P-010096 | subpoena | | | | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 16 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Money Laundering" | Work Product | | P-010097 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-010276 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "1960 & Aiding/Abetting" | Work Product | | P-010277 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-010394 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "18 USC § 2255 Cases" | Work Product | | P-010395 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thu | notes | | | P-010488 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Research re Overt Acts & | Work Product | | P-010489 | Witness Testimony" containing attorney research | | | Thru | and handwritten notes | | | P-010509 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Extradition" containing | Work Product | | P-010510 | attorney research and handwritten notes | | | Thru | | | | P-010525 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Rsrch re Crime Victims | Work Product | | P-010526 | Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten | Deliberative Process | | Thru | notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft | | | P-010641 | correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz | | | | (Also contains a November 28 2007 letter from | | | | , and a November
Kenneth Starr to | | | | 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. | | | | Alexander Acosta (P-010528 thru P-010530 and | | | | P410556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the | | | | Court's Order, these will be produced to opposing | | | | counsel upon lift of stay by 11th
Circuit) | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "immunity" containing | Work Product | | P-010642 | attorney research on granting immunity to | | | Thru
P-01650 | witnesses | | | | File folder entitled "Research re G.J. Transcript" | Work Product | | Box #2
P-010651 | containing attorney research and draft pleadings | 6(e) | | Thu | re compelling production of grand jury transcript | Deliberative process | | P410659 | with subpoena | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Research re O1 Transcript" | Work Product | | P-010660 | containing grand jury subpoena, 6(e) letters, | 6(e) | | Thru | attorney research and correspondence related to | | | P-010757 | subpoena | | | | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 17 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Original Proposed Ind." | Work Product | | P-010758 | containing draft indictment | 6(e) | | Thru | | Deliberative process | | P-010793 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Epstein" containing sample | Work Product | | P-010794 | indictments and attorney research re potential | | | Thru | charges with attorney notes | | | P-010829 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "1591 & Money Laundering" | Work Product | | P-010830 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-010853 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "18 USC 2425" containing | Work Product | | P-010854 | attorney research and handwritten notes | | | Thru | | | | P-010876 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Knowledge of Age" | Work Product | | P-010877 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-010920 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "2423(b) Constitutionality and | Work Product | | P-010921 | Purpose of Travel" containing attorney research | | | Thru | and handwritten notes | | | P-011049 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Mistake not a | Work Product | | P-011050 | Defense" containing attorney research and | | | Thru | handwritten notes | | | P-011212 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Research re \`Pandering'" | Work Product | | P-011213 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-011237 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Research re Grand Jury | Work Product | | P-011238 | Instructions" containing attorney research and | 6(e) | | Thm | handwritten notes | | | P-011319
Box #2 | File folder entitled "Telephone = Facility of | Work Product | | P-011320 | Commerce" containing attorney research and | | | Thru | handwritten notes | | | P-011361 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Def of Prostitution" | Work Product | | P-011362 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-011374 | | | | | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 18 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | --------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Relevant Florida Statutes" | Work Product | | P-011375 | containing attorney research and handwritten | | | Thru | notes | | | P-011456 | | | | Box #2 | File folder entitled "Unit of Prosecution | Work Product | | P-011457 | Research" containing attorney research and | | | Thru | handwritten notes | | | P-011626 | | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Attorney Notes" containing | Work Product | | P-011627 | attorney handwritten and typed notes | | | Thru | | | | P-011662 | | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Drafts" containing draft | 6(e) | | P-011663 | indictments with attorney handwritten notes, draft | Work Product | | Thru | internal memoranda, relevant witness interview | Deliberative Process | | P-011698 and | reports and grand jury material and attorney | Investigative Privilege | | P-012189 thru | handwritten notes | Contains information subject | | P-4112361 | | to privacy rights of victims | | (gap was | | who are not parties to this | | scanning error) | | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "6/9/09 Signed Indictment" | 6(e) | | P-011699 | containing signed indictment package dated | Work product | | Thru | 6/9/2009 with corrections | Deliberative process | | P-011777 | | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log" | Work product | | P-011778 | containing chart with victim contact information | | | 'Mu | and attorney notes regarding dates and type of | | | P-011788 | contacts | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Breach Memo" containing | Work product | | P-011789 | memorandum analyzing breach of Non | Deliberative process | | Thru | Prosecution Agreement with attachments | | | P-011879 | | | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Overt Act Lists" containing | Work product | | P-011880 | handwritten notes cross-checking all overt acts | Attorney-client privilege | | ThIll | alleged in draft indictment by victim and typed | Deliberative process | | P-011922 | overt act summary charts for indictment | 6(e) | | | preparation | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 19 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Box #3 | Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE | Work product | | P-011923 | Counsel" containing: | Deliberative process | | Thru | ■
7/13/2007 letter from | 6(e) | | P-011966 | to
with
handwritten | Attorney-Client Privilege | | | attorney (Lourie) notes; | | | | ■ 6/2 /2
from Gerald Lefcourt
I | | | | Matt Menchal | | | | ,
and
with | | | | handwritten attorney
• | | | | ■ 6/25/2007 email fro
to | | | | Menchel
Matt
and | | | | entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" | | | | ) notes
Handwritten and typed attorney I | | | | regarding main themes raised by Epstein counsel | | | Box #3 | Composition book entitled "Operation Leap | Work product | | P-011967 | Year" containing attorney handwritten notes
regarding investigation and case strategy | Investigative privilege
6(e) | | Thru
P-012016 | | Contains information subject | | | | to privacy rights of victims | | | | who are not parties to this | | | | litigation | | Box #3 | Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to | 6(e) | | P-012017 | Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Incorporated | | | Thru | Memorandum of Law | | | P-012055 | | | | Box #3 | Affidavit of Roy Black, F-sq. in Support of | 6(e) | | P-012056 | Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to | | | Thru | Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas | | | P-012088 | | | | Box #3 | United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey | 6(e) | | P-012089 | Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury | | | Thru | Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel | | | P-012129
Box #3 | Declaration o i | 6(e) | | P-012130 | | | | Thru | | | | P-012150 | | | | Box #3 | Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of | 6(e) | | P-012151 | United States' Response to Motion to Quash | Investigative Privilege | | Thru | Subpoenas | Also contains information | | P-012167 | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 20 of 23 | Bates Range | Descri i tion | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | Box #3 | Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Support of | 6(e) | | P-012168 | United States' Response to Motion to Quash | Investigative Privilege | | Thru | Subpoenas | | | P-012170 | | | | Box #3 | Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration Number One | 6(e) | | P-012171 | in Support of United States' Response to Motion | Investigative Privilege | | Thru | to Quash Subpoenas | Also contains information | | P-012173 | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #3 | Draft of September 2009 letter from | Work Product | | P-012174 | to Roy Black regarding breach of Non | Attorney-Client Privilege | | Thru | Prosecution Agreement with handwritten attorney | Deliberative Process | | P-012176 | MEM notes | | | Box #3 | Undated handwritten attorney
I notes | Work Product | | P-012177 | regarding negotiations and allegations | Attorney-Client Privilege | | Thru | | Deliberative Process | | P-012178 | | | | Box #3 | File Folder entitled "FBI G.J. Log" containing | 6(e) | | P-012179 | copy of FBI
jury subpoena log with | Work Product | | Thru | attorney
handwritten notes | Investigative Privilege | | P-012188 | | Also contains information | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Key Documents" containing | 6(e) | | P-012362 | correspondence between AUSA and case agent | Work Product | | Thru | regarding indictment prep questions, victim | Attorney-Client privilege | | P-012451 | identification information, corrections to draft | Investigative Privilege | | | indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key | Also contains information | | | grand jury material | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #3 | File folder entitled "Victim List" containing list | Work Product | | P-012451 | of victims with dates of birth and age information | Investigative Privilege | | That
P-012452 | | Also contains information
subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | | | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 21 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | | Box #3 | Complete indictment package marked "Originals | Work-product | | P-012453 | 12/12/07" | Deliberative process | | Thru | | 6(e) | | P-012623 | | Also contains documents | | | | subject to investigative | | | | privilege | | | - | Also contains documents | | | | subject to privacy rights of | | | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #3 | Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional 302's" | Investigative Privilege | | P-012624 | containing reports of interviews conducted in | Also contains documents | | Thru | June 2007, October 2007, and March 2008. | subject to privacy rights of | | P-012653 | | victims who are not parties to | | | | this litigation | | Box #3 | mit
3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A | Work-product | | P-012654 | Behavioral Analysis" with attorney | | | Thru | handwritten notes | | | P-012864 | | | | Box #3 | Indictment preparation binder containing: | Work Product | | P-012865 | witness/victim list with identifying information, | Deliberative Process | | Thru | sexual activity sumisiephone call summary | 6(e) | | P-013226 | chart, attorney
handwritten notes, | Also contains documents | | | 3iiirons of state investigative file, attorney | subject to investigative | | | typed notes, relevant pieces of grand | privilege | | | jury materials, telephone records/flight records | Also contains documents | | | analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, | subject to privacy rights of | | | DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for | victims who are not parties to | | | persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, | this litigation | | | 14 | | | Box #3 | to
April 23, 2008 Memo from | Privacy Act | | P-013227 | Office of Professional Responsibility re Self | | | | Reporting, Corrected Version of the previously | | | | submitted April 21, 2008 Lett | | | Box #3 | to
April 21, 2008 Letter from | Privacy Act | | P-013226 | Office of Professional Responsibility re Self | | | Thm | Reporting | | | P-013230 | | | | Box #3 | to
April 22, 2008 Letter fro | Privacy Act | | P-013231 | Office of Professional Responsibility re Self | | | Thru | Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest | | | P-013239 | | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 22 of 23 | Bates Range | Descriptio | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | | Box #3 | April 21, 2008 Letter from
to | Privacy Act | | P-013240 | Office of Professional Responsibility re Self | | | Thru | Reporting with attachments | | | P-013247 | | | | Box #3 | ,
Emails
between
Assistant | Attorney-Client Privilege | | PM 13248 | General Counsel, Executive Office for United | | | Thru | States Attorneys, and
First | | | P-013251 | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of | | | | Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide | | | | Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated | | | | August 24 and August 29 2011 | | | Box #3 | ,
Assistant
Emails
between | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013252 | r
General Counsel, Executive
nited
1 | | | Thru | States Attorneys, and
First | | | P-013253 | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of | | | | Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, | | | | August 3, and August 24 2011 | | | Box #3 | ,
Emails
Assistant
between | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013254 | General Counsel, Executive Office for United | | | Thru | First
States Attorneys, and | | | P-013257 | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of | | | | Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide | | | | Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated | | | | August 24 and August 29 2011 | | | Box #3 | =,
Emails
between
Assistant | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013258 | c
General Counsel, Ex c '
r
nited | | | Thru | States Attorneys, and
First | | | P-013259 | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of | | | | Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide | | | | Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated July | | | | 28 and Au | | | Box #3 | Email fronl
, Assistant General | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013260 | Counsel, Executive Office for United States | | | Thru | Attorneys, to Wifredo Ferrer (U.S. Attorney, | | | P-013262 | D LRobert O'Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), | | | | (FAUSA, SDFL), we | | | | (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal | | | | of Southern
Notice of Office-wide
Recusal | | | | District of Florida dated Au
24 2011. CC's | | | | AG) | | | | SAEO), | | | | (USAEO)
(USAEO) | | Page 22 of 23 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 23 of 23 | Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | | Box #3 | Emails
between
Assistant | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013263 | General Counsel, Exec tve
ce
nited | Deliberative Process | | Thru | States Attorneys, and
First | Work Product | | P-013271 | Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of | | | | Florida, regarding recusal of Southern District of | | | | Florida, dated July 29, 2011
with attached | | | | memorandum
from
to | | | | summarizing
Jeffrey | | | | Epstein Investigation | | | #3 | Emails between'
Ex | Attorney-Client Privilege | | P-013272 | for United States Attorneys, and | | | Thru | Southern District of Florida, seeking advice | | | P-013278 | regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 | | | | and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul | | | | Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, | | | | 2010 | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 1 of 51 ### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. #### OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on various discovery related matters. In response to Petitioners' first requests for production, the respondent Government asserted various privileges in three privilege logs and submitted nearly 15,000 pages of documents for in camera inspection. (DEs 212-1, 216-1, 329-1). Petitioners object to every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that certain grand jury materials should remain secret, and he moves to prevent disclosure of those materials. (DE 263). Petitioners filed a response. (DE 271). Finally, the Government objects to the relevancy of several of Petitioners' requests for production. (DE 260). Petitioners responded (DE 266) and filed a supporting supplement (DEs 267, 268). The Court has conducted its in camera review of materials submitted, has carefully considered the materials and the parties' submissions, and is fully advised in the premises. | GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT | | | --------------------- | --- | | 5 | | | | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 2 of 51 ### I. Background This is a case against the United States for allegedly violating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors debate the discoverability of documents that show exactly what led to the non-prosecution agreement. In March 2011, Petitioners moved "to allow use of correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and counsel for Epstein" to prove their CVRA case. (DE 51 at 1). Petitioners argued that the correspondence was relevant as it "shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was aware of its statutory obligation to inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement," and that they should be allowed to use it "as it sheds important light on the events surrounding the non-prosecution agreement, which are central to the victims' arguments that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). The Court granted Petitioners' request and ordered the Government to "(p)roduce responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of documents encompassing any documentary material exchanged by or between the federal government and persons or entities outside the federal government (including without limitation all correspondence generated by or between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). The Court also ordered the Government to produce all responsive documents "other than communications generated between the federal government and outside persons or entities." (K.). If the Government claimed privilege over any of these documents, the Court ordered the Government to (1) file "a privilege log clearly identifying each document(' by author(s), addressee(s), recipients(s), date, and general subject matter and such other identifying Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 3 of 51 data," and (2) to "submit all responsive documents withheld on claim of privilege to the court for in camera inspection." (Id.). The Government produced 1,357 pages of documents to Petitioners, filed three privilege logs, and submitted nearly 15,000 pages to the Court for in camera inspection. (See DE 257 at 2). The Government asserts that the documents submitted for in camera inspection are privileged for reasons such as the privacy rights of non-party victims, grand jury secrecy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e),' and the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, and investigative privileges. (DEs 212-1; 216-1, 329-1). Moreover, with the Court's leave (DE 257 at 4), the Government objects to the relevancy of several of Petitioners' requests for production (DE 260). #### H. Discussion District courts have "broad discretion in shaping the scope of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)." Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406, 1415 (11th Cir. 1984). The Court will first address matters related to whether a privilege protects the submitted documents from discovery and then turn to whether any otherwise non-privileged documents are relevant to Petitioners' CVRA case. Specific rulings as to the submitted documents are found in the Table appended to this Opinion and Order. #### A. Privilege Assertions ### 1. Challenge to the Sufficiency of Government's Privilege Assertions Petitioners raise several general objections to the Government's privilege logs. They In a previous ruling, the Court noted that Plaintiffs formally requested the release of grand jury materials, but the Court reserved "ruling as to whether the materials in question are protected from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)." (DE 257 at 3). argue that the Government's logs are inadequate because they do not "clearly identify" the documents as ordered by this Court. (DE 265 at 2; DE 190 at 2). The Court has reviewed the Government's privilege logs and the documents that they describe, and the Court finds that the logs—describing nearly 15,000 pages of documents— are adequate to facilitate a meaningful in camera inspection and assessment of the asserted privileges. To the extent inadequacies may be present, the Court finds that judicial resources would not be best spent by requiring the Government to submit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp. 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (court may remedy inadequate privilege log by in camera inspection of described documents or permitting party another chance to submit a more detailed log). Petitioners also argue that the Government has failed to provide the factual underpinnings necessary to hold that certain privileges apply, specifically the deliberative process privilege, investigative privilege, work product privilege, and attorney—client privilege. Discussed in more detail below, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider whether the deliberative process and investigative privilege apply in this case as other, stronger, privileges are at play, or, as discussed further below, many of the documents over which the deliberative process and investigative privileges are asserted are irrelevant to this proceeding. Regarding the work product and attorney—client privileges, and the Court has considered the materials submitted and the Government's arguments, and finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. (See DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within 4 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 5 of 51 pleading to decide application of work product privilege). The Court will therefore evaluate each claim of privilege as it relates to the documents submitted. ### 2. Grand Jury Secrecy The Government asserts that many of the documents identified in its logs are protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. (See DE 212-I; DE 216-1 at 4, 6). These documents include subpoenas issued and documents received and prepared during the course of grand jury investigations into whether Epstein committed indictable federal offenses. (DE 212-1 at 1). Petitioners argue that the Court can (and should) authorize disclosure in this case. (DE 265 at 17). "It has long been a policy of the law that grand jury proceedings be kept secret . . . . The English rule of grand jury secrecy has been incorporated into our federal common law and remains an integral part of our criminal justice system." United States v. Aisenberg 358 F.3d 1327, 1346 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure codifies this secrecy principle and prohibits the disclosure of grand jury material except in the limited circumstances provided for in Rule 6(e)(3)." Id. One such exception is Rule (6)(e)(3)(E)(i), which permits a court to authorize disclosure "preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). Additionally, a court has inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)(3) in "exceptional circumstances." Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1347. "The district court has \`substantial discretion' in determining whether grand jury materials should be released." Id. at 1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). Whether proceeding under Rule 6(e)(3) or the court's inherent authority, there are well settled guidelines for determining when grand jury secrecy may be broken. Id. at 1347. Specifically, the parties seeking disclosure must show: (1) "that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding"; (2) "that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy"; and (3) "that their request is structured to cover only material so needed." Id. at 1348 (citing Douglas Oil Co.,N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). These demanding standards apply even after the grand jury has concluded its operations. Id. The burden of demonstrating that the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy rests on the party seeking disclosure. Id. "In order to carry this burden, the party seeking disclosure of grand jury material must show a compelling and particularized need for disclosure." Id. That is, "the private party must show circumstances had created certain difficulties peculiar to this case, which could be alleviated by access to specific grand jury materials, without doing disproportionate harm to the salutary purpose of secrecy embodied in the grand jury process." Id. at 1348-49 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the grand jury proceedings at issue are "presumptively secret," see In re Subpoena to Testify, 864 F.2d 1559, 1562 (11th Cir. 1989), and Petitioners have the heavy burden of overcoming this presumption! Petitioners argue that they have met their burden in their response to Epstein's motion to uphold grand jury secrecy. (DE 271 at 3). 2 Because the burden lies with Petitioners, Petitioners' argument that disclosure is appropriate because the Government "has not attempted to defend its invocation of grand jury secrecy" is of no moment. (DE 278 at 10). Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 7 of 51 Regarding whether (1) grand jury materials are "needed to avoid a possible injustice" in this case, Petitioners argue that "an injustice may occur" if the materials are not disclosed to them. (DE 217 at 4). They argue that the possibility for injustice exists because this Court has already recognized that aspects of this case "must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims—including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and the federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and the federal authorities." (ILI.) (quoting the Court's Order at DE 189 at 12 n.6). They also argue that injustice may result without the grand jury materials because the "critical starting point for the victims' case" is proof that the Government had an "extremely strong case against Epstein." (lik). The Court concludes that Petitioners have not met their heavy burden of demonstrating a compelling and particularized need for the disclosure of grand jury materials pertaining to the investigation of Epstein. Materials that the Government presented in secrecy to a grand jury relative to a case against Epstein are not part of the "interface" that occurred between Epstein, prosecuting authorities, and the victims. As the Court has already explained, the harm in this case did not arise out of the Government's failure to secure a grand jury indictment against Epstein. (DE 189 at 10) ("The victim's CVRA injury is not the government's failure to prosecute Epstein federally—an end within the sole control of the government."). Rather, the harm in this case arose from the Government's alleged failure to confer adequately with Petitioners before deciding to abandon a federal case against Epstein. (t1.). The Court has reviewed the portions of the submitted documents to which grand jury secrecy is invoked, and it 7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 8 of 51 finds that none of the grand jury materials produced has a bearing on the Government's alleged failure to confer with Petitioners before electing to forego a federal prosecution. The Court also concludes that Petitioner's asserted need to prove that the Government had an "extremely strong case against Epstein" does not justify the disclosure of secret grand jury materials. Petitioners seek to use the grand jury materials as the means to an improper end—a judicial determination that the Government made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "(T\]he Government retains \`broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that Irdothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion" of federal prosecutors. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Courts tread lightly where prosecutorial discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions about whom to prosecute because, "\[lin addition to assessing the strength and importance of a case, prosecutors also must consider other tangible and intangible factors, such as government enforcement priorities.") (emphasis added). Petitioners asserted strategy of demonstrating that the Government had an improper 8 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 9 of 51 motive to hide its "extremely strong" case asks the Court to decide (or assume) that the Government did in fact have an "extremely strong" case against Epstein. As Petitioners point out, the Government has not admitted that it believed it had a "strong case" for prosecution. (DE 266 at 8)? In light of this refusal to admit the strength of the case, Petitioners seek grand jury materials to present to the Court the case for prosecuting Epstein. (14, at 9). Basically, Petitioners ask the Court to interject itself in place of the Government and adjudicate whether the Government erred, and thus had a motive for hiding its error, when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. As the Supreme Court has articulated, "courts are [not] competent to undertake" the kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see alsoUnited States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors and courts."). Nor is the Court competent to undertake an analysis of how strong the Government perceived its case against Epstein at the time it decided not to prosecute. Stated plainly, whether the Government had a "strong" case against Epstein was for the Government to decide in its sole discretion; the Court will not foray into matters related to assessing the strength of the Government's case against Epstein. (DE 213-1 at 1). 3 In response to Petitioners Request for Admission regarding whether the Government had a case for "federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses," (DE 266 at 8), the Government responded: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 10 of 51 Accordingly, because the Court will not—and cannot—endeavor to assess the strength of the Government's case against Epstein at the time it decided to enter into the non-prosecution agreement, the Court concludes that Petitioners have not shown that they will suffer an injustice in this case if they are denied access to materials that the Government presented to grand juries during their investigation into whether Epstein committed federal crimes. Likewise, Petitioners have not shown that their need for these materials is compelling or particularized to their asserted interests under the CVRA. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioners access to the materials over which grand jury secrecy applies under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). ### 3. Work Product Doctrine The Government asserts that many of the documents submitted are protected by the attorney work-product privilege. (DE 212-1 at 1-21; DE 216-1 at 1-14). These documents include draft correspondences and indictments, as well as attorney research and handwritten notes. (See, e.g. DE 212-1 at 2, 17). Petitioners argue that the work-product privilege is unavailable for a number of reasons. (DE 265 at 6, 8, 14-16). The work-product doctrine traces its roots to the Supreme Court's recognition that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): > Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(6)(4), those materials may be discovered if: (i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and (ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Although fact-based work product may be disclosed on a showing of "substantial need," the court must avoid "disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation." Id. 26(b)(3)(B). Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). In the context of government attorneys, the "work-product privilege applies to . . . discussions between prosecutors and investigating agents, both state and federal." United States v. Zingsheim, 384 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983)). The work-product privilege extends only to documents that an attorney prepares "in anticipation of litigation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A). Petitioners argue that the work-product privilege does not apply to the submitted documents because they were not prepared "in anticipation of [the instant] CVRA litigation." (DE 265 at 7). Retreating somewhat from this initial assertion, Petitioners argue that "[m]any of the documents at issue here were not prepared in anticipation of litigation, and certainly not in anticipation of the litigation about the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (EL). Although "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain protected in a subsequent case fl 11 if they were created by or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation or trial as long as they were prepared by or for a party to the subsequent litigation." 462 U.S. 19, 25 (1983) (emphasis in original); see also 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 519 n.47 (3d ed. 2010) (collecting cases). Similarly, the work-product doctrine applies regardless of whether litigation actually ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 530 F.2d 612, 623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protected work product, regardless of "whether litigation actually ensured"). After its in camera review, the Court finds that the majority of work-product documents identified by the Government were prepared or obtained by the Government because of the reasonable prospect of litigating a criminal case against Epstein. (DE 212-1 at 1-21; DE 216-1 at 1-12; DE 329-I at 1-18).4 This CVRA litigation and the underlying criminal investigation are integrally related, and the work-product doctrine protects from discovery materials prepared in anticipation of either in the instant litigation. ° The Government asserts that the work-product doctrine applies to documents prepared by attorneys in the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in response to Petitioners' counsel's request for an investigation into the Government's handling of the Epstein case. (DE 216-1 at 12-14). Although these documents were prepared by Government attorneys, the Government has not demonstrated that they were prepared "in anticipation of litigation or for trial" so as to be protected work product. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). As discussed in the next section, however, the Court has thoroughly reviewed these documents and finds that they are not relevant, or likely to lead to materials relevant to the instant CVRA litigation. (See infra Sect. B.3.) Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 13 of 51 Petitioners argue that the work-product doctrine "does not apply" in this case for two additional reasons. First, they argue that the doctrine does not apply in a case brought by crime victims against the federal prosecutors who were bound to protect their rights under the CVRA. (DE 265 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated their public responsibilities under the Crime Victims' Rights Act." 0,1. at 14). Because the CVRA compels prosecutors to make their "best efforts" to notify victims of their rights, Petitioners argue that the Government cannot withhold documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (lcl at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure over concealment." 112 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir. 1997). A closer inspection of In re Grand Jury Subpoena reveals that it does not stand for the categorical rule that the work product doctrine is inapplicable in cases against public prosecutors. The statement on which Petitioners rely was made in the context of determining whether to recognize a previously undefined privilege: "whether an entity of the federal government may use the attorney-client privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena by a federal grand jury." Id. at 915 (emphasis added); see also id. at 921 ("We believe the strong public interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill-served by recognition of Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 14 of 51 a governmental attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal proceedings inquiring into the actions of public officials."). The Eighth Circuit did not purport to espouse a broad-ranging rule that defeated existing, well-defined privileges such as the work product doctrine. This is important, as the Supreme Court has recognized that the "work-product doctrine is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at 508). In fact, the Eighth Circuit went on to consider the application of the work product doctrine and concluded that it did not apply because the materials in question were not prepared in "anticipation of litigation." 112 F.3d at 924-25. It did not find the work product doctrine wholly inapplicable based on a goal of public disclosure. In light of the well-established bounds of the work product doctrine—which grants public prosecutors "near absolute immunity" over their mental impressions in subsequent civil litigation—the Court finds that the CVRA's mandate that prosecutors make their "best efforts" to accord crime victims their rights does not create a "very rare and extraordinary circumstance" in which discovery of protected work product would be allowed. See Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422. Second, Petitioners argue that the work product doctrine does not apply because the conduct of the Government's attorneys is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). Some lower courts have held that disclosure of opinion work product is "justified principally where the material is directly at issue, particularly if the lawyer or law firm is a party to the litigation." 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2026, p. 567 & n.19 (3d ed. 2010) (collecting cases). To satisfy this showing, however, the party seeking disclosure of opinion work product must make "a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under crime-fraud exception to work product doctrine, party "must show a greater need for the opinion work product material than was necessary in order to obtain the fact work product material"). The Court finds that Petitioners have not made the strong showing of necessity and unavailability required to disclose the mental impressions of counsel that might be at issue in this case. (See DE 265 at 16). Discovery of opinion work product is most often granted in bad-faith settlement cases, where "mental impressions [of the underlying counsel] are the pivotal issue in the current litigation." Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992). Other than by analogizing to bad-faith actions, Petitioners have not demonstrated how delving in to the "mental impressions" of Government attorneys is pivotal to proving their allegations that the Government failed to accord them their rights under the CVRA. (See DE 265 at 15). Insofar as they seek to demonstrate that the attorneys' mental impressions should have led them to conclude that prosecution was the best course, such inquiry cannot be allowed for reasons discussed above. Elsewhere, Petitioners assert that they can prove their case by demonstrating a "conspiracy between the Government and defense counsel to deliberately conceal vital information from the victims." (DE 266 at 7). Because of the availability of this method of proof, Petitioners lack a compelling need to gain access to internal Government work product evidencing its internal mental impressions regarding the Epstein matter. Finally, Petitioners argue that any work-product protection available in this case should be negated because the Government's communications facilitated "misconduct" by depriving the victims of their rights under the CVRA. (DE 265 at 6). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that "[t]he crime-fraud exception presents one of the rare and extraordinary circumstances in which Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 16 of 51 opinion work product is discoverable." Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422. The Eleventh Circuit has not indicated whether this "rare and extraordinary" exception extends to instances of "misconduct" in the form of violating a civil rights statute, such as the CVRA. Even so, the Court finds that such alleged "misconduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar misconduct"); United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 347 n.14 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that exception applied where litigant "defrauded" public defender by submitting false invoices). Petitioners' allegation that the Government failed to accord them their full CVRA rights—the allegation at the heart of this case—does not rise to the level of conduct sufficiently serious enough to displace the work product privilege. Moreover, Petitioners fail to set forth prima facie evidence that the Government in fact committed "misconduct" in this case. To invoke the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must (1) make a prima facie showing that the material was produced in the commission of criminal or fraudulent conduct and (2) that it was produced "in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it." Cox 17 F.3d at 1416; see also id. at 1422 (noting that same "two-part test" applies in context of both attorney client privilege and work product doctrine). Petitioners argue that the fact that the OPR "collected information about possible improper behavior" establishes a prima facie case of Government misconduct. (DE 265 at 7). An investigation into wrongdoing does not presuppose that wrongdoing took place. After its in camera review, the Court finds that Petitioners have not made a prima facie showing of serious misconduct sufficient to negate the protections of the work product doctrine. Materials constituting the opinion work product of the Government's attorneys shall therefore be withheld from Petitioners. Certain documents that the Court considers fact-based work product may be produced subject to relevancy considerations discussed below. #### B. Relevancy of Requests for Production In addition to asserting privileges, the Government responds to Petitioners' first request for production by arguing that many of the materials requested are not relevant to the instant CVRA litigation. (DE 260). Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the general scope of discovery as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(6)(1). "Discovery should ordinarily be allowed unless it is clear that the information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts. Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 34079319, at •2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2001)). ### 1. Request No. 1—the FBI File on the Epstein Matter and Indictment Material In their first request for production, Petitioners seek the file generated by the FBI in the Epstein matter, including all documents "collected as part of its case against and/or investigation Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 18 of 51 of Epstein." (DE 260 at 2). Petitioners also request that the Government produce all prosecution memoranda and draft indictments prepared in the case. (151). The Government argues that such materials regarding its decision to prosecute Epstein are irrelevant to the issue of whether they denied Petitioners their rights under the CVRA. (ILL). Petitioners disagree. They argue that "materials going to the strength of the Government's case against Epstein" are a "vital part" of their case against the Government. (DE at 266 at 8). "Those materials would directly demonstrate that the Government had an extremely strong case against Epstein, giving the Government a motive for needing to keep the victims in the dark about the plea deal." (D. The Court concludes that discovery should not extend to these materials. First, the Court finds that all prosecution memoranda, research into indictable offenses, and draft indictments are protected opinion work product. These documents were created by the Government in anticipation of a possible prosecution of Epstein and evince the Government's internal mental impressions, legal theories, and strategy concerning the issues presented by a possible prosecution. As discussed above, Petitioners have not demonstrated "rare and extraordinary circumstances" justifying an exception to this well-established protection. Second, the Court finds that the information in the FBI's file regarding its investigation into Epstein has no possible bearing on the CVRA claim that is the subject matter of this action. Petitioners assert that the relevancy of this material is to "directly demonstrate that the Government had an extremely strong case against Epstein." (DE 266 at 8). As discussed above, this Court is ill-equipped to decide that the Government did in fact have a "strong case" for prosecution and made a hard-to-explain decision to forego a federal prosecution in lieu of a state plea. Rather, the inquiry for the Court is whether the Government afforded Petitioners their Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 19 of 51 rights under the CVRA, which does not turn on its decision whether to initiate a federal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Materials going to the "strength" of the Government's case for prosecution—and whether the Government had a motive to hide an embarrassing misstep in failing to prosecute—have no relevance to that inquiry. ### 2. Request No. 10—Materials Proving that the FBI was Mislead about Likelihood of Prosecution Request number 10 requests "\[alit documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein," and "(41 documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled." (DE 274 at 5). The Government argues that communications it had with the FBI are irrelevant because the "decision on whether to prosecute belongs to the United States Attorney." (DE 260 at 3). Petitioners argue that these communications between the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI lie at the "heart of this case" because they will prove that the Government mislead the FBI about the progress of the Epstein case, and the FBI in turn mislead the victims. (DE 266 at 9). The Court concludes that discovery should not extend to these materials. First, the vast majority of documents responsive to this request—communications between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI—are protected from disclosure under either principles of grand jury secrecy, the opinion work product doctrine, or both. (See Table). Second, the only portion of FBI materials which the Court has not found to be protected Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 20 of 51 by either grand jury secrecy or work product protection—the file folder labeled "(Victims) Additional 302's," P-012624-012653 (DE 212-1 at 21)—is not responsive to the instant request as it does not contain communications from the United States Attorney's Office to the FBI, which was then in a position to relay communications to the victims. Rather, these materials contain fact-based summaries of statements provided by victims to interviewing FBI agents. They are not relevant to this proceeding. ### 3. Request No. 16—Materials Proving that Prosecutors had Improper Relationships with Persons Close to Epstein Request number 16 seeks materials demonstrating that persons inside the United States Attorney's Office had improper relationships with persons close to Epstein. (DE 260 at 3). Petitioners argue that these documents "show[] that a prosecutor working inside the U.S. Attorney's Office when the deal was being arranged left the office shortly thereafter and began representing persons close to Epstein (such as his pilots)." (DE 266 at 11). They argue that such materials are relevant to their CVRA case because "if one of the prosecutors in the Office was not working for the best interests of the United States, but rather for those of Epstein, that would be clear evidence of motive to intentionally keep the victims in the dark." (a. at 11). The Court concludes that production of such documents should not issue. After its in camera review, the Court finds that the documents discussing the issue of whether an improper relationship existed between a former prosecutor and Epstein's coconspirators are not relevant to this proceeding. The issue of whether a prosecutor violated ethical canons by representing persons with close ties to Epstein after his retirement from the United States Attorney's Office does not bear on the issue of whether the Government violated Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 21 of 51 Petitioners' CVRA rights during its negotiations with Epstein. The only impropriety to which Petitioners point occurred after the prosecutor's departure from the Government. The OPR—which opened an inquiry into the matter at Petitioners' counsel's request—closed their inquiry into the matter by noting that the OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving only current Department of Justice attorneys. (See P-013937;5 see also P-0013946). The OPR did not investigate the matter further, and it issued no factual determinations on whether a conflict existed before the prosecutor's departure. Any OPR correspondence regarding this inquiry that is not otherwise privileged is irrelevant to this CVRA litigation. (See Table at P-013944, P-013945). In the same vein, correspondence between the United States Attorney's Office and the OPR regarding self-reporting of conflicts alleged by Epstein's defense counsel are irrelevant to this proceeding.' (DE 212-1 at 21-22); see Table at P-013227-013247). ### 4. Request No. 18—Documents Concerning Recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida Request number 18 seeks information about why the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was "'conflicted out' of handing various issues related to the Epstein case." (DE 266 at 11). Specifically, it requests "all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral that was made to 5 This is a draft letter addressed to Petitioners' counsel from an OPR attorney. The Court assumes Plaintiff's counsel received the final version of this letter explaining the OPR's reasons for closing its investigation. Ironically, Epstein's counsel raised conflict-of-interest concerns because they believed that certain prosecutors were too close to persons associated with the victims. Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be investigated." (DE 260 at 4). Petitioners argue that such materials are relevant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at II). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court fords that the responsive documents are shielded by governmental attorney-client privilege. The responsive documents are internal Department of Justice correspondences between attorneys for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousahnission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the provision of legal advice by the Executive Office to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida regarding how to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather simply advise how to proceed given that allegations of misconduct have been made, i.e., allegations that the Government violated the victims' CVRA rights. Moreover, the documents related to the recusal determination are not relevant to matters Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 23 of 51 concerning whether the Government violated Petitioners' CVRA rights several years before. Petitioners speculate that the reason that the Southern District recused "may have to do with the Office's treatment of the victims." (DE 266 at 12). The Court has reviewed the recussal materials, and they do not indicate that the Office had to step away from the Epstein matter because of its handling of victims' notifications, but rather because of the perceived conflict that would exist if the Office continued to investigate Epstein after the institution of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. The recusal materials have no relevancy to anything that occurred prior to the institution of the instant litigation by Petitioners. #### 5. Request No. 19—Materials Related to Defense's Assault on Prosecution In request number 19, Petitioners seek all documents supporting, or contradicting, a statement made by a United States Attorney to the media that Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and theprosecutors." (DE 260 at 4). After its in camera review, the Court has not identified any documents that are responsive to this request that are not otherwise protected opinion work product. No production under this request is necessary. ### 6. Request No. 25—Initial Disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1) Finally, Petitioners request that the Government comply with its obligation to serve initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Although Petitioners have already served their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures (DE 266 at 13), and although this Court has repeatedly held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the general course of this proceeding," the Government maintains that the rule governing initial disclosures in civil litigation does not apply to it in this case. (DE 274 at 8). The Court disagrees. The Government shall serve its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on Petitioners within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 24 of 51 #### C. Other Considerations Before concluding, the Court finds it necessary to address certain aspects of the Government's privilege logs. As mentioned, the Court previously ordered the Government to provide Petitioners all "documentary material exchanged by or between the federal government and persons or entities outside the federal government." (DE 190 at 2). Petitioners state that they "have now obtained the full text of correspondence between the defense attorneys and the prosecutors." (DE 298 at 6). The documents produced for in camera review contain correspondence between the Government and counsel for both Epstein and Petitioners. Some of the documents were • inadvertently marked as privileged; some of the documents bear handwritten notes of Government attorneys, and some are part of communication chains made up of both internal and external communications. The Table at the end of this order indicates instances where such communications appear. The Court requests that the Government certify within 14 days that Petitioners have been provided with all external communications. Additionally, the Court has identified several documents that are asserted "work product," but which are nothing more than factual complications of information regarding victim identification. The Court finds that Petitioners have a compelling need to know which individuals the Government considered to be victims or potential victims at the time it negotiated the non-prosecution agreement. As indicated in the Table, the Government should confer with Petitioners regarding the names of the individuals identified in these documents. If Petitioners have not been previously provided with these names, then Petitioners should have production of the indicated documents. The parties should stipulate to an appropriate protective order to Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 25 of 51 protect the victims' identity. ### III. Conclusion Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government shall produce documents consistent with the following Table. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Intervenor Epstein's Motion for the Court to Protect From Disclosure Grand Jury Materials (DE 263) is GRANTED, and Petitioners' Motion to Seal (DE 267) is DENIED in light of this Court's Order at DE 326; DE 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6i° day July, 2015. > KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 | Bates Range | Ruling on Privilege or Relevancy | Comment (as necessary) | | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | | 1:000001-000039' | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:000040-000549 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:000550-000621 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:000622-000693 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:000694-000781 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:000782-000803 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | I :000804-000854 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:000855-000937 ' | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:000938-000947 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:000948-000982 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:000983-001007 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:001008-001056 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:001057-001959 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:001960-002089 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:002090-002169 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:002170-002246 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:002247-002265 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:002266-002386 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:002387-002769 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | ### TABLE Detail of Privilege and Relevancy Holdings The first digit indicates the box number, with an "S" indicating materials identified in the supplemental privilege logs (DEs 216-1, 329-1). The numbers following the colon are page ranges. | 1:002770-003211 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 1:003212-003545 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:003546-003552 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003553-003555
B | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003556-003562 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:003563-003629 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:003630-003633 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003634-003646 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:003647-003651 | Produce victim identities. | Document bears no indication
that it was directly related to
grand jury presentation, and it
does not exhibit the mental
impressions of counsel but
rather the cumulation of facts.
Petitioners should be provided
with the victim identities under
an appropriate protective order. | | 1:003664-003678 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003679-003680 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003681-003687 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003688-003693 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:003694-003711 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:003712 | Produce victim identity. | Contains nothing other than the
written name of one victim.
The Court finds that no
privilege applies, and
Petitioners should be made
aware that this victim was
known to the Government. | | 1:003713-003746 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | --------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1:003747-003751 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:003752-004295 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:004296-004350 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy; also
contains no materials relevant or likely to lead to
discovery of materials relevant to the instant CVRA
litigation. | | | 1:004351-004381 | Protected from discovery by work product privilege. | | | 1:004382-004478 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:004479-004551 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:004552-004555 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 1:004556-004560 | Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead
to the discovery of materials relevant to the instant
CVRA litigation. | Contains factual information
regarding the employment and
wage history of Epstein's
employees, obtained during the
investigation into Epstein and
his associates. No bearing on
victim notification or rights. | | 1:004561-004565 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:004566-004716 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:004717-004722 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:004723-004725 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:004726-004819 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:004820-004959 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:004960-005059 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy; also not
relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of materials
relevant to the instant CVRA litigation. | Contains factual information
regarding the call history of
Epstein (and associates) to
victims, obtained during
investigation into Epstein and
associates. Contains no
information bearing on
Government's obligation to
crime victims. | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 29 of 51 | 1:005060-005081 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | Attorney handwritten notes arc
protected from discovery; the
underlying correspondence is
not and should be produced.
The Government Must certify
that Petitioners have been
provided the correspondence. | | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1:005082-005083 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005108-005193 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005194-005300 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005301-005331 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:005332-005341 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005342-005387 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:005388-005442 | Except P-005420, protected from discovery by grand
jury secrecy and opinion work product privilege. | The victims list at P-005420
bears no indication that it was
produced to a grand jury and
bears no attorney mental
impressions. Petitioners should
be provided with the victim
identities under an appropriate
protective order. | | 1:005443-005496 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:005497-005556 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 1:005557-005576 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005578-005583 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 1:005584- 005606 | Except P-005590-005595 and P-005596, protected
from discovery by grand jury secrecy and opinion work
product privilege. | P-005590-005595 and
P-005596 are correspondence
documents sent to victim's
counsel. No privilege applies.
The Government must certify
that Petitioners have been
provided the correspondence. | | 2:005607-005914 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 30 of 51 | 2:005915-005977 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | 2:005978-006050 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006051-006065 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006066-006220 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006221-006222 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006223-006522 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006523-006802 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 2:006803-006860 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:006861-007785 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:007786-008120 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008121-008139 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 2:008140-008298 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008364-008382 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:08383-008516 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008536-008542 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:008543-008549 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:008550-008615 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:008616-008686 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008687-008776 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 31 of 51 | 2:008777-008808 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | 2:008809-008847 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008848-008862 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:008863-008890 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009104-009111 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009126-008134 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009135-009141 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009141A-00914
1C | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009142-009152 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009153-009156 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009157-009208 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009209-009213 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009214-009271 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:009272-009354 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009355-009403 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009404-009536 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009537-009574 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009575-009603 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009604-009711 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:009820-009965 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 2:009966-010096 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:010097-010276 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010277-010394 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010395-010488 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010489-010509 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010510-010525 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010526-010641 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege, | The correspondence between
the Government and Epstein's
counsel is not privileged and
should be produced. The
Government must certify that it
has been produced. | | 2:010642-010650 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010651-010659 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:010660-010757 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 2:010758-010793 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010794-010829 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010830-010853 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010854-010876 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010877-010920 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:010921-011049 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011050-011212 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 2:011213-011237 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011238-011319 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011320-011361 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011362-011374 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011375-011456 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 2:011457-011626 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:011627-011662 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:011663-012361 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:011699-011777 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:011778-011788 | Produce victim identities. | Document does not exhibit the
mental impressions of counsel
but rather the cumulation of
facts. Petitioners should be
provided with the victim
identities under an appropriate
protective order. | | 3:011789-011879 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:011880-011922 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:011923-011966 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | The underlying correspondence
between Government and
Epstein's counsel should be
produced without attorney
annotations. The Government
must certify that Petitioners
have this correspondence. | | 3:011967-012016 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 34 of 51 | 3:01217-012055 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | ----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 3:012056-012088 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | ' 3:012089-012129 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 3:012130-012150 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 3:012151-012167 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 3:012168-012170 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 3:012171-012173 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | 3:012174-012176 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | Final versions of sent
correspondence should be
produced. The Government
must certify whether Petitioners
have any sent version of this
correspondence. | | 3:012177-012178 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:012179-012188 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:012362-012451 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:012451-012452 | Produce victim identities. | Document does not exhibit the
mental impressions of counsel
but rather the cumulation of
facts. Petitioners' need
outweighs investigative
privilege. Petitioners should be
provided with the victim
identities under an appropriate
protective order. | | 3:012453-012623 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:012624-012653 | Production not necessary; documents are not relevant or
likely to lead to the discovery of materials relevant to
this CVRA litigation. | The Court has reviewed the
content of the FBI "302's,"
which are forms prepared by
FBI agents to document
interviews. These interview
reports summarize the various
victims' interactions with
Epstein, and do not indicate a
conveyance of information
from the FBI to the victims
regarding the likelihood of
prosecution. | | 3:012654-012864 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 3:012865-013226 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and
opinion work product privilege. | | | 3:013227 | Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead
to the discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA
litigation. | Involves OPR investigation
into Epstein's allegation that
certain prosecutors had
conflicts of interest. Not
relevant to victims' CVRA
rights. | | 3:013228-013230 | Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead
to the discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA
litigation. | Involves OPR investigation
into Epstein's allegation that
certain prosecutors had
conflicts of interest. Not
relevant to victims' CVRA
rights. | | 3:013231-013239 | Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead
to the discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA
litigation. | Involves OPR investigation
into Epstein's allegation that
certain prosecutors had
conflicts of interest. Not
relevant to victims' CVRA
rights. | | 3:013240 -O13247 | Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead
to the discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA
litigation. | Involves OPR investigation
into Epstein's allegation that
certain prosecutors had
conflicts of interest. Not
relevant to victims' CVRA
rights. | | 3:013248-013251 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | 3:013252-013253 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney—client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | 3:013254-013257 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney—client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | 3:013258-013259 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | 3:013260-013262 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | 3:013263-013271 | Protected from discovery by attorney-client and opinion
work product privilege; also not relevant or likely to
lead to the discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA
litigation. | | | --------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 3:013272-013278 | Protected from disclosure by the attorney—client
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of materials relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | S:013279 013280 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013281 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013282-013283 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013284 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013285-013289 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013290-013292 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:013293-013299 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | The portions of this
correspondence between the
Government and Epstein's
counsel should be produced.
The Government must certify
that Petitioners have been
provided with these outside
correspondences. | | S:013300-013303 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:013304-013325 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:013326-013329 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013330-013333 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013334-013337 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 37 of 51 | 5:013342-013350 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | The underlying correspondence
between Epstein's counsel and
the Government should be
produced without attorney
annotations. The Government
must certify that Petitioners
have been provided with these
outside correspondences. | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013351-013361 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | The underlying correspondence
between Epstein's counsel and
the Government should be
produced without attorney
annotations. The Government
must certify that Petitioners
have been provided with these
outside correspondences. | | S:013362-013366 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | Any version of the letter
actually sent to Epstein's
counsel should be produced.
Government must certify
whether it has been produced. | | S:013367-013372 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | Any version of the letter
actually sent to Epstein's
counsel should be produced.
Government must certify
whether it has been produced. | | S:013373-013503 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013504-013507 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013508-013514 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | Only the top portion of P
013509 contains materials
internal to the Government—a
one-sentence email between
two United States Attorneys.
The Government must certify
that Petitioners have the
remainder of P-013509 and P
013510-013514, as these
communications are between
the Government and Epstein's
counsel. | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 38 of 51 | \$:013515-013525 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | Any final version of the letter
actually sent to Epstein's
counsel should be produced.
Government must certify
whether it has been produced. | | --------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013526-013527 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013528-013530,
013532-013537 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013531 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | S:013538-013553 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013554-013608 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013609-013615 | Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. | | | S:013616-013621 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013622-013643 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013644-013653 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013654-013745 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013747-013810 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013811-013833 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013834-013835 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013836-013837 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013838-013841 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege; also not relevant material or likely to lead to
discovery of material relevant to the instant CVRA
litigation. | The underlying correspondence
between Epstein's counsel and
the Government should be
produced without attorney
annotations. The Government
must certify that Petitioners
have been provided with these
outside correspondences. | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on PLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 39 of 51 | S:013842 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege; also not relevant material or likely to lead to
discovery of material relevant to the instant CVRA
litigation. | | | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013843-013844 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:013845-013846 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013847-013849 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013850 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013851-013853 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013854 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013855 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013856-013857 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013858 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 3:013861-013865 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013866 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:013867-O13868 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013869 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013870-013871 | Produce; not protected from discovery by any privilege. | Only the top portion of the
email chain contains
correspondence internal to the
Government, and this does not
divulge any mental impressions
or legal theories. The rest of
the email chain is between the
Government and Epstein's
counsel. It should be produced. | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 40 of 51 | S:013872 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | Besides internal Government
correspondence, contains one
email correspondence between
the Government and Epstein's
counsel, which will be
produced at P-013870-013871. | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013873 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013876-013877 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | The email correspondence at
P—013877 is between the
Government and Epstein's
counsel, and not privileged.
The Government must certify
that Petitioners have been
provided with these outside
correspondences. | | S:013878-013879 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013880-013882 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | Only the top two email
correspondences are internal to
the Government. The
remaining emails, starting at
the bottom of P-013880 and
running through P-013882, are
between the Government and
Epstein's counsel, and should
be produced. The Government
must certify that Petitioners
have been provided with these
outside correspondences. | | S:013883 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013884-013886 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:013887 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013888 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013889-013890 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013891 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 41 of 51 | S:013894-013898 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | --------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013899 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:013900-013901 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013902 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013903-013904 | Identical to the email chain at S:013870-013871, and
should likewise be disclosed. | | | S:013905 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | Email correspondence at
bottom of page between
Government and Epstein's
counsel should be produced.
The Government must certify
that Petitioners have been
provided with these outside
correspondences. | | 5:013906 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:013909-013911 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | 5:013912-013914 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013915-013918 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013919-013921 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013922-013924 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013925-013927 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | The final version of this letter,
which is addressed to
Petitioners' counsel, should be
available to Petitioners. | | S:013928-013930 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | The final version of this letter,
which is addressed to
Petitioners' counsel, should be
available to Petitioners. | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 42 of 51 | S:013931-013933 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | The final version of this letter,
which is addressed to
Petitioners' counsel, should be
available to Petitioners. | | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:013934-013936 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013937-013939 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | The final version of this letter,
which is addressed to
Petitioners' counsel, should be
available to Petitioners. | | S:013940-013942 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013943 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013944 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013945 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013946 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | 5:013947 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013948-013951 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013952-013953 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013954-013955 | Not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to the
instant CVRA litigation. | | | S:013956-013969 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:'13970-13971 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege; also, not relevant or likely to lead to material
relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | S:13972 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13973-13976 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | The Government's Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1). Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 43 of 51 | S:13977-13979 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | S:13980 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I3981 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13982 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I3983-13984 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13985-13989 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13990-I 3991 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13992-13994 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:13995-14010 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege; also, not relevant or likely to lead to material
relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | S:S:14011-14025 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14026-14027 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14028-14030 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14031-01432 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14033 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S: 14034 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S: 14035 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S: 14036 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14037 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 44 of 51 | S:14038-14041 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | 5:14042 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14043-14044 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14045-14046 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14047 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14048 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14049-14050 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14051 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14052 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14053 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14054 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14055 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14056 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14057 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14058 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14059-1406I | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14062-14068 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14069 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4070-14074 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 45 of 51 | S:14075-14089 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:14090-14102 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14103-14107 . | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14108-14134 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14135-14149 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14150-14156 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14157-15160 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14161 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14162-14170 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14171-14174 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14175-14203 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14204-14205 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:14206-14216 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | The portions of the email chain
from Epstein's counsel are not
privileged. The Government
mast certify that this outside
correspondence has been
produced. | | S:I4217-14238 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | The portions of the email chain
from Epstein's counsel are not
privileged. The Government
must certify that this outside
correspondence has been
produced. | | 5:14239-14242 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14243.14251 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 46 of 51 | S:14252-14275 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | The portions of the email chain
from Epstein's counsel are not
privileged. The Government
must certify that this outside
correspondence has been
produced. | | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 5:14276 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4277-14282 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14283-14284 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4285-14298 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14299-14307 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14308-14310 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14311-14329
L | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege; outside correspondence and P
014315-014316 must be produced. | The Government must certify
that the outside correspondence
has been produced. The
correspondence at P-014315-
014316 must be produced; this
fact-based material is not
opinion work product as it does
not reveal the mental
impressions of counsel, and the
court finds that Petitioners have
a compelling need for the
information contained therein.
This need also outweighs any
deliberative-process privilege
that may apply. It not
protected by the attorney-client
privilege, as the Government
has not demonstrated that FBI
provided
agen
this information in an attempt
to secure legal advice or a legal
opinion from the United States
Attorney's Office. The
correspondence must be
produced pursuant to an
appropriate protective order. | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 47 of 51 | S:14330-14337 | Partially protected from discovery by opinion work
product privilege. | The portions of the email chain
from Epstein's counsel are not
privileged. The Government
must certify that this outside
correspondence has been
produced. | | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:14338-14354 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14355-14361 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4362-14402 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14403-14414 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14415-14420 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14421- 14428 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14429-14439 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S: 14440 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14441 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14442 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14443 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14444 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14445.14447 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4448-14454 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14455-14456 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4457-14464 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 48 of 51 | S:14486 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:14487 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4488-14499 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14500 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:14501-14506 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:14507-14508 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14509-14519 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14520 | Produce. | The Government has not
supported its assertion of
attorney-client privilege: the
email does not, in and of itself,
demonstrate that it was a
communication between an
attorney and clients regarding
the provision of legal services
or legal advice. Petitioners'
need for this material
outweighs any deliberative
process or investigative
privilege that may apply. | | 5:14521.14522 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 8:14523 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14524-14550 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | 48 ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 49 of 51 | S:1455I | Produce. | The Government has not
supported its assertion of
attorney-client privilege: the
email, authored by an FBI
agent, does not indicate that it
is a client communication
seeking legal services or advice
from an attorney, the United
States Attorney's Office.
Petitioners' need for this
material outweighs any
investigative privilege that may
apply. This must be produced
pursuant to an appropriate
protective order. | | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:I4552 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14553-14556 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14557 | Production not necessary as not relevant or likely to lead
to material relevant to this CVRA litigation. | | | S:14558 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4559-14562 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4563-14565 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14566-14568 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14569-14573 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14574-14583 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14584-14622 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14623-14627 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14628 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14629 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 50 of 51 | S:14630-14631 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | S:I4632-14646 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4647-14649 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14650-14653 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4654-14655 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4656-14665 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14666-14693 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:I4694-14706 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14707-14711 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14712-14716 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14717-14721 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14722-14727 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14728-14742 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14743-14780 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14781-14800 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14801-14810 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14811-14829 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14830-14837 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14838-14843 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | ### Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 51 of 51 | S:14844-1485I | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | S:\]4852-14864 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to material
relevant to this CVRA litigation. | Involves self-reporting to OPR
regarding Epstein's allegation
that certain prosecutors had
conflicts of interest. Not
relevant to victims' CVRA
rights. | | S:I4865 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14866-I4883 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14884-14886 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14887-14894 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14895-14900 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14901-14906 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14907-14911 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | S:14912-I4919 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | | | 5:14920-14923 | Protected from discovery by opinion work product
privilege. | The Government notes that a
redacted version has been
produced to Petitioners. (DE
329-1 at 18). Only the
unredacted version is
privileged. | # DECLARATION OF - 1. My name is and I was born in - 2. I was paid by Jeffrey Epstein to interact sexually with him as a minor on dozens of occasions in his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida from around 2002 to 2005, and also to bring him other girls who were my approximate age for the same purposes. I understand that evidence collected from Epstein's home showed conclusively that I was there as a minor, along with many other underage girls. Given how many girls Epstein was sexually abusing, there could not have been any doubt in anyone's mind that had access to the testimonial and other evidence that Epstein sexually molested me as a minor (and many others). - 3. My son was very young when the FBI came to speak with me the first time. I did not know what to do and I was scared. I called Epstein, who told me not to worry and that he would hire an attorney for me. I believed that if I told the truth about what happened at Epstein's house, the policel That made me really scared. - 4. Through the attorney that Jeffrey Epstein obtained for me, it was arranged for me to give a statement to the prosecutor investigating Epstein. - 5. While with the attorney Epstein obtained for me I gave a statement to the prosecutor that was favorable to Epstein. The prosecutors knew the truth because of the volume of evidence they had, and they continued to recognize me as a victim of Epstein's crimes. - 6. I had been greatly intimidated, which is why I could not be truthful initiall and I wanted to end the threat of the possibility of My involvement with Epstein from a very young age was a deep, dark secret and Epstein told me to keep it a secret. I knew that I was expected to keep it a secret. - 7. The more I thought about what was going on, the more I realized that what Epstein had done to both me and my friends was wrong and that anyone who was not very wealthy would be punished. At this time, I | EFTA00086496 | | | ------------ | --- | wanted Epstein held accountable the same way anyone else would be. I spoke about this with one of m friends around May 2008. I then called an attorney, around June 2008, understanding that he was hired to get the prosecutors to talk to us and hear the truth from me. That was especially important to me because I was finally represented by someone other than Epstein's attorney and wanted to talk to the prosecutors about everything I knew. - 8. The prosecutors had a lot of information revealing the truth about the situation at Epstein's house. I had lot of information, too, because I was one of the young teenagers who had brought many other young teenagers to Epstein for the purpose of getting paid by Epstein. I wanted to assist the prosecutors in the investigation. I hired Mr. to let them know that I was cooperative and ready to tell them all of the helpful information I had. I understood that Mr. did that. - 9. I authorized Mr. to join me in the lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney's Office to enforce my rights and to try to get me my chance to confer with the prosecutors before Mr. Epstein took a plea or the case was resolved in any way. I just wanted to be treated fairly in the process. - 10. When Epstein pled guilty to a state crime at the end of June 2008, no one notified me that his plea had anything to do with my case against him. I did not know, for example, that this plea had some connection to a crime he committed against me particularly. In fact, at this young age, I had no idea what was going on and nobody tried to explain it to me. - 11. In Jul 2008 • I learned for the first time at that hearing that the prosecutors worked out some sort of secret deal with Epstein that might block his prosecution for crimes against me. It also appeared that there was a lot of continued communication between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office. I was really upset that the U.S. Attorney's Office seemed like it would not talk with me or the other victims about what was going on. It was easier to get them to talk to me when I was represented by Epstein's attorney. - 12. I wanted to see this secret deal that the Government had with Epstein, but they would not give it to me Later, the other victims and I finally got to see the secret deal after the judge forced the prosecutors to show it to us. - 13. I understand that I did not initially help the investigation by speaking on Epstein's behalf untruthfully. But I was intimidated and had good reason — reasons that I think everyone who was talking to me could obviously see. Also, the agents and attorneys obviously had a lot of evidence that provided proof of what Epstein had actually done. Epstein was still supporting me, providing me a lawyer and in my mind protecting me, so I was in a position where I felt I had to say certain things. And Epstein expected me to say those things. - 14. Once I wanted to cooperate and tried to cooperate, I was never given the opportunity to confer with prosecutors from the time they were informed by my attorney that I was a cooperating witness. I was never told about the secret deal until after it was already concluded. I would have had my attorney object if I had been given the chance. - 15. I don't feel like I was treated fairly in this process. And I know Epstein got a really good plea deal because he is rich and powerful. That doesn't seem fair either. ![](_page_123_Picture_5.jpeg) # EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. ### Attorneys At Law ### JAMES L EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer National Board Of Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KM LI ALOE FOUTS One Clearlake Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue South, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: September 21, 2006 Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 | Re: | =Subpoena | fora | | | --- | --------- | ---- | --- | | | | | | Dear M, Please allow me to confirm my latest e-mail to you. I did receive your e-mail of last week with attachments and pegged them on to my client. At this time, I can only say that my client does not want to do ei q of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the irnmuni ed with its Kastigar exception and she does not want to test 5'h Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant of m it y f.re she will say anything. GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT ## EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law ### JAMES L EISENBERG 0011alli Bar Board Cmilflui Criminal Thal Lawyer &Sakai Board Of Trial Advocacy Corilltrd Criminal Trial Advocate KAI LI ALOE POUTS OneClearlako Cenfro,Suito 704, 250 Australian Avenue So u lb, Wesi Palm Beach, FL 3340i Fax: February 12, 2007 Dear Asst. U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Reach, FL 33401 Re: for As always, it was a pleasure speaking to you the other . Pursuant to out telephone conference I am writs this letter to ffer my concerns fo oul she testify without immunity before a Therefore, allow me to reiterate that U refuse to voltuttarily cooperate with the federal government. She has a good faith basis for position under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We, of coins; do not live or work in a vacuum. We have read many inflammatory remarks the Town of Palm Beath Police Chief has made to the media about the state court's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. The police chiefs remarks frighten both myself and my client I am aware that the own police have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends. in state court. If they can push to have one lady charged I remain unconvinced that they do not have the ability or political clout to push to have other ladies such as Ms charged. The proffered facts that raise my concerns are being provided via this proftbr letter. Pursuant to our telephone conference agreement, this letter and its contents cannot be used against Mr. NM MMIlis not at all certain of dates. She does remember meeting Mr. Epstein about three years ago. She is not certain of her age, it could have been when she was sixteen, A girlfriend asked her if she wanted a job giving massages. Ms..Magreed because she had knowledge of massages through her mother, who was a masseuse. Mt. went to Mr. Epstein's house via told. Ms. s girlfriend instructed Ms. hat, if asked, she had to tell Mr. Epstein that she was eighteen years old. The friend was nineteen years old and Illlooked old for her age, so passing for eighteen was not a problem. At the home Ms anet Mr. Epstein and later gave him a massage. The friend had told Ms. to give the message topless. Mr. Epstein told that if she were at all uncomfortable being topless, not to do it and it was not a requireme employment as a masseuse. Ms never touched Mr. Epstein in a sexual way and Mr. Epstein never touched Meat all. At one point, Mr. Epstein did ask Ms. !Cher age. Ms. Minsisted that she was eighteen years old. Msalicontinue,d to see Mr. Epstein over time and massages were given in a similar fashion. She was later asked If her friend ted to work in a similar way and she asked some girls who did give Mr. Epstein massages. M never asked to bring girls of any age to Mr. Epstein's home. When she did have her friends come over, she instructed all of them that if asked, they insist that they were eighteen years old. She is not certain at all of any of these girls' real ages. In summary, our concern is that if the government believes that Mr. Epstein committed some federal offense, then Ms could he considered a co-conspirator. We believe no crime was committed.. The Fifth Amendment was not intended to protect the guilty, however, It was enacted to protect citizens who fear prosecution notwithstanding their innocence. Our fear of any prosecution, especially ' ligh i f the Town police chiefs public remarks, is clearly in good faith. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003731 ## EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. Attorneys At Law #### JAMES L. EISENBERG Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Mal Unger Nallonal Board Ot Trial Advocacy Certified Criminal Trial Advocate KM LI ALOE FOUTS One Clearlako Centre, Suite 704,250 Australian Avenue Soul li,West Palm Beach, F1,3340I February 1, 2007 Asst U.S. Attorney 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Grand Jury Subpoena fbiln Dear I received your letter dated January 24, 2007 with regard t Ji l I must admit I forced myself to wait several days to respond in order to "cool o l an no say anything I would regret later. Now that time has passed, allow me to respond appropriately. | 1. If you want to force Ms. IIII
, to come to the
to | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | personally invoke her Fifth Amendment ri its she will be there. That does remain her position. | | st is that isovid
. I will be there, but I am not
My o | | It is this type of attitude, that your
and Ms.
should not have
paid t | | s decision not to cooperate with the government
office refuses to accept the fact that it is Ms | | office fails to recognize that merely coming to court is a problem for
that u sets her. | | d, under these circumstances, appears to be a waste of time at best and, in
like Ms | | her mind, persona
unussment | 2. Rest assured that there is no conflict of interest in my representation of Ms In this ease I have always been asked and always will exercise independent judgment to follow my client's independent will. The remainder of your questions as to this matter are really none of the Government's business. 1. 1 will share with you that one of the reasons for our firm position that Mr will invoke her Fifth Amendment right and choose not to voluntarily cooperate with the Government is our concern that the Government is not exercising independent judgment in this case. The history of this case has been in the newspapers. The case is being prosecuted in State court. Despite the state court prosecution, the Town of Palm Beach Police Chief went on what can only be , Asst. U.S. Attorney February 1, 2007 Page Two described as a public rampage in the newspaper when the case was not prosecuted to his liking that reminded me of a small child having a public temper tantrum. In my thirty years of experience, I have never seen a law enforcement officer like this publicly make what appeared to be a political case in the newspaper for a prosecution and publicly criticize anyone who got in his way, including the elected State Attorney. This resulted in a federal investigation on a topic no one remembers the Federal Government ever being interested in prosecuting before. Although I am certain that you personally have not had your decision-making process compromised, the appearance that your office is being influenced by the Town of Palm Beach Police Chiefs agenda is very real. Under these circumstances.! don't see bow any lawyer could advise any client to voluntarily cooperate. Of special concern is that the Town of Palm Beach Police have promoted prosecuting at least one of the girls who allegedly gave massages. One final thought. My client and my fear that Ms. could be prosecuted is enhanced by the demand for the personal appearance made in your letter. Your initial Kastiger letter. fell far short of granting the functional equivalent of DOJ immunity. Several months ago I was given the dis impression through our conversations that you were going to obtain DOJ immunity for Ms Now the government is changing course for no apparent reason. This leads to speculation that the only reason for the turnabout is that prosecution in either state or federal court is being considered by someone. directed at you personally. 1 want to repeat that you have always treated us with ur office should advise the Town Police Chief to act in a similar fashion. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003733 ![](_page_129_Picture_0.jpeg) #### U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District ofFlorida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 Wert Palm Beach, FL 33401 (\$61) 820-8711 Facsimile: January 24, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: Federal- Dear Jim: have enclosed a new subpoena fora As I mentioned earlier, Ms. s not a target of this investigation and the United Sta her testimony solely as a vie 'm/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the Mftand intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If it is, please advise in writing. Even if Ms. MU inclined to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask her questions that would not require the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. If she still invokes, I intend to move to compel her answers. If you or your client is unavailable on February 6, 2007, please let me know of another Tuesday when you are available. I also am concerned about a potential conflict of intereatin your representation of Ms. In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with ilhimation i ng who is paying (directly Or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Ms. the scope of your representation and whether you are taking direction on this matter from anyone other than Ms.M. If any formal or informal:joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. lithe agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summer)/ of its terms. JAMES EISEN13ERG, ESQ. JANUARY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 I look forward to your response. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta nited States Attome By: Assistant United States Attorney | | United States District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | TO: a | | SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY | | | SUBPOENA FOR:
PERSON | DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS\]
X | | YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District
Court at the place, date and time Specified below. | | | | PLACE:
United States District Courthouse
701 Clematis Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 | | ZOOM •
DATE AND TIME:
February 6, 2007
1100Pnit | | YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): | | | | | | | | | | | | \*Please coordinate your compliance with this subpoena and confirm the date and time, and location of
our a
earance with Special Aget
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf
of the court. | | , Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: | | | | DRIB: | | | | January 23, 2007 | | This subpoena is issued upon application | West Pahnlle c | Name Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
FL 334014235 | 'If not applicable, enter "none." Tobstsid ••PO d1Agtle Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA FORM ORD-227 P-00,316\$ ![](_page_132_Picture_0.jpeg) ### U.S. Department of J ustice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 Wert Palm Beach, FL 33401 (S60820-871/ Facsimile: February 5, 2007 ### DELIVERY BY HAND do James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 | | Re: | Testimony of | | ------- | --- | ------------ | | Dear Ms | | | This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of prostitutes, amongst others. You will supply complete and truthful i o • a i o r is t e attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government and to any ich may conduct an investigation, as well as in any other proceeding rela to or growing out of this investigation. The obligation of tnithful disclosure includes your obligation to provide the attorneys and law enforcement officers of the federal government with any documents, records or other tangible evidence within your custody or control relating to the matters about which you are questioned. You will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission, nor falsely implicate any person or entity. No statements provided by you on this date in this matter pursuant to this agreement will be offered into evidence in any eri mi nal case against you, except during aprosecution for perjury and/or giving a false statement. HoWever, i fit is determined that you have materially violated any provision of this agreement, all statements made by you shall be admissible in evidence against you in any proceeding. The federal government remains free to use information derived from the testimony directly or indirectly for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence, whic may e used against you. You expressly waive any right to claim that such evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the grand Jury testimony. Furthermore, the federal government may use statements made in the grand jury testimony and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of cross-examination, if you testify at any trial or if you FEBRUARY 5,2007 PAGE 2 suborn testimony that contradicts your prior statements and testimony. No additional promises, agreements and conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this letter and none will bo entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney PY: Assistant United States Attorney have read this agreement and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my agreement with the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises, agreements or representations made to me by any officials of the United States in connection with this matter. Dated: February 2007 West Palm Beach, Florida Witnessed by: James L Eisenber Bs . Attorney fo Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003740 ![](_page_134_Picture_0.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District orlorida SOO South Australian Avo,'Suite400 West Palm Bleach, AL 33401 fracsItnt February 5, 2007 ### PELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250.8 Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Rer Dear Mr. Eisenberg: I am writing to clarify the ground rules for• the interview with your client ("your client"), to occur February, 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. s not a target or subject of this investigation, but instead is being interviewed solely as a victim/vvitness. However, to address your concern aboµt criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's (Met for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(0 of the Fedora' Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by her during the interview from being used against her directly. To guard against any misunderstandings concerning the interview of your client, this letter sets forth the terms of this agreement. . Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your Client's knowledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited . to the procurenient of prostitutes: The protection,of till latter applies to an interview that will be conducted by this Office, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other federal law enforcement agency this Office may require. Under this agreement, no information disclosed by your olient during the interView will be offered in evidence against her in any criminal or civil proceeding, provided that your• client complies with this agreement and that the information your client furnishes is truthfhlEcomplete, and accurate. If, however, your client gives materially false, incomplete, or misleading information; JAM MEER°, Pao. PAGE 2 then this Office may use such information in any matter or• proceeding and your client is subject to prosecution for perjury, obstruction of.justice, and making. false statements to. government agencies. Any such prosecution maybe based upon infoimation prOvided by your client during the course of the interview, and such infertnation, including your client's statements, will be admissible against your client in any grand jury or other proceeding. • The government also may use statements made by your client in the interview and all evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom for the purpose of impeachment or cross-examination if she testifies at any trial or hearing, and/or in any rebuttal case against your client in a criminal trial in which she is a defendant or a witness. These provisions are necessary to ensure that your client does not make or offer any false representation or statement in any proceeding or to a government agency or commit perjury during any testimony. Your .client further agrees that attorneys for the United States may be present at the interview, and agrees not to seek.disqualification of any such government attorney from any proceeding or trial because'of their participation at the interview. ' The entire agreement.between the United States and your client is set forth in this letter. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the foregoing accurately reflects- the understanding and •agreement between this Office and your client, it is requested that you and your client execute this letter as provided below. > Sincerely, R. Alexander AcOsta United States Attorney By: ### Assistant United. States Attorney I have received this letter from my attorney, lames.L. Eisenberg, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney, and I hereby acknowledge that it fully sets forth my understanding andagreerbent with the Office of the United States Attorney for.the Southern Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003742 James L. EISENBERG ESQ. RE: FEBRUARY 2, PAGE .3 District of Florida. I state that there have been no additional promises or representations made to me by any official of the United States Government or by my attorney in connection with this matter. Dated: Witnessed by: James L. Eisenberg, Esquire Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003743 #### U.S. Department of Justice Authorization for Reimbursement of Unusual Expenses of Fact Witnesses Request for Unusual Expense(s) of Fact Witness (For United Stales Attorneys Office Use Only) | | | | Control if | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | 2. Court Docket Number | | Peen Illitfiriti Al LOA | | OU
tms
Pam | rig S. Contact Prim | | 1:1• ••••••••••• | | 7. Witness Name & | one 0. SSN | | 8. Vendor Name & Address, Phone It, TIN/SSN | | 9. Payment t6 be made to: | | 10. Recelpt/invoice Is: | | | 11. Type of Unusual Expense: | | 12. Explanation: | | | ❑
Medically Necessary Item
(Attached Supporting Statement) | | | | | ID Excess Lodging/Per Diem
❑
Travel & Transportation
❑ Pretrial Conference Waiver
❑
Other | | | | | 18. Start Date of Service (dOlDANR)
2 41O 7 | 14. End Date of Service (MO/DANR)
2-4
/0
7 | | 15. Amount | | 18. Juslifidabon: | | | | | government funds or services that exceed delegated authority or that violate Federal laws or regulations. | | | 17.1 hereby certify that the expenses and services listed on this docuMent are appropriate and are within the Federal laws
and regulations. I fully understand that I can be held personally gable or besubject to disciplinary action for Improperly using | | | | | | | Signature of Requesting AUSA
18. Nellie& Title of Approving Official 19. Date (MO/DANR) | | Data | 20. Signature of Approving Official | | | | | | | | | | —
CIFWE Form | | | | | | | | U.S. Department of Justice | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida | | | 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400-
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Facsimile | | FACSIMILE COVER SHEET | | | JIM EISENBERG, ESQ.
TO: | February 5, 2007
DATE: | | 561 659-2380
FAX NO. | # OF PAGES: | | PHONE NO. | RE: | | ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
FROM:
PHONE NO. | | | pc'
17in
14-e
commugNTsc EH
f
(
ae1
x/Aili- a
cj
it'
L
d
6
htive\_
chwr
PAL. | | | fi
/
inaink (4,1}—&-
l/tia | | | | | # SEALED ORDER IN RE: and On Application of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before . the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, 'as refused to testify and provide other information on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination; and 1. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney, the testimony and other information from may be necessary to the public interest; and 1. That the aforesaid Application has been made with the approval of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice or a duly . . designated Acting Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code, Section 6003, and Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 0.175 and 0.132(e). NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, that I give testimony and provide other information which she refus el. • • provide on the basis of her privilege against self-incrimination, as to all matters about which she may be interrogated before said United States District Courtl as well as any subsequent proceeding or trial. However, no testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used againstMI in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the this Order shall be SEALED in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), except that a copy of this Order shall be provided to counsel for the United States, who may disclose the existence of the Order to the witness, to counsel for the witness, and to law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation Those persons may review the Order, but may not retain a copy of the Order, nor may they disclose the existence of the Order to any others. DONE and ORDERED this /.' day of DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .1 cc: AUSA 2 FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: ### GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS #### SEALED ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the United States' Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material. The Court has considered the Motion and attachments thereto, and finds that the United States has shown a "particularized need" for the limited disclosure of materials related to matters occurring before the Grand Jury. The Court further finds that the United States has shown that: (1) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, that is, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736- Civ-Marra; (2) the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to cover only needed materials. Accordingly, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida may disclose Exhibit 7 to its Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material, and file those in the public portion of the Court file in S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra. Furthermore, Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 to the government's Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material are already part of the public portion of the Court file in S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra. The government has not sought to remove them from the public portion of that Court file, and they remain part of the public record in that matter. ### IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of May, 2017, at West Palm Beach, Florida. > DANIEL T. K. HURLEY SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CC: AUSA