# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00021695
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021695.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Bruce Barket
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: proposed schedule.
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 17:58:44 +0000
I can make 12:00 1:00 or 4:00
Bruce Barket
Barket, Epstein, Kearon, Aldea & LoTurco
666 Old Country road
Garden City, NY 11530
Barket Epstein.com
On Sep 21, 2019, at 9:33 AM,
wrote:
We are free Thursday afternoon except from 2:45 - 4.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
On Sep 21, 2019, at 07:22,
wrote:
Any day next week works for me. Also in my role as Learned Counsel, and in full compliance with the ABA Guidelines, I
will be submitting a proposed schedule for penalty phase pleadings over the weekend.
Thanks
Tonyricco
Original Message
From:
To: Bruce Barket
Cc:
Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2019 9:15 pm
Subject: Re: proposed schedule.
We are free next Friday afternoon if that works for you all.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
EFTA00021695

=== Page 2 ===
On Sep 20, 2019, at 12:16, Bruce Barket
wrote:
I think we will be ready to propose a schedule sometime early next week. Is there a day and time when you
can meet to discuss? We will send you a proposed briefing schedule ahead of the meeting. I hope to have
ours finalized no later than Tuesday.
Bruce A. Barket, Esq.
Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP
666 Old Country Road Ste. 700
Garden City, NY 11530
www.barketepstein.com
This transmittal may be a confidential attorney client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If it
is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error;
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email and immediately delete this
message and all its attachments
EFTA00021696


c1: EFTA00020772
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020772.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(OPR)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(OPR)"
(OPR)"
Subject: Numbers you requested
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:46:17 +0000
AUSA
Chief, Public Corruption
USAO-SDNY
-
Following are some numbers you requested.
1. Total number of email files obtained for the 5 subjects
approximately 516,000.
This does not count attachments (e.g., correspondence, drafts, final documents, press report, etc.) as
separate files.
Note that for subjects who left the USAO during the pendency of the Epstein case, there are fewer, and
that the line AUSA (who remained involved with the CVRA litigation until mid-2019) accounts for the vast
majority of the files.
2. It is our best ballpark estimate that we determined approximately 3,000 unique emails were directly relevant to
OPR's investigation, but we certainly considered a larger universe.
3. Our best (most useful) collection of scanned-in USAO hard copy documents is from the CVRA litigation, and
includes both the production to petitioners (3,754 pages), and a separate collection of privileged
documents/records (about 15,267 pages) that were submitted to the court (and that remained privileged). We
also have hundreds of pages of other case documents in both hard copy format and electronically, but they are
largely duplicative of these two sets and are difficult to quantify.
We hope this is helpful.
Regards,
EFTA00020772


c1: EFTA00023485
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023485.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cri. 330 (AJN)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:10:38 +0000
Definitely, l'll let you know as soon as I hear back from defense counsel. I told them to get back to me today.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cri. 330 (AJN)
Ok. Just let me know as I want to make sure we alert our SSOs who will be assigned to the space. Thank you
On Oct 27, 2021, at 14:08,
wrote:
I spoke with
and he offered me the option of this Friday or Monday (11/1) after our conference - both options
would be at 500 Pearl. I offered those options to defense counsel and am waiting to hear back.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cri. 330 (AJN)
Just to confirm, the date is this Friday or the 5th.?
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 9:37 AM
To:
Cc:
i
>;
is
Subject: RE: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cri. 330 (AJN)
Hi
Thanks very much. To confirm, are do you mean Friday, 10/29, or Friday, 11/5? And is there a particular time that she
will arrive at the court?
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 8:28 PM
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
EFTA00023485

=== Page 2 ===
Subject: Re: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cri. 330 (AJN)
Hello
Friday works best for us. I will be in contact tomorrow to coordinate.
Regards,
Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal
U.S. Marshals Service
Southern District of New York
On Oct 26, 2021, at 8:07 PM,
wrote:
Hi
Defense counsel has requested that we schedule an evidence inspection this week with the defendant present. We'd
very much appreciate it if the marshals could produce the defendant to a proffer room this week at 500 Pearl Street.
Our understanding from Eric Blachman, copied here, is that the marshals have been producing defendants for meetings
of this type. A CSO and a case agent will be present for the meeting.
Could you please let us know what dates this week would work for the meeting? We are scheduling this with defense
attorneys who are flying in from out of state, so would appreciate if you could let us know what dates work this week.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00023486


c1: EFTA00020687
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020687.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: US V. Tartaglione, 16-cr-832 - Unsealing of Records
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:00:44 +0000
Attachments: NYTLEGAL-_64879-v2-Tartaglione_Access_Letter.pdf
FYI - As discussed on Monday, the Post and Daily News moved to unseal the submissions in Tartaglione. The NYT has
joined. Our response is due on Wednesday.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:54 PM
To: (
Cc: (
Subject: FW: US V. Tartaglione, 16-cr-832 - Unsealing of Records
NYT has joined the Post and Daily News in opposing sealing.
From: Sumar, Al-Amyn
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:46 PM
To:
Cc: David McCraw
Subject: US V. Tartaglione, 16-cr-832 - Unsealing of Records
All,
Attached is a letter on behalf of the New York Times Company and reporter Ben Weiser regarding the above-
referenced case, which was sent to the Court today by fax.
Regards,
--
Al-Amyn Sumar
Legal Department
The New York Times Company
New York, NY 10018
EFTA00020687


c1: EFTA00023035
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023035.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Thank you
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 03:28:40 +0000
Attachments: 2021.11.03_Maxwell_verdict_sheet.docx.
Here's the verdict form which is short and I think clean.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 11:24 PM
To:
Subject: Thank you
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00023035


c1: EFTA00020541
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020541.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
2018 WL 4062649
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
, Plaintiff,
V.
Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant.
15 Civ. 7433
Signed 08/27/2018
Synopsis
Background: Following settlement of plaintiff's action for defamation, news media and
investigative journalist filed motion to intervene, for purposes of filing motion to unseal
documents that were placed under seal and included in protective order.
Holdings: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sweet, J.,
held that:
[1] news media and journalist could intervene in action;
[2] public did not have right of access, either under First Amendment or common law, to
documents exchanged during discovery that were designated by parties as confidential and made
part of protective order;
[3] documents filed in support of motion for summary judgment were "judicial documents" that
triggered presumption in favor of public's right of access to records; and
[4] public's presumptive right of access to judicial documents was rebutted by privacy interests
of parties and multiple non-parties.
Motion to intervene granted; motion to unseal denied.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA00020541

=== Page 2 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
West Headnotes (31)
[1]
Federal Civil Procedure-Particular Intervenors
Members of the press and other non-parties, by motion to intervene, may seek to pursue
modification of confidentiality orders that have led to sealing of documents filed with the
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
Federal Civil Procedure-Time for intervention
Intervention for the purpose of challenging confidentiality orders is permissible even
years after a case is closed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
Cases that cite this headnote
[3]
Federal Civil Procedure-Particular Intervenors
Whether deemed an intervention as of right or permissive, intervention by the press, a
step preliminary to determining whether any sealed documents should be disclosed,
should be granted absent some compelling justification for a contrary result. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24(a), (b).
Cases that cite this headnote
[4]
Federal Civil Procedure-Time for intervention
Federal Civil Procedure-Particular Intervenors
News media and journalist could intervene in defamation action, after case had settled,
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA00020542

=== Page 3 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
for purposes of motion to unseal documents that were designated as confidential by
parties and made part of protective order, based on public's right of access to records.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
Generally, the public holds an affirmative, enforceable right of access to judicial records
under both the common law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. U.S.
Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
Constitutional Law documents or records
Records Court records
The presumption of the public's right of access to court records is based on the need for
federal courts, particularly because they are independent, to have a measure of
accountability, and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice. U.S.
Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Records Court records
The public's right to inspect judicial records is not absolute; rather, every court has
supervisory power over its own records and files, and access may be denied where court
files might become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as using records to gratify spite
or promote scandals, or where files might serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
EFTA00020543

=== Page 4 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
press consumption.
Cases that cite this headnote
[8]
Federal Civil Procedure-Nature and Purpose
Pretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in their search for truth.
Cases that cite this headnote
[9]
Federal Civil Procedure Government records, papers and property
Records Court records
Whether by discovery or at trial, on a request for access to judicial records, a court must
first conclude that the documents at issue are judicial documents.
Cases that cite this headnote
[10]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
On a request for access to a judicial record, if the document being requested is a judicial
document, the court then asks whether the presumption of access is a product of the
common law right of access, or of the more robust First Amendment right to access
certain judicial documents. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
EFTA00020544

=== Page 5 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[11]
Federal Civil Procedure-Access to proceedings; public trial
Records Court records
A trial and all trial documents are accessible and public, absent special circumstances.
Cases that cite this headnote
[12]
Records Court records
Under the common law, once a document filed with the court is classified as a judicial
document, the presumption of the public right of access attaches; the court must then
determine the weight of the presumption of access, which is a function of the role of the
material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of
such information to those monitoring the federal courts. U.S. Const. art. 3.
Cases that cite this headnote
[13]
Records Court records
The presumption under the common law of the public's right to access to judicial
documents may be overcome by demonstrating that sealing the document serves to
further other substantial interests, such as a third party's personal privacy interests, the
public's safety, or preservation of attorney-client privilege.
Cases that cite this headnote
[14]
Constitutional Law-Access to proceedings; closure
Constitutional Law-Access to Proceedings; Closure
The First Amendment provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
5
EFTA00020545

=== Page 6 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
all trials, criminal or civil. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[15]
Constitutional Law-Access to proceedings; closure
Constitutional Law documents or records
Constitutional Law-Access to Proceedings; Closure
Constitutional Law Documents or Records
The First Amendment right of the public and press to access to all trials, criminal or civil,
applies specifically to related proceedings and records and protects the public against the
government's arbitrary interference with access to important information. U.S. Const.
Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[16]
Constitutional Law documents or records
The First Amendment creates only a presumptive right of access of the public to judicial
documents, and what offends the First Amendment is the attempt to exclude the right of
access without sufficient justification. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[17]
Constitutional Law documents or records
A presumptive right of access to judicial records under the First Amendment may be
overcome by specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher
values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. U.S. Const.
Amend. 1.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
6
EFTA00020546

=== Page 7 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
Cases that cite this headnote
[18]
Constitutional Lawe-Freedom of speech, expression, and press
Records records
A party seeking to keep judicial documents under seal carries the burden of
demonstrating that higher values overcome the presumption of public right of access to
judicial documents, under the First Amendment, and such a showing must be supported
by findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure
order was properly entered. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[19]
Constitutional Law Court documents or records
Records records
Public, via media and investigative reporter, did not have right of access, either under
First Amendment or common law, to documents exchanged during discovery that were
designated by parties as confidential and made part of protective order, in defamation
action; documents at issue included range of allegations of sexual acts involving plaintiff
and non-parties to litigation, some of whom were famous, identities of non-parties who
either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with plaintiff or who allegedly facilitated such
acts, plaintiff's sexual history and prior allegations of sexual assault, and her medical
history, parties mutually agreed that release of confidential information inherent to
discovery process could expose them to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression
given highly sensitive nature of underlying allegations, sealed documents were neither
relied upon in rendering of adjudication nor necessary to or helpful in resolving any
motion, and parties submitted redacted proposed opinion on summary judgment to
maintain confidentiality established by protective order. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
7
EFTA00020547

=== Page 8 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[20]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
For an item to constitute a "judicial document" subject to the public's right of access
under the common law and the First Amendment, the item filed must be relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. U.S. Const.
Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[21]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
In determining whether a document constitutes a "judicial document" subject to the
public's right of access under the common law and the First Amendment, courts consider
the relevance of the document's specific contents to the nature of the proceeding, and the
degree to which access to the document would materially assist the public in
understanding the issues before the court and in evaluating the fairness and integrity of
the court's proceedings. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[22]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
Documents filed with the court vary in their status as judicial documents, for purposes of
the public's right of access to the documents, under the common law and the First
Amendment: at one end of the continuum, the mere filing of a paper or document with
the court is insufficient to render that paper a "judicial document" subject to the right of
public access, while at the other end, pleadings and summary judgment papers are
"judicial documents" upon filing. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
8
EFTA00020548

=== Page 9 ===
V. Maxwell, ... F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[23]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
The filing of deposition transcripts, interrogatories, and documents exchanged in
discovery with a court is not sufficient for the documents to reach the status of "judicial
document" subject to the public's right of access to the record under the common law
and the First Amendment, and to consider them as such would constitute a radical
expansion of the "public access" doctrine. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[24]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
Documents submitted in support of a motion to compel discovery, which presumably
will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion, are "judicial documents" subject
to the public's right of access under both the First Amendment and the common law.
U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[25]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
Papers filed in support of motion for summary judgment in action for defamation, which
included facts drawn from documents placed under seal via protective order, together
with recital of both contested and uncontested facts and factual statements that described
issues to be resolved at trial in event summary judgment was denied, were "judicial
documents" that triggered presumption in favor of public's right of access to documents
under both common law and First Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
9
EFTA00020549

=== Page 10 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
Cases that cite this headnote
[26]
Constitutional Law documents or records
Records records
As a matter of law, papers submitted in support of a summary judgment motion are
judicial documents triggering a presumption of access subject to balancing under the
First Amendment and common law if they directly affect an adjudication. U.S. Const.
Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
[27]
Constitutional Law documents or records
Records records
Presumption in favor of public's right of access, under common law and First
Amendment to summary judgment opinion and documentary evidence, as judicial
documents, which included documents placed under seal and made part of protective
order, was rebutted by privacy interests of plaintiff, defendant, and multiple non-parties
to litigation, on motion by intervenors media and media journalist to unseal documents
following settlement of underlying action for defamation; weight to be afforded
presumption was not as strong, given that summary judgment motion was denied, case
was based on allegations of sexual assault and sexual trafficking of minors by public and
private persons, plaintiff, defendant, intervenors, and dozens of non-parties who provided
highly confidential information relating to their own stories relied upon promise of
secrecy outlined in protective order, reliance on confidentiality regarding evidence
relevant to truth or falsity of allegations was significant, if not determinative, factor in
reaching confidential settlement, intervenors offered no particularized basis for right of
access to documents that overcame privacy interests at issue, and unsealing of documents
would promote scandal based on unproven, potentially libelous statements. U.S. Const.
Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
10
EFTA00020550

=== Page 11 ===
V. Maxwell, ... F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[28]
Records Court records
Because a motion for summary judgment and the materials submitted in connection with
it are determined to be "judicial documents," the weight of the presumption in favor of
the public's right of access to the documents under the common law must be determined,
in addition to any countervailing factors.
Cases that cite this headnote
[29]
Records Court records
While a summary judgment motion and supporting papers, as judicial documents, are
entitled to a presumption of the public's right of access, under the common law, this
presumption is less where a district court denies the summary judgment motion,
essentially postponing a final determination of substantive legal rights, because the
public interest in access is not as pressing.
Cases that cite this headnote
[30]
Constitutional Lawe-Court documents or records
Records Court records
Notwithstanding the presumption of the public's right of access to judicial documents
under both the common law and the First Amendment, the documents placed under seal
may be kept under seal if countervailing factors in the common law framework or higher
values in the First Amendment framework so demand. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
11
EFTA00020551

=== Page 12 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[31]
Records Court records
In assessing the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy with respect to
judicial documents that were placed under seal, for purposes of determining whether the
presumption in favor of the public's right of access to judicial documents has been
rebutted, courts should first consider the degree to which the subject matter is
traditionally considered private rather than public.
Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
Counsel for Interveners Julie Brown & Miami Herald Media Company: HOLLAND &
KNIGHT LLP, 31 West 52ⁿᵈ Street, New York, NY 10019, By: Christine N. Walz, Esq., Sanford
L. Bohrer, Esq.
Counsel for Plaintiff
:
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 401 E. Las Olas
Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Meredith L.
Schultz, Esq., BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504,
By: David Boies, Esq., EDWARDS POTTINGLER LLC, 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF
LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G.
Cassell, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C., 150
East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq., Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.,
Ty Gee, Esq.
Counsel for Intervenor Michael Cernovich: RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, 100 Pearl
Street, 14th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, By: Jay M. Wolman, Esq.
Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz: EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP,
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10020, By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq.
1
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply
institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
12
EFTA00020552

=== Page 13 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
OPINION
Sweet, D.J.
Table of Contents
*11. Prior Proceedings. 433
II. The Motion to Intervene is Granted 437
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards 437
IV. The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied 442
V. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents 442
VI. The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied 444
VII. Conclusion 447
Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and
investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the
"Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene in this
defamation action brought by plaintiff
("
or the "Plaintiff") against
defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the "Defendant") and to unseal all of the
documents previously sealed in this action.
Resolution, clarity and certainty, sometimes delayed, are hallmarks of the judicial process. The
present motions challenge certain resolutions of this settled and closed action and raise
significant issues, the conduct of the discovery process, the enforceability of confidentiality
agreements and protective orders, the privacy rights of parties and witnesses, the public interest
and the role of the media, and the transparency of the judicial process.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
13
EFTA00020553

=== Page 14 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
This defamation action from its inception in September 2015 to its settlement in May 2017 has
been bitterly contested and difficult to administer because of the truth or falsity of the
allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private conduct of the parties and of third
persons, some prominent, some private. The instant motions renew that pattern and require a
reexamination of the effort to provide an appropriate resolution of the issues presented by the
litigation.
Upon this reexamination and the conclusions set forth below, the motion to intervene is granted,
and the motion to unseal is denied as to the documents produced in the discovery process and as
to the summary judgment judicial documents based on the difficult balancing of the conflicting
principles described below.
I. Prior Proceedings
In early 2011
,
in an interview with journalist Sharon Churcher ("Churcher") which was
published in two British tabloids, described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who recruited or
facilitated the recruitment of young females for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"),
that she,
,
had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2011,
and that she had discussed Maxwell's involvement in the described sexual abuse. Maxwell
issued a statement denying this account on March 9, 2011.
On January 1, 2015,
moved to join two alleged victims of Epstein who had initiated an
action under the Crime Victims' Rights Act against the United States, purporting to challenge
Epstein's plea agreement.
joinder motion (the "Joinder Motion") included numerous
details about
sexual abuse and listed the perpetrators of her abuse.
repeatedly
named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex
trafficking scheme created by Epstein.
*2 On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued a statement, responding to the allegations made in
connection with
Joinder Motion. Maxwell stated that
allegations "against
Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that
"claims are obvious lies" (the "January 3
Statement").
filed her complaint in this action on September 21, 2015 (the "Complaint"), setting forth
her claim of defamation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwell January 3 Statement.
alleged she was the "victim of sexual trafficking and abuse while she was a minor child" and
that Maxwell "facilitated"
sexual abuse and "wrongfully" subjected
to "public
ridicule, contempt and disgrace" by denying
allegations.
further alleged that
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
14
EFTA00020554

=== Page 15 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
over the course of a decade she had been sexually abused at "numerous locations" around the
world with prominent and politically powerful men.
Vigorous litigation was undertaken by the parties, as demonstrated by the 950 docket entries as
of August 27, 2018, including a motion to dismiss the Complaint which was denied by opinion
of February 29, 2016 (the "February 29 Opinion"). The primary issue presented was the truth or
falsity of the January 3 statement issued by Maxwell, which in turn challenged all the previous
statements made to the press by
and in
Joinder Motion. This resulted,
understandably, in a lengthy and tumultuous discovery process resulting in 18 hearings and 15
decisions.
After hearing counsel, it was determined that fact discovery would be completed on July 29,
2016,2 see Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF No. 317. Both
parties early on recognized the extreme sensitivities and privacy interests arising out of an
effective discovery process involving the truth or falsity of the allegations at issue. The
consequent protective order was entered into by the parties on agreement, and endorsed by the
Court on March 17, 2016 (the "Protective Order"), and the sealing order was ordered by the
Court on August 9, 2016 (the "Sealing Order"), for the purpose of protecting the discovery and
dissemination of confidential information to be exchanged in this action. See Protective Order,
ECF No. 62. This Protective Order allowed the parties to provide discovery on highly private
and sensitive subjects without it being disclosed to the public, absent an additional order of this
Court. The Protective Order served "to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential
information or information which will properly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness,
or person providing discovery in this case." ECF Dkt. 62. The Protective Order applied broadly
"to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents
produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony,
and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id.
1
1.
2
The parties reserved the right to extend this deadline where the parties so agreed, or for good cause shown. See Proposed
Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF No. 317.
The Protective Order also provided the procedures to designate any such material as
confidential, and to challenge such designations. Id.
"
8-10.
Upon
review
by
an
attorney
acting
in good faith, the designating party was to designate certain confidential information as
"CONFIDENTIAL," triggering a set of protections as to that document for the duration of the
action.
Id. 1 8. When a party filed material designated as confidential with the Court, it was to
additionally file a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules &
Instructions for the Southern District of New York. Id. 1 10. Absent consent of the producing
party, designated documents "shall not be disclosed."3 Id.
1
5.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
15
EFTA00020555

=== Page 16 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
3
The necessary exceptions to this rule are as follows:
[S]uch information may be disclosed to: a) attorneys actively working on this case; b) persons regularly employed or associated
with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial,
or at other proceedings in this case; c) the parties; d) expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this
proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; e) the Court and its
employees in this case; f) stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this
action; g) deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and h) other persons by written agreement of the parties.
Id.5.
*3 At the conclusion of the case, the parties could elect either to return the confidential material
to the designating party or destroy the documents. Id.
1
12.
The
Protective
Order
specified
that
it
"shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial."
Id.
From March 17, 2016 to August 9, 2016, 26 motions to seal were filed with the Court pursuant
to the Protective Order, each of which were granted. On August 9, 2016, an order amended the
Protective Order as follows:
To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is hereby ordered that letter
motions to file submissions under seal pursuant to the Court's Protective
Order, ECF No. 62, are granted. The Protective Order is amended accordingly
such that filing a letter motion seeking sealing for each submission is no
longer necessary. A party wishing to challenge the sealing of any particular
submission may do so by motion.
Sealing Order, ECF No. 348. One hundred sixty-seven documents were sealed pursuant to the
Sealing Order.
On August 11, 2016, Intervenor Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz" or "Intervenor Dershowitz")
moved to unseal three documents: (1) portions of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher in
support of her motion to quash the subpoena served on her; (2) emails between Churcher and
submitted in connection with the same motion; and (3) a draft of a manuscript prepared
by
submitted in connection with a motion to extend a time deadline. See Dershowitz
Motion to Intervene, Aug. 11, 2016, ECF Nos. 362-64. Other than the requested documents
which he sought in order to make a public statement, Dershowitz agreed to be bound by the
Protective Order. See Dershowitz Decl., ECF No. 363 30. On November 2, 2016, the motion
was denied on the basis that these documents "were submitted with respect to the discovery
process rather than in connection with the disposition of any substantive issue, and therefore are
not judicial documents" such that no presumption of access exists.
V. Maxwell, No. 15
Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496. Appeal has been filed on that
decision.
Pursuant to several amendments, a trial date of May 25, 2017 was determined. See Order, Oct.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
16
EFTA00020556

=== Page 17 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d (2018)
30, 2015, ECF No. 13; Amended Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Sept. 30,
2016, ECF No. 451; Amended Second Discovery and Case Management Plan, Feb. 27, 2017,
ECF No. 648; Joint Letter, May 8, 2017, ECF No. 912.
Expert discovery was completed on November 30, 2016. See id.
Twenty-nine motions in limine were filed by the parties between January 5, 2017 and May 1,
2017, on which decision was reserved. See ECF Nos. 520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535,
561, 563, 567, 608, 663-667, 669, 671, 673, 675, 677, 679, 681, 683, 685-86, 689, 691.
Maxwell filed a motion for summary judgment on January 6, 2017, which was heard on
February 16, 2017 and denied by an opinion filed on March 22, 2017. See Sealed Document,
March 24, 2017, ECF No. 779 (the "Summary Judgment Opinion"). The parties, in accordance
with the agreed upon procedures, were directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of the
Summary Judgment Opinion consistent with the Protective Order. The agreed upon redacted
opinion was filed with the Court and made public on the docket on April 27, 2017 (the
"Redacted Opinion"). See Redacted Opinion, April 27, 2017, ECF No. 872.
*4 On January 19, 2017, Intervenor Michael Cernovich ("Cernovich" or "Intervenor
Cernovich") made a motion to unseal the materials submitted in connection with Maxwell's
motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied on May 3, 2017 (the "May 3 Opinion")
on the basis that Cernovich "ha[d] not established a compelling need for the documents obtained
in discovery which undergird the summary judgment decision."
V. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ.
7433 (RWS), 2017 WL 1787934 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017), ECF No. 892. "This action is
currently scheduled for trial in mid-May and a release of contested confidential discovery
materials could conceivably taint the jury pool." Id.
The parties arrived at a settlement and jointly stipulated to dismiss this action on May 24, 2017.
See Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 916; Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, ECF No.
919. The settlement presumably is pursuant to the Protective Order and remains confidential
with terms known only to the parties. This case was closed on May 25, 2017.
On April 9, 2018, the Miami Herald filed the instant motion, contending that all sealed
documents in this action are presumptively public under both common law principles and the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and were sealed pursuant to an improvidently granted
protective order, which allowed the parties to designate information as confidential without the
particularized judicial scrutiny required by the law prior to sealing. See ECF No. 62. The motion
was joined by Intervenor Dershowitz, who requested that he be advised of any documents
unsealed in order to request unsealing of additional documents to protect his interests, and by
Intervenor Cernovich. Argument was heard on May 9, 2018, at which time this motion was
considered fully submitted.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
17
EFTA00020557

=== Page 18 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
II. The Motion to Intervene is Granted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides intervention of right under Rule 24(a) to anyone
who "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Permissive intervention may be granted to anyone "who has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b).
[1|Because courts, including this one, "have repeatedly recognized that members of the press
(and other non-parties) may seek to pursue modification of confidentiality orders that have led
to sealing of documents filed with the court," and since "the appropriate procedural mechanism
to do so is a motion to intervene," the motion of Brown and the Miami Herald to intervene is
granted. See In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., No. 04 Md. 1628 (RMB) (MHD), 2015 WL
5439090, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015);
V. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene);
V. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2017 WL 1787934 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017), ECF
No. 892 (Opinion Granting Cernovich Motion to Intervene).
[2] 31Although the case was closed by the Clerk of Court on May 25, 2017 pursuant to the
settlement agreement, "intervention for the purpose of challenging confidentiality orders is
permissible even years after a case is closed." United States V. Erie Cnty., N.Y., No. 09 Civ.
849S, 2013 WL 4679070, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2013), rev'd on other gds., 763 F.3d 235
(2d Cir. 2014); see also In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 ("[T]here is no
implication in the caselaw or in common sense why the passage of more than three years should
disable a journalist from seeking unsealing."). Moreover, "[w]hether deemed an intervention as
of right under Rule 24(a) or a permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), intervention by the
press-a step preliminary to determining whether any sealed documents should be
disclosed-should be granted absent some compelling justification for a contrary result." In re
Pineapple Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (footnote omitted).
*5 ¹⁴lAccordingly, the motion to intervene is granted, and it is appropriate to reopen the case for
the disposition of the instant motion.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
18
EFTA00020558

=== Page 19 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards
The issues presented by the parties engage vital societal concepts, the privacy rights of
individuals, the judicial process to establish truth or falsity, the transparency of that process, and
freedom of information and of the press. On these concepts our Circuit has rendered helpful
guidance.⁴ Because of the nature of this defamation action, the particular allegations at issue
involving sexual conduct, and the need to be able to rely on court determinations, this motion
presents a unique pattern for decision.
4
See United States V. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2017) (noting discovery documents lie beyond the presumption
of public access); Bernstein V. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing value of
public disclosure of complaint against privacy interests in favor of access); Newsday LLC V. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir.
2013) (finding First Amendment right of access to contempt proceeding); N.Y. Civil Liberties Union V. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684
F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) (qualified First Amendment right of public access attached to TAB hearings conducted by New York City
Transit Authority); United States V. Aref, 533 F.3d (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if
disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch V. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110
(2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hartford Courant Co. V.
Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (establishing qualified First Amendment right of access to sealed docket sheets); Sec. Exch.
Comm'n V. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding pretrial deposition testimony were not "judicial documents");
DiRussa V. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between
parties was not abuse of discretion); United States V. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I ") (finding it proper for
district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests);
United States V. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed
with court varies with document's relevance to exercise of Article III functions); Gardner V. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir.
1990) (balancing newspaper's common law right of access with defendant's privacy rights); Joy V. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.
1982) (distinguishing between documents obtained in discovery from those filed pursuant to an adjudication for purposes of the
"judicial document" determination).
Legal scholars and jurists have long sought to refine the boundaries of privacy, or "the right to
be let alone," but the result remains a mosaic, the development of which can be traced more to
the unraveling of case law than the priority of certain rights over others. See Louis Menand, Why
Do We Care So Much About Privacy?, THE NEW YORKER, June 18, 2018.
*6 The legal implications of privacy have been considered in relation to "telegraphy, telephony,
instantaneous photography (snapshots), dactyloscopy (fingerprinting), Social Security numbers,
suburbanization, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence, abortion rights, gay liberation, human-subject research, the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act, '60 Minutes,' Betty Ford, the 1973 PBS documentary 'An American
Family,' the Starr Report, the memoir craze, blogging, and social media." Id. at 6; see e.g.,
Smith V. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (holding no reasonable
expectation of privacy in phone numbers dialed); Assoc. Press v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 554
F.3d 274 (2009) (finding Guantanamo detainees enjoy a privacy interest in the nondisclosure of
their names and identifying information in records containing allegations of abuse by military
personnel and by other detainees); Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. V. Favish, 541 U.S. 157,
124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004) (holding Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
recognizes surviving family members' right to personal privacy with respect to their close
relative's death-scene images).
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
19
EFTA00020559

=== Page 20 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d (2018)
Privacy has also been "associated with privilege (private roads and private sales)," see United
States V. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 282, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983) (holding that
defendant enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy when driving on his premises, but that no
such expectation extended to his travel on public thoroughfares), "with confidentiality (private
conversations)," see Katz V. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576
(1967) (holding that defendant did not shed his reasonable expectation of privacy in holding a
private conversation in a public phone booth), "with noncomformity and dissent," see Warden V.
Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 323, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting)
("Those who wrote the Bill of Rights believed that every individual needs both to communicate
with others and to keep his affairs to himself. That dual aspect of privacy means that the
individual should have the freedom to select for himself the time and circumstances when he
will share his secrets with others and decide the extent of that sharing."), "with shame and
embarrassment," see Perlman V. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002),
vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970, 124 S.Ct. 1874, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), aff'd, 380 F.3d
110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (witnesses and third parties "possess strong privacy interests,
because being identified as part of a law enforcement investigation could subject them to
'embarrassments and harassment' "), "with the deviant and the taboo see Lawrence V.
Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (holding that persons in a
homosexual relationship may seek autonomy in their consensual sexual conduct in the home just
as heterosexual persons do), "and with subterfuge and concealment," see U.S. Dep't of Justice V.
Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774
(1989) (holding that an individual's interest in nondisclosure of an FBI rap sheet was the sort of
personal privacy interest that Congress intended FOIA law enforcement exemption to protect);
see Menand, supra at 6.
In the law, "privacy functions as a kind of default right when an injury has been inflicted and no
other right seems to suit the case." Menand, supra at 6. The right to privacy might emanate from
one or many Amendments to the Constitution. For example, the right prohibiting the
government from obtaining heat wave information from within one's home by way of
sense-enhancing technology not in general public use arises from notions of privacy rooted in
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, see Kyllo V. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34, 121 S.Ct. 2038,
150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), while the right of a woman, with certain exceptions, to pursue an
abortion beyond the state's police powers exists in the zones of privacy arising from the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705,
35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (holding that constitutional right of privacy is broad enough to
encompass woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, but that this right is
not absolute in that the state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life).
*7 The montage of privacy law that has developed around these disparate concepts does not lend
itself to easy determinations of privacy rights. Nevertheless, certain things enjoy an undisputed
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
20
EFTA00020560

=== Page 21 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d (2018)
right to privacy: trade secrets, see Kewanee Oil Co. V. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 475-76, 94
S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974) (the holder of a trade secret is protected against the
disclosure or unauthorized use of the trade secret); sexual activity (although of what kind it
remains to be determined), compare Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (making it
unconstitutional to criminalize homosexual relations) with Eisenstadt V. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92
S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972) (holding unconstitutional Massachusetts statute permitting
married persons to obtain contraceptives but prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to single
persons); and personal characteristics-such as the radiation of heat from one's home, Kyllo,
533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, and the unamplified sound of one's voice, Katz, 389 U.S. 347, 88
S.Ct. 507-which make up Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. These privacy rights, in the
context of this action, are balanced against the public's right to access rooted in First
Amendment and common law jurisprudence.
[5] [6] [7]There are two "related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court
records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker form based in
federal common law." Newsday LLC V. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013).
Generally, the public holds an affirmative, enforceable right of access to judicial records under
both the common law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "The presumption of
access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly
because they are independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have
confidence in the administration of justice." United States V. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d
Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II However, "the right to inspect judicial records is not absolute.
Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied
where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes" such as using records "to
gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous
statements for press consumption." Nixon V. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98
S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted) ("Courts have long declined to allow public access simply to cater
to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.").
[8|Pretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in their search for truth. See Hickman V. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (celebrating that "[t]he
deposition-discovery regime set out by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an extremely
permissive one to which courts have long "accorded a broad and liberal treatment to effectuate
their purpose that civil trials in the federal courts [need not] be carried on in the dark,' " and that
discovery is a powerful tool for "the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the
issues and facts before trial."). It is presumed that the trial itself will make the final
determination of truth or falsity. The boundary between discovery and trial is sometimes, as
here, blurred. The effort is assisted by the definition of "judicial documents."
[9] [10] [11]Whether discovery or trial, "a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are
indeed 'judicial documents.' Lugosch V. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
21
EFTA00020561

=== Page 22 ===
V. Maxwell, F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
2006); see also id. (noting that "only judicial documents are subject to a presumptive right of
public access, whether on common law or First Amendment grounds."). If the document is a
judicial document, courts next ask whether the presumption of access is a product of the
common law right of access, or of the more robust First Amendment right to access certain
judicial documents. Id. at 119-20. It is a given accepted by the Protective Order that the trial and
all trial documents are accessible and public absent special circumstances.
*8 [12] [13]Under the common law approach, once a document is classified as a judicial document,
the presumption of access attaches. Id. at 119. The court must then determine the weight of the
presumption of access, which is a function of "the role of the material at issue in the exercise of
Article III judicial power" and "the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the
federal courts." See id.; Stern V. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal
citations omitted) ("the court must determine the weight of the presumption, that is, whether the
presumption is an especially strong one that can be overcome only by extraordinary
circumstances or whether the presumption is a low one that amounts to little more than a
prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason or whether the presumption is
somewhere in between."). Documents traditionally fall somewhere on a continuum "from
matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely
to ensure their irrelevance." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. Such a presumption under the common
law may be overcome by demonstrating that sealing serves to further other "substantial
interests," such as "a third party's personal privacy interests, the public's safety, or preservation
of attorney-client privilege." Under Seal V. Under Seal, 273 F.Supp.3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y.
2017) (collecting cases).
[14] [15]However, the First Amendment "provides the public and the press a constitutional right of
access to all trials, criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. V. Virginia,
448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) ) (internal citation omitted). This
right applies specifically to "related proceedings and records" and "protects the public against
the government's arbitrary interference with access to important information." N.Y. Civil
Liberties Union V. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). As
noted above, the Protective Order specified that confidential material would not be protected
with respect to any document proffered at trial.
The Second Circuit has recognized two approaches for determining whether the First
Amendment right of access extends to particular judicial records. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. In
the first approach, the "logic and experience" test, a court evaluates whether the documents are
those that "have historically been open to the press and general public" and for which "public
access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."
Id. Courts applying the "logic and experience" test have generally found a presumption of
openness, based on the common law approach. Hartford Courant Co. V. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d
83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004).
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
22
EFTA00020562

=== Page 23 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
In the second approach, First Amendment protection attaches to judicial documents "derived
from or a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings." Id. at 93.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit has found "the right to inspect [judicial] documents derives
from the public nature of particular tribunals." Id.; see also id. (observing that "[o]ther circuits
that have addressed [the] question have construed the constitutional right of access to apply to
written documents submitted in connection with judicial proceedings that themselves implicate
the right of access.").
[16] [17] ¹⁸To be clear, the First Amendment creates only a presumptive right of access. Newsday,
730 F.3d at 164-65. "What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to do so without
sufficient justification." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union, 684 F.3d at 296. Under either approach, a
presumptive right of access may be overcome by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is
necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve
that aim." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124. The party seeking to keep the judicial documents under
seal carries the burden of demonstrating that higher values overcome the presumption of public
access, DiRussa V. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997), and such a
showing must be supported by "findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine
whether the closure order was properly entered." Press-Enter. Co. V. Superior Court of Cal.,
Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984).
IV. The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied
*9 [19]The parties early on agreed that the release of confidential information inherent to the
discovery process could expose the parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression given
the highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations. The parties mutually assented to
entering into the Protective Order. The parties relied upon its provisions, as did dozens of
witnesses and other non-parties. Documents designated confidential included a range of
allegations of sexual acts involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous,
some not; the identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff
or who allegedly facilitated such acts; Plaintiff's sexual history and prior allegations of sexual
assault; and Plaintiff's medical history. The Protective Order has maintained the confidentiality
of these sensitive materials. One hundred sixty-seven discovery documents were added to the
docket and sealed pursuant to the Protective Order.
Further, upon the issuance of an opinion by this Court, the parties were directed to jointly file a
proposed redacted version consistent with the Protective Order as set forth above. The parties
submitted the Redacted Opinion to maintain the confidentiality established by the Protective
Order.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
23
EFTA00020563

=== Page 24 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
Except as discussed below, the documents sealed in the course of discovery were neither relied
upon by this Court in the rendering of an adjudication, nor "necessary to or helpful in resolving
[a] motion." See Alexander Interactive, Inc. V. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608 (PKC) (JCF),
2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014). Moreover, our Circuit has "long recognized
that documents 'passed between the parties in discovery[ ] lie entirely beyond the reach' of
the presumption of public access." United States V. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 139
(2d Cir. 2017); see also Sec. Exch. Comm'n V. Am. Int'l Grp., 712 F.3d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
("[T]hough filing a document with the court is not sufficient to render the document a judicial
record, it is very much a prerequisite."). To provide "unthinkable access to every item turned up
in the course of litigation would be unthinkable." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048. Accordingly, the
motion to unseal the discovery documents is denied.
V. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents
[20] ¹²¹|Under the common law and First Amendment, the primary inquiry is whether the
documents at issue are "judicial documents." To be a judicial document, "the item filed must be
relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," Lugosch,
435 F.3d at 119; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d at 134 ("The threshold merits question in
this case is whether the [sealed document] is a judicial document, as only judicial documents are
subject to a presumptive right of public access, whether on common law or First Amendment
grounds."). In making such a determination, courts consider the "relevance of the document's
specific contents to the nature of the proceeding" and the degree to which "access to the
document would materially assist the public in understanding the issues before the court, and
in evaluating the fairness and integrity of the court's proceedings." Bernstein V. Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Newsday LLC, 730
F.3d at 166-67) (alteration omitted).
[22] 1231Documents filed with the court vary in their status as 'judicial documents.' At one end of
the continuum, "[t]he mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render
that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access." United States V. Amodeo, 44
F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I "). Likewise, the filing of "deposition transcripts,
interrogatories, and documents exchanged in discovery" with a court is not sufficient to reach
the status of judicial document, and to consider them as such "would constitute a radical
expansion of the 'public access' doctrine." HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d at 139 (citing
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048); accord Joy V. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) ("Discovery
involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate
or titillate the public. Private matters which are discoverable may, upon a showing of cause, be
put under seal under Rule 26(c), in the first instance."). At the other end, the "case law is clear
that pleadings and summary judgment papers are judicial documents upon filing." Id. at
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
24
EFTA00020564

=== Page 25 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
141-42. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that all documents submitted in support of a
motion for summary judgment, whether or not relied upon, "are unquestionably judicial
documents under the common law." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. The same applies for complaints.
See Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 140 (internal citation omitted) ("A complaint, which initiates judicial
proceedings, is the cornerstone of every case, the very architecture of the lawsuit, and access to
the complaint is almost always necessary if the public is to understand a court's decision.").
*10 ¹²⁴|Somewhere in the middle lie documents "submitted in support of a motion to compel
discovery [which] presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion. They
are, therefore, judicial documents." Alexander Interactive, Inc., 2014 WL 4346174, at *2; see
also In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 4483 (RCC) (MHD), 2006 WL 3016311,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) (internal citation omitted) (finding that a "series of letter briefs
with accompanying exhibits certainly qualify as judicial documents" because they are
"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.").
[25]The Summary Judgment Opinion refers to facts drawn from Maxwell's Memorandum of Law
in Support of Maxwell's Motion for Summary Judgment; Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of
Material Facts;
Statement of Contested Facts and
Undisputed Facts; and
Maxwell's Reply to
Statement of Contested Facts and
Undisputed Facts
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (the "Factual Statements").
The Factual Statements, citing the evidence upon which they rely, formed the basis of or the
recital of both uncontested and disputed material facts contained in the Summary Judgment
Opinion. The recital and the Factual Statements constitute the evidentiary mirror of the issues
presented by the Complaint. That recital described the issues to be resolved at trial, if, as was the
case, the summary judgment was denied. This portion of the Summary Judgment Opinion and
the Factual Statements (the "Summary Judgment Judicial Documents") reveals the substance of
the evidence jointly deemed confidential by the parties. It was therefore redacted by the parties.
²⁶¹As a matter of law, papers submitted in support of the summary judgment motion are
"judicial documents" triggering a presumption of access subject to balancing under the First
Amendment and common law if they "directly affect an adjudication." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123
("As a matter of law, we hold that the contested documents-by virtue of having been submitted
to the court as supporting material in connection with a motion for summary judgment-are
unquestionably judicial documents under the common law."). The Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents are therefore judicial documents subject to a presumption of access.
VI. The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
25
EFTA00020565

=== Page 26 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
[27]Intervenors contend that the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents should be unsealed
because they carry a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and
common law, and there are no compelling reasons to keep them sealed.
[28]Because it has been determined that the Summary Judgment Opinion and the materials
submitted in connection with it are judicial documents, the weight of the presumption under the
common law must be determined, in addition to any countervailing factors. See Bernstein, 814
F.3d at 143 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20) (internal quotation marks omitted) (noting that
the final step of the inquiry as to the summary judgment papers is the
"weight-of-the-presumption analysis: balancing the value of public disclosure and
countervailing factors.").
Intervenors assert that because Defendant's motion for summary judgment fits squarely into the
definition of a judicial document, those materials are entitled to the strongest presumption of
access. Maxwell contends that the Intervenors are not in a position to determine the weight of
the presumption afforded each summary judgment document because they have not seen each
document.
*11 ²⁹¹While the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents are entitled to a presumption of
access, this presumption is less "where a district court denied the summary judgment motion,
essentially postponing a final determination of substantive legal rights, [because] the public
interest in access is not as pressing." See Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (quoting In re Reporters
Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1342 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis in original) (alteration added) ). Because the motion for summary
judgment was denied by the Court on March 22, 2017, the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents are entitled to a lesser presumption of access.
(301"Notwithstanding the presumption of access under both the common law and the First
Amendment, the documents may be kept under seal if "countervailing factors' in the common
law framework or 'higher values' in the First Amendment framework so demand." Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 125. At common law, the presumption of access may be overcome by demonstrating that
"sealing will further other substantial interests such as a third party's personal privacy interests,
the public's safety, or preservation of attorney-client privilege." Under Seal, 273 F.Supp.3d at
467; see Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (describing law enforcement interests and privacy of third
persons as factors that weigh against the presumption of access); United States V. Aref, 533 F.3d
72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming a sealing order "[g]iven the legitimate national-security
concerns at play"); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125 (stating that attorney-client privilege "might well
be a compelling reason" to overcome the presumption of access); see also Sec. Exch. Comm'n
V. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 234 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that where the presumption in favor
of public access does not apply, and a document was filed under seal pursuant to a protective
order, "a strong presumption against public access" applies if a party to the protective order
objects on privacy grounds and establishes "reasonabl[e] reli[ance] on the protective order.").
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
26
EFTA00020566

=== Page 27 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
Here, the primary countervailing factor is "the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure."
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050; see also Gardner V. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1990)
("[T]he common law right of access is qualified by recognition of the privacy rights of the
persons whose intimate relations may thereby be disclosed."). The Second Circuit has
repeatedly held that "[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a
court's balancing equation." Id. at 79-80; see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 ("Such interests,
while not always fitting comfortably under the rubric 'privacy,' are a venerable common law
exception to the presumption of access.").
[³¹]In assessing the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, "courts should first
consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than
public." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051. For example, "[f]inancial records of a wholly owned
business, family affairs, illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and
similar matters will weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial
portion of the public." Id.; but see United States V. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL
1572993, at *6 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2016) (emphasizing that "the expectation of privacy in
an amorous relationship where official government business and personal benefit are intertwined
is necessarily less than an amorous relationship between wholly private citizens or between a
private citizen and a government official where there is no intersection with state business. In
the case of the former, there is the ever-present risk of public scrutiny and a legitimate public
interest in ensuring that government officials are acting in the public's interest rather than in the
private interest of a paramour.").
*12 This is a defamation case involving the truth or falsity of the underlying allegations of the
sexual assault and sexual trafficking of minors involving public and private persons. The
Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these allegations in
comprehensive detail. This establishes a strong privacy interest here.
The "nature and degree of injury must also be weighed," which means that consideration must
also be given to "the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of how the person
seeking access intends to use the information." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051.
The privacy interests of Maxwell,
Dershowitz, as well as dozens of third persons, all of
whom relied upon the promise of secrecy outlined in the Protective Order and enforced by the
Court, have been implicated. It makes no difference that
and Dershowitz have chosen to
waive their privacy interests to the underlying confidential information by supporting this
motion, as Maxwell has not agreed to such a waiver.
More importantly, the dozens of non-parties who provided highly confidential information
relating to their own stories provided that information in reliance on the Protective Order and the
understanding that it would continue to protect everything it claimed it would. This interest is
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
27
EFTA00020567

=== Page 28 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
amplified where, as here, the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents "contain sensitive and
personal information about the sexual abuse of [ ] minor[s]." Kavanagh V. Zwilling, 997
F.Supp.2c 241, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). To disregard this protection now would be to implicate the
rights of dozens of individuals who shared private information under the trusted understanding
that it would remain sealed. See Gardner, 895 F.2d at 79 ("[T]he privacy interests of innocent
third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure of the Title III
material should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation The job of protecting such
interests rests heavily with the trial judge, since all the parties who may be harmed by disclosure
are typically not before the court.").
The same considerations apply under the First Amendment, where the "presumption is
rebuttable upon demonstration that suppression 'is essential to preserve higher values and is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.' Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting
Press-Enterprise Co. V. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct.
819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) (internal citation omitted). What must be determined is the "harm
to a compelling interest," Under Seal, 273 F.Supp.3d at 469, balanced against, in this case, a
generalized public interest. So long as "specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating
that 'closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,'
" the documents may be sealed. In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing
Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. at 510, 104 S.Ct. 819).
The compelling interest is the privacy interest discussed above. It is also the integrity of the
judicial process.
The parties by their conduct have demonstrated reliance on the Protective Order and its
provisions. It is not necessary to have forty years of judicial experience to know that reliance on
the confidentiality agreement with respect to the evidence relating to the truth or falsity of the
allegations was a significant, if not determinative, factor in the confidential settlement
arrived at. That one of the parties to that settlement,
, no longer opposes unsealing does
not vitiate the strength of the agreement. Indeed given the entire context of the litigation it may
demonstrate the need to compel the parties to stick to their bargain. See id. (noting that this
Circuit is instructed to "give added weight to fair trial and privacy interests where requiring
disclosure will have a potential chilling effect on future movants.").
*13 While the Intervenors cite to the public interest, there are no particulars identified that point
to the need for evidence gathered from the period from 2015 to 2016 concerning events that
took place over 15 years ago. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125 ("Notwithstanding the presumption
of public access the documents may be kept under seal if 'higher values' in the First
Amendment framework so demand.").
Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Nixon V. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 589,
98 S.Ct. 1306, "courts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
28
EFTA00020568

=== Page 29 ===
V. Maxwell, --- F.Supp.3d ==== (2018)
spite or promote public scandal, and have refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of
libelous statements for press consumption." (internal quotation marks omitted).
The unsealing of the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents would both promote scandal
arising out of unproven potentially libelous statements-particularly in light of the allegations
relating to the sexual abuse of minors by public figures, and defeat the compelling privacy
interests of the parties and non-parties who relied on the Protective Order.
In light of the above, the "extraordinary circumstances," Stern, 529 F.Supp.2d at 420, have been
established. The common law and First Amendment presumptions of access have been
outweighed in favor of maintaining the sealing agreed upon by the parties and relied upon by
third parties.
VII. Conclusion
Based on the facts and conclusions set forth above, the Intervenors' motion to intervene is
granted, and this motion to unseal is denied and the action is closed.
It is so ordered.
All Citations
--- F.Supp.3d ----, 2018 WL 4062649
End of Document
© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
29
EFTA00020569


c1: EFTA00021638
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021638.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Moyer, Thomas"
To: Andrew Stemmer
"Moyne, Parvin"
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bank Production (SDNY)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:44:53 +0000
-Per Andrew's email, I can confirm that we are planning to submit a further production today. Parvin and I
would also be happy to have a call to discuss next steps--please let us know if there are some times
that would be convenient later today or on Monday.
Best,
Tom
Sent via Mobile Device
Original message
From: Andrew Stemmer
Date: 7/19/19 12:51 AM (GMT-05:00)
To:
Cc:
"Moyne, Parvin"
>, "Moyer, Thomas"
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bank Production (SDNY)
EXTERNAL Email
-
Thanks for reaching out. I am currently out of the country, but am flying back today. I've copied in Tom Moyer
who has been primarily assisting us with this matter while Parvin has been out of the country. I believe we are
preparing a subsequent production for SDNY to be produced shortly, but Tom will confirm and let you know
about timing.
I understand that Epstein had an initial client advisor who is no longer with the bank, but there was coverage
over the relationship after he left. Tom and Parvin should be able to give you info on this point and how we can
coordinate an interview(s) as you describe, ASAP.
I will also be back later today/this evening if you would like to speak directly.
Best regards,
Andrew
On Jul 19, 2019, at 5:21 AM,
wrote:
EFTA00021638

=== Page 2 ===
Andrew,
Following up on our discussions last week, we wanted to follow up on the status and expected timing of continued
rolling productions in response to the subpoena in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. Could you please let us know?
Separately, I imagine-though of course please correct me if this is wrong-that for Mr. Epstein there was an individual
or team responsible for managing the relationship. We would like to get a sense of his banking history generally, in
terms of how he utilized his accounts, what types of financial activities he engaged in, etc., separate from just the
documents themselves (which it sounds like will be extremely voluminous and include more than 60 separate
accounts). Please let us know how we can best facilitate that kind of discussion with a knowledgeable person or
persons?
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient (or have received this communication in error) please notify the sender immediately and
destroy this communication. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
communication is strictly forbidden.
Please refer to https://db.com/disclosures for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures.
Deutsche Bank does not render legal or tax advice, and the information contained in this
communication should not be regarded as such.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-
mail, and delete the original message.
EFTA00021639


c1: EFTA00021288
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021288.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Team Meeting
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:21:19 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00021288


c1: EFTA00021877
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021877.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: delivery of hard drive to MDC for discovery production to inmate
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 21:54:32 +0000
- feel free to respond directly, or if you'd prefer it go through us, no problem just let us know. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 17:49
Subject: RE: delivery of hard drive to MDC for discovery production to inmate
Good evening
Just confirming - - did you use FedEx, USPS, or some other carrier to send the discovery here? I have not received it yet, but it
could just be that staff did not notify me a package arrived. Depending on the carrier, it could be in the warehouse or
mailroom, so I just want to verify so I can find it expeditiously.
Thanks!
8/5/2020 7:13 PM >>>
That's extremely helpful, thanks so much. We'll plan to put the drive in the mail tomorrow, and of course please let us
know if any issues arise.
thanks again,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 19:05
Subject: RE: delivery of hard drive to MDC for discovery production to inmate
Hard drives should be mailed to the facility to the attention of the legal department. We need to etch the drive with a
number and provide an authorization memo so she can retain it. Then it will be provided to her. It can be password
protected so long as you include a cover letter that contains the password for her.
Hope this helps,
8/5/2020 4:34 PM >>>
EFTA00021877

=== Page 2 ===
We have a hard drive with loaded discovery that we need to deliver to Ghislaine Maxwell,
at MDC. Could you
please let us know what the current protocol is for that? Also, it's our understanding that hard drives with discovery
materials for inmates needs to be non-encrypted (and not have a password for access), is that also correct?
We're hoping to get these materials to her tomorrow if at all possible, so we greatly appreciate your help. And I'm
reachable any time at
it would be helpful to discuss.
thanks,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00021878


c1: EFTA00020990
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020990.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov" <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
To:
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: 20-3061 United States of America V. Maxwell "Appendix FILED"
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 23:49:35 +0000
Embedded: 20-3061_United_States_of_America_v_Maxwell_"Appendix_FILED".msg
Sender: cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov
Subject: 20-3061 United States of America V. Maxwell "Appendix FILED"
Message-Id: <1517959475.4269.1600991368707.JavaMail.ecf_web@ca2db.ca2.gtwy.dcn>
Recipient:
EFTA00020990


c1: EFTA00022171
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022171.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Jason Mojica Proffer (Ordered) (re Epstein)
Start Date: 2019-09-10 16:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-09-10 17:30:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location: 500 Pearl Street - Q
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2019-12-13 05:33:07 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-12-13 05:33:07 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-09-04 16:05:15 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00022171


c1: EFTA00020624
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020624.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event:
/Epstein Meet
Start Date: 2019-07-25 14:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-07-25 15:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
(USANYS)
Location: First Floor Conference Room
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2019-07-24 23:52:51 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-07-24 23:52:51 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-07-24 21:11:52 +0000
Attendee:
(USANYS)
i
)
i
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
I
Reminder
EFTA00020624


c1: EFTA00021064
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021064.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Sigrid McCawley
Cc:
Subject: Re: USVI
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:35:55 +0000
Got it, thank you.
On Feb 5, 2020, at 15:08, Sigrid McCawley
wrote:
Hello
You may have already seen this but just in case you did not - on p. 13 of the attached which was filed by the Epstein
Estate in the USVI you can see that Maxwell's lawyers at Haddon Morgan submitted a 621K bill to the estate for
payment. As you know, Maxwell previously testified that Epstein was not paying for anything associated with her or any
litigation.
Attached above.
Best,
Sigrid
Sigrid McCawley
Partner
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
(t)
(m)
www.bsfllp.com
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information
that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1
08201831BSF
<DS First Quarterly Account.pdf>
EFTA00021064


c1: EFTA00023047
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023047.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
V.
:
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
NOTICE OF MOTION
:
Defendant.
:
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
:
:
X
DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS
FIVE AND SIX
(Pretrial Motion # 3)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law and
exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, respectfully moves to suppress under
the due process clause all evidence obtained from the government's subpoena to Boies Schiller
and to dismiss Counts Five and Six.
Dated: January 25, 2021
New York, New York
EFTA00023047

=== Page 2 ===
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
Denver, CO 80203
Phone:
Mark S. Cohen
Christian R. Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
New York, NY 10022
Phone:
Bobbi C. Sternheim
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10011
Phone:
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
1
EFTA00023048


c1: EFTA00021373
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021373.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
Subject: RE: Question re Epstein Relativity Database
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:19:24 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Hello
Please make sure to use the file path field which will contain the NYC number. Please see screenshot below:
1
- 200/1,828,275
200
>
per page
REDM
Thank you.
Chris.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:06 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: Question re Epstein Relativity Database
H
In the "US V. Epstein (SW Returns)" I'm trying to see the NYC serial number reflecting which device a particular document came from. In the past,
you helped me add a column in Relativity to show the NYC serial number for each document. Would you be able to help me with that again, please?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00021373


c1: EFTA00021018
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021018.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: Maxwell motions 2 of 3
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 18:11:41 +0000
Attachments: 1.25.2021_Filing_2.zip
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 6:12 PM
To:
Subject: Maxwell motions 2 of 3
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00021018


c1: EFTA00020689
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020689.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Subject: Epstein Travel
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:44:23 +0000
Importance: Normal
Looks like the relevant airport codes here are:
KTEB and TEB are both codes for Teterboro Airport, New Jersey
CYYR is Goose Bay Airport in Newfoundland
LFPB is Paris
TIST is the Virgin Islands
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00020689


c1: EFTA00021636
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021636.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Andrew Stemmer
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
)"
>, "Moyne, Parvin"
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bank Production (SDNY)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 04:51:31 +0000
-
Thanks for reaching out. I am currently out of the country, but am flying back today. I've copied in Tom Moyer
who has been primarily assisting us with this matter while Parvin has been out of the country. I believe we are
preparing a subsequent production for SDNY to be produced shortly, but Tom will confirm and let you know
about timing.
I understand that Epstein had an initial client advisor who is no longer with the bank, but there was coverage
over the relationship after he left. Tom and Parvin should be able to give you info on this point and how we can
coordinate an interview(s) as you describe, ASAP.
I will also be back later today/this evening if you would like to speak directly.
Best regards,
Andrew
On Jul 19, 2019, at 5:21 AM,
)
wrote:
Andrew,
Following up on our discussions last week, we wanted to follow up on the status and expected timing of continued
rolling productions in response to the subpoena in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. Could you please let us know?
Separately, I imagine-though of course please correct me if this is wrong-that for Mr. Epstein there was an individual
or team responsible for managing the relationship. We would like to get a sense of his banking history generally, in
terms of how he utilized his accounts, what types of financial activities he engaged in, etc., separate from just the
documents themselves (which it sounds like will be extremely voluminous and include more than 60 separate
accounts). Please let us know how we can best facilitate that kind of discussion with a knowledgeable person or
persons?
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00021636

=== Page 2 ===
This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient (or have received this communication in error) please notify the sender immediately and
destroy this communication. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
communication is strictly forbidden.
Please refer to https://db.com/disclosures. for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures.
Deutsche Bank does not render legal or tax advice, and the information contained in this
communication should not be regarded as such.
EFTA00021637


c1: EFTA00021191
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021191.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY
TECS - Person Encounter List
09/21/2021 11:34 EDT
Generated By:
Page 1 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrie
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Updated
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
r
Num.
Status
Loc
Loc
Code
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
01/21/2000
00
505LS
I
A523
AIRLINE
23:35
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/18/1999
PV
1
I
A511
AIRLINE
16:26
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
10/02/1999
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:00
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
09/10/1999
AF
6
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
15:15
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/14/1999
PV
908JE
I
A511
AIRLINE
19:26
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/01/1999
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:42
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/15/1999
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:10
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
04/28/1999
BA
113
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:54
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
03/25/1999
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:23
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
01/17/1999
SA
203
I
A524
AIRLINE
05:17
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
12/13/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:22
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
11/07/1998
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:27
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
10/03/1998
AA
412
I
A511
AIRLINE
12:28
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
08/30/1998
AA
672
I
A511
AIRLINE
13:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
07/24/1998
AA
1672
I
A511
AIRLINE
13:48
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
07/20/1998
BA
113
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
19:30
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
06/07/1998
AA
5567
I
A511
AIRLINE
18:48
(NOT
API)
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00021191

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY DISTON
TECS - Person Encounter List
09/21/2021 11:34 EDT
Generated By:
Page 2 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrie
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Updated
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
r
Num.
Status
Loc
Loc
Code
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
05/30/1998
AF
8
I
4701
APIS
JFK
CDG
20:41
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
05/17/1998
CO
29
I
A103
AIRLINE
INS
14:13
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
03/20/1998
BA
1
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
09:15
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
02/28/1998
00
90
I
A523
AIRLINE
20:29
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
01/19/1998
00
9
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:39
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/25/1997
00
0000001
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:14
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
12/23/1997
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:36
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
12/06/1997
RG
0000868
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:34
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
11/10/1997
00
1
I
A523
AIRLINE
17:08
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
10/17/1997
vs
0000001
I
A103
AIRLINE
18:15
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
08/06/1997
I
A520
AIRLINE
15:07
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
06/23/1997
I
A475
AIRLINE
17:41
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
05/31/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:52
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
05/27/1997
I
A520
AIRLINE
16:50
(NOT
API)
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
P
03/19/1997
BA
3
I
4701
APIS
JFK
LHR
18:07
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
A
02/06/1997
BA
3
I
A472
AIRLINE
18:03
(NOT
API)
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00021192

=== Page 3 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SECURITY DISTON
TECS - - Person Encounter List
09/21/2021 11:34 EDT
Generated By
Page 3 of 3
Last Name
First Name
DOB
Doc
Document
Date - Time
Carrie
Carrier
I/O
Site
Insp
Type
Status
Updated
Ref
Arr
Dep
Type
Number
(Eastern)
r
Num.
Status
Loc
Loc
Code
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE
01/25/1997
I
A523
AIRLINE
18:56
(NOT
API)
Total Number of Records: 34
Legend
Loc
Codes
Value
LHR
LONDON / HEATHROW INTL
CDG
PARIS, CH. DE GAULLE
JFK
JOHN F KENNEDY INTL
Doc Type
Codes
Value
P
P - PASSPORT
A
A - U.S. ALIEN REGISTRATION CARD
Site Code
Codes
Value
A472
A472 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 7
A524
A524 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT CNTRL TERML
A511
A511 - CBP-CYRIL E KING, INTL AIRPORT
A523
A523 - CBP-PALM BEACH, INTERNATIONAL
4701
4701 - 4701
A520
A520 - CBP-MIAMI, AIRPORT N TERMINAL
A103
A103 - CBP-NEWARK, INTL AIR TERM B
A475
A475 - NEW YORK, JFK AIRPORT, TERM 3
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00021193


c1: EFTA00022084
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022084.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Maxwell investigation, prosecution memo
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:00:10 +0000
Yep
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2020, at 1:12 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
You too?
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
)"
Date: April 11, 2020 at 1:08:56 PM EDT
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Maxwell investigation, prosecution memo
Same, thanks
On Apr 11, 2020, at 1:03 PM,
)
wrote:
Same here.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2020, at 12:41 PM,
)
wrote:
Works for me
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2020, at 12:31,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Good for everyone?
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00022084

=== Page 2 ===
Begin forwarded message:
From
(USANYS)"
Date: April 11, 2020 at 10:00:40 AM EDT
To:
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
i
)"
Subject: Re: Maxwell investigation, prosecution memo
Thanks, team. Let's set up a conference call at 1pm on Wednesday to discuss. Does that time work for
everyone?
On Apr 10, 2020, at 11:43 PM,
)
wrote:
All,
Attached please find the prosecution memo for the Ghislaine Maxwell investigation. The team will be working
on a draft indictment, but we wanted to submit the memo as soon as it was completed.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York NY 10007
<2020-04-10 GM prosecution memo..pdf>
EFTA00022085


c1: EFTA00020865
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020865.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Weinstein, Marc A."
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:03:20 +0000
I connected with Jack Scarola last week. I just sent him an email to confirm that we can provide you with the
transcript. Once we receive confirmation from him, we will send you the transcript.
Best regards,
Marc
MarcA.Weinstein|Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback ;
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Hi Marc,
Hope you're doing well. I wanted to check in on the status of this issue - have you been able to connect with Mr. Scarola?
Thanks,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:54 PM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Thanks
I will give him a call.
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
EFTA00020865

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
is
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks for following up on this. If it's okay with you, I think it makes sense to connect you with the plaintiff's attorney,
Jack Scarola, so that he can convey this to you directly. I have spoken with him and explained the context here, and he has
told me that he would be happy to speak with you. He is also seeking a copy of the transcript, as he has informed me that
he no longer has his case files for matters this old. Here is his contact information:
Jack Scarola
Thank you,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:24 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
We haven't found a governing protective order, but to be safe, would you be able to get a letter or email from
attorney stating that they are not aware of a protective order/agreement governing the disclosure of the transcript, and
to the extent one existed, they are waiving any provisions in order to permit the Estate to provide the transcript to the US
Attorney's Office, and that they will not claim, in any forum, that the Co-Executors, the Estate, or any representatives of
either, breached any such order/agreement in that case by providing the transcript to the US Attorney's Office.
Let us know if that works on your end.
Best regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:01 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
is
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Hi Marc,
Thanks - we have conferred with plaintiff's counsel, who has informed us that he is unaware of any protective order
relating to the
awsuit.
Best,
EFTA00020866

=== Page 3 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:07 PM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
is
>;
Subject: Re: SDNY investigation
we are still looking to see what confidentiality restrictions might apply. If her lawyer has any such confidentiality or
protective order that governed the case, it might be helpful if you could obtain and share that.
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
On Sep 14, 2020, at 11:56 AM,
wrote:
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks very much. Are you able to provide it to us? If there are any issues with providing it to us, or if a call would be
useful to discuss, please let us know.
Thanks,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:51 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
is
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
we have the transcript of Ms.
deposition.
Regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
is
is
EFTA00020867

=== Page 4 ===
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Thanks, Marc. We'll look forward to hearing from you, and thanks for your assistance with this.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:35 PM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
i
>;
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Thanks
It wasn't clear to me from the call that it was the plaintiff's deposition that you were after, as opposed to
another witness in the case. Now that it's clear, we will see if we can track it down.
Regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
i
is
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks for speaking earlier. The plaintiff's name is
who is represented by Jack Scarola. The deposition
took place in 2009, and Jeffrey Epstein was represented by Mark Luttier and Bob Critton of Critton, Luttier, and Coleman
LLP in West Palm Beach.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 11:11 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
i
>;
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
I just realized that you didn't share with us the deponent's name for the transcript you are looking for. Let us know
so that we can make the appropriate inquiries.
Best regards,
Marc
EFTA00020868

=== Page 5 ===
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
That works well, thanks very much. Talk to you then.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:13 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
>;
Subject: Re: SDNY investigation
if 11:00 works, I can send a dial-in.
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 10:46 AM,
wrote:
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Andy and Marc,
Are you available for a brief call tomorrow? I'm available before 1 p.m., if there's a time that works for you in that window.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00020869


c1: EFTA00021982
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021982.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bec:
Subject: RE: Robert Adams Discovery
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:09:28 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Robert_Adams_Discovery.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Robert Adams Discovery
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB05410910CB35BEEEEDEB91B68C050@SN5P110MB0541.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
To:
To:
Cc:
EFTA00021982


c1: EFTA00023502
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023502.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
Subject: 2020-08-12 GM letter to defense counsel re discovery.docx
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:18:57 +0000
Attachments: 2020-08-12_GM_letter_to_defense_counsel_re_discovery.docx
minor suggestions - thank you!
EFTA00023502


c1: EFTA00023274
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023274.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Subject: FW: travel approval request
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:47:01 +0000
Importance: High
Inline-Images: image001.png
This is the flight I just asked
to book for me, FYI.
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:46 PM
To:
>;
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Importance: High
the Delta departing flight you chose leaving LGA at 9:00am, arriving in Pensacola, FL at 12:49pm is not refundable, so
you'll need to choose another flight option. While checking out your flight options, I found a flight that will get you into
Pensacola, FL around the same time as your preferred option that's fully refundable. The difference is that the flight
leaves at 8:11am instead of 9:00am. I've placed the departing flight below for your review.
American Airlines
Contract carrier
Feb 19
ew York, NY (LGA), 8:11 AM
harlotte, NC (CLT), 10:35 AM
3 miles
A 1252
bach Lowest available including Penalty fares.
rbus A319
eview seat map
Layover (55m)
Charlotte, NC (CLT)
American Airlines
Contract carrier
Feb 19
harlotte, NC (CLT), 11:30 AM
ensacola, FL (PNS), 12:23 PM
10 miles
5298 (Operated by PSA AIRLINES AS AMERICAN
AGLE)
bach Lowest available including Penalty fares.
RJ900
eview seat map
Top of Form
All available fares for Option 28
$161.70
CA
Govt contract fare limited availability
Bottom of Form
Please let me know if you would like me to reserve this flight instead and l'll continue with your reservation. Thanks as
always.
EFTA00023274

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY)
Legal Assistant, Public Corruption
From:
)
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:26 PM
To:
is
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Apologies for the slight delay yesterday on this travel, we had a witness scheduling issue so the travel will be a day later
than originally anticipated. The city is Pensacola, Florida, and it will be me and
(rather than
and
).
if you could please book me on the following flights:
Feb. 19: Delta, LGA to PNS, 9:00 a.m. (arriving 12:49 p.m.)
Feb. 20: Delta, PNS to LGA, 4:06 p.m. (arriving 9:41 p.m.)
And the following hotel, for the night of Feb. 19:
-
Hilton Garden Inn (listed in E2 as "HGI PENSACOLA AIRPORT MEDICAL")
We will also need a conference room at the Hilton Garden Inn for February 19, starting at 5:00 p.m. for three hours (or for
the entire day, if that's the only way they'll do it).
Please let us know if any questions or issues, and thanks as always.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 09:02
To:
>;
i
i
Cc:
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Hi,
Which specific city will the hotel be in?
If
could push the travel authorizations thru to
& I today, that would be great As well as sending the
conference room payment request to
Remember to take the FL tax exempt form along with you.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2020, at 6:43 AM,
wrote:
EFTA00023275

=== Page 3 ===
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2020, at 7:53 PM,
)
wrote:
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618),
and I would like to please
request permission for the two of us to travel next week for an interview of a witness in Pensacola, Florida on 2/19.
We'd plan to fly down on 2/18 and fly back on 2/19. Also, similar to prior requests, we'd like to request approval to get
a conference room on 2/19.
Thank you,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:56 PM
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Approved
From:
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:49 PM
To:
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), but with an added international
element, we'd like to please request permission for the team to travel next week for an interview near Stockholm,
Sweden, next week on January 29th and/or 30th. We expect to be traveling, respectively, some combination of the
27th (overnight) to the 31st, depending on when the interview ends up being scheduled, and we'll put final dates on
our formal applications. Also similar to prior trips, we'd like to request approval to get a conference room for one of
those days at a hotel for the interview itself.
Also based on our discussion earlier we'll be mindful of looking for domestic (or domestic-flagged) carrier flights, as
well as the costs of any alternatives, in looking at possible specific bookings. Thanks as always for your help and input
on that.
thank you,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 09:58
To:
EFTA00023276

=== Page 4 ===
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission for the team to travel next week for an interview (or possibly interviews) in Los Angeles on December 16
and/or 17. We expect to be traveling, respectively, some combination of the 15th to the 18th. Also similar to prior
trips, we'd like to request approval to get a conference room for one of those days.
thank you,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 16:53
To:
Cc:
is
)
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission for the team to travel next week for an interview in Los Angeles on November 14. We expect to be
traveling, respectively, some combination of the 13th to the 15th (and no conference room necessary for this trip).
thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 13:55
To:
>
Cc:
is
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission to travel next week for an interview in West Palm Beach on November 4. It will just be me and
and we'll travel some combination of the 3rd to the 5th. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to
reserve a conference room at the hotel on that Monday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 14:51
To:
EFTA00023277

=== Page 5 ===
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request permission to travel next
week for a victim interview in Los Angeles. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Wednesday and return no
later than Friday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows). The trip will be some combination of me,
and/or
as previously. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a conference
room at the hotel on Thursday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:57
To:
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation, we'd like to please request permission to travel for approximately
three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly
down Tuesday night and return on Wednesday or Thursday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling
allows).
Unfortunately we're still trying to pin down timing for interviewing the victims, so depending on the timing it will
either be me and
or
and
but we wanted to ask for permission now either way so we weren't
doing it super last minute after the holiday on Tuesday. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to
reserve a conference room at the hotel for the interviews, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:57
To:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Thank you
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:46
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
EFTA00023278

=== Page 6 ===
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:02 PM,
wrote:
For the same case as below, United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of minors
for sexual activity,
and I would like to please request permission to travel for approximately three days next
week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Tuesday
night and return on Friday, though we will shorten the timeframe if scheduling allows.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 18:32
To:
Cc:
Subject: travel approval request
and I would like to please request permission for travel for United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an
investigation relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity, for two days of meetings and interviews in West
Palm Beach and/or Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of now we're hoping to fly down next Wednesday night and return
on Saturday.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00023279


c1: EFTA00021286
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021286.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein Team Meeting
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:58:04 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00021286


c1: EFTA00021521
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021521.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. GPO: 2016-395-373
FD-597 (Rev. 4-13-2015)
Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Receipt for Property
Case ID: 31E-N4-3027571
On (date) July 4, 2019
item (s) listed below were:
x
Collected/Seized
Received From
Returned To
Released To
(Name) Jeffrey E Epstein
(Street Address)
(City) New York, New York
Description of Item (s): U.S. Virgin Islands Driver's License, number
Florida Driver's License, number
U.S. Passport, number
LUMI-NOX Swiss Made Series 3050/3950 Watch
U.S. Passport Red Cover/Case
Phone in Red Case
Wallet (American Express Card, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Card,
2 Medicare Health Insurance Card, United HealthCare Card, $500.00 Cash,
Yellow Post-It Note with writing)
Receipt from Department of Homeland Security for Detention Notice and
Custody Receipt for Detained Preperty, No. 1626388
IPad Model A1652, Serial DLXQGM3KGMW3
CJV
Received By:
Received From:
(Signature)
Printed Name/Title: Special Agent
Printed
Till Name/Title: Good (Signature)
EFTA00021521


c1: EFTA00022055
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022055.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
STATE
STATES
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
October 19, 2020
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
The password for the drive containing discovery materials pertinent to Ghislaine Maxwell
(02879-509) is
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
EFTA00022055


c1: EFTA00021769
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021769.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
,
)"
Subject: FW: Protective Order
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 03:19:51 +0000
Attachments: 2020-07-
03_GM_protective_order_for_discovery_(AJN)_Revised_Defense_Edits_07.22.2020.docx;
2020-07-
03_GM_protective_order_for_discovery_(AJN)_Revised_Defense_Edits_07.22.2020)_Clea
n_Copy.docx
Inline-Images: image001.png; image003.jpg
Am I losing my mind, or are these the exact same document? I don't see the redline.
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:13 PM
To:
is
>;
Cc: Mark S. Cohen
>; Jeff Pagliuca
>; 'Laura Menninger'
Subject: Protective Order
-
Attached is a revised draft of the defense's proposed Protective Order (including a redline against the government's
original draft and a clean version). We did our best to incorporate the points we discussed on our last call on Monday, July
20 and to find points of common ground and agreement. Please let us know by 5pm tomorrow whether the attached
draft is acceptable to the Government.
Regards,
Chris
Christian Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York
Seoul
Paris
Washington DC
London
CG
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00021769

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00021770


c1: EFTA00021196
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021196.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein UMR
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 17:24:03 +0000
- Please see below.
TO:
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PHONE: 212-637-2200
DISTRICT POC: Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. Attorney
Phone:
SYNOPSIS:
The USAO-SDNY, in conjunction with FBI-NY, plans to obtain a search warrant for "Little Saint James," U.S.
Virgin Islands, the private island residence owned by defendant Jeffrey Epstein (the "Island Residence"). We
plan to seek the warrant this Friday, August 9 and the FBI plans to execute the warrant on Monday, August 12,
2019.
DESCRIPTION:
Epstein was charged by Indictment in July 2019 with one count of sex trafficking of a minor and one count of
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The charges stem from Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls in
Palm Beach, Florida, and New York, New York, from at least in or about 2002, through up to and including in or
about 2005.
Since obtaining the Indictment, we have developed information that Epstein may have committed additional
crimes of a similar nature on the Island Residence. We also believe, based in part on evidence recovered during
a prior search of Epstein's New York residence, that the Island Residence may contain evidence, including sexual
photographs, of the conduct already charged. Working with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the U.S. Virgin
Islands, we intend to submit an application for a search warrant for the Island Residence on or about August 9,
2019. FBI-NY, in conjunction with local authorities, intends to execute the warrant on or about August 12, 2019.
EFTA00021196


c1: EFTA00021985
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021985.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE:
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:24:4
Sender:
Subject: RE:
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB054225A18A754E42A7DA516F92050@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
EFTA00021985


c1: EFTA00021281
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021281.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: Daily Beast has it
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 01:40:11 +0000
Importance: Normal
Yeah think you should too
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2019, at 9:38 PM,
wrote:
The FBI already called Kaplan Hecker without our knowledge, earlier (along with two other victims and their attorneys).
I'll call her as well, though.
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 21:37
To:
Subject: Re: Daily Beast has it
I think you should reach out to
tonight
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2019, at 9:10 PM,
wrote:
Yeah they're literally just leaking the press release -
The case is being handled by the Public Corruption Unit of the Southern District of
New York, with assistance from the district's human-trafficking officials and the
FBI.
and the sealed indictment -
according to details of the arrest and indictment shared by two officials.
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 21:08
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Daily Beast has it
And now is reporting that it's our unit
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2019, at 8:06 PM,
wrote:
EFTA00021281

=== Page 2 ===
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-of-minors-source
FBI is leaking the content of the indictment.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00021282


c1: EFTA00022052
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022052.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
STATES
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
October 19, 2020
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Christian Everdell, Esq.
Mark Cohen, Esq.
Cohen & Gresser LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Laura Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East Tenth Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Re: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Counsel:
In recognition of the Government's ongoing discovery obligations, today we are producing
copies of the materials listed in the below index, which materials are stamped with control numbers
SDNY GM 00328070 through SDNY_GM_00356148. The password for the drive is
The materials are available for pickup at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan.
Please note that both this letter and the enclosed materials are governed by the July 31,
2020 Protective Order in this case.¹ This letter is itself designated as "confidential," because it
includes information regarding records designated as "confidential" under the Protective
Order. An index of the materials contained in this production is below:
Bates Start
Bates End
Summary Description
Confidential
Designation
2020.07.02, Aerial Video
SDNY_GM_00328073
SDNY_GM_00328092
FBI Florida Documents
Confidential
1
SDNY_GM_00328289
FBI NY Documents
SDNY_GM_00328290
SDNY_GM_00328461
Misc. Photos
Confidential
1 Files in PDF format designated as "confidential" under the protective order have been stamped
"confidential." However, certain files cannot be individually labeled as confidential on the
documents themselves due to their file format. Such files include in their electronic names the
word "Confidential."
06.20.2018
EFTA00022052

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
SDNY_GM_00328462
SDNY_GM_00328667
PBPD Materials
SDNY_GM_00329968
PBPD Materials
Confidential
SDNY_GM_00329969
SDNY_GM_00330052
PBPD Materials
Highly Confidential
SDNY_GM_00330053
SDNY_GM_00332355
PBSA Materials
Confidential
SDNY_GM_00332356
SDNY_GM_00332436
Scans of FBI Evidence
SDNY_GM_00332437
SDNY_GM_00332863
Scans of FBI Evidence
Confidential
SDNY_GM_00332864
SDNY_GM_00332869
Scans of FBI Evidence
Highly Confidential
SDNY_GM_00332871
Video from Florida
Highly Confidential
Investigation
SDNY_GM_00332887
Videos from Florida
Confidential
Investigation
SDNY_GM_00332888
SDNY_GM_00332890
SDFL Materials
Confidential
SDNY_GM_00332891
SDNY_GM_00332891
SDFL Materials
Highly Confidential
SDNY_GM_00332892
SDNY_GM_00332894
FBI Florida Documents
SDNY_GM_00332895
SDNY_GM_00332928
FBI FL Documents (included
Confidential
with 328073-328092)
SDNY_GM_00332943
3-D Blueprints, in PBPD
Materials (included with
328462-328667)
SDNY_GM_00356148
FBI FL Documents from Discs
Confidential and
Highly Confidential
The Government recognizes that its discovery obligations are ongoing and will promptly
produce any additional discoverable material of which it becomes aware. Please do not hesitate
to reach out if you have any difficulty accessing these materials or if you wish to arrange a time to
review physical items in the FBI's custody.
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
06.20.2018
EFTA00022053


c1: EFTA00021147
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021147.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10982122(1) approved by
, now awaiting further approval
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:46:37 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10982122(1) has been approved by
now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10982122
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13340 - Epstein investigation (2018R01618) - Witness Interviews
Destination: Stockholm, Sweden
Dates: 2020-02-03 - 2020-02-06
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 2143.49
Estimated trip cost: 2954.54
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0010
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00021147


c1: EFTA00022517
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022517.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: Jack Scarola
Cc:
Subject: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 22:45:47 +0000
Attachments: 2021-05-03_Order_Re_Trial_Date.pdf
Jack,
Please see the attached order regarding the trial date in this case. We'll update you when we have more information.
Thanks,
Southern District of New York
EFTA00022517


c1: EFTA00023357
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023357.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
"
Cc:
Jeff
Subject: [EXTERNAL] United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Minor Victim 3's
Letter Motion to Quash Defendant's Rule 17 Subpoena to
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:12:17 +0000
Attachments: 2021-11-19_Judge_Nathan_Ltr_M2Quash_Sub_EVCP_final.pdf
Inline-Images: image001.png
Good afternoon Judge Nathan,
Enclosed please find Minor Victim 3's Letter Motion to Quash Defendant's Rule 17 Subpoena to
Administrator of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program.
Thank you,
ГП
EDWARDS
POTTINGER LLC
Florida Registered Paralegal
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
I
www.epllc.com
EFTA00023357


c1: EFTA00020997
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020997.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 10810414-1(1) approved by
now awaiting further
approval
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 19:23:11 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 10810414-1(1) has been approved by
now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10810414-1
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13179 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interview
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-11-13 - 2019-11-15
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1585.76
Estimated trip cost: 1947.20
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0010
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00020997


c1: EFTA00021402
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021402.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Martin Weinberg
To:
Cc: Marc Fernich
Marty Weinberg
Subject: Re: Epstein Arrest Seizure Items
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:48:31 +0000
Hand deliver
Sorry for typos
Marty
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:40 PM, Martin Weinberg
wrote:
Hi
I have a list of attorneys to send to any taint prosecutor - or i coukd hand delicer thursday,
Please let me know
Marty
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:34 PM,
)
wrote:
Marc,
Circling back on this, l'll ask the agents to bring the cash and other personal effects seized from Mr. Epstein to the
hearing on Thursday, unless it is important to receive them before then, in which case please let me know and l'll try to
arrange that. With respect to the electronic devices, we've obtained a warrant to search them and so will be retaining
them as evidence.
thanks,
From: Marc Fernich
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 15:54
To:
Cc: Marty Weinberg
>; Martin Weinberg
;
Subject: Epstein Arrest Seizure Items
Hi
Sorry to bug you while you may be working on a bail reply.
I'm having trouble reaching Agen
to coordinate pickup of the cellphone and other items seized upon Epstein's
arrest. She said she'd be out in the field, but I don't hear from the intermediary agent - identity unknown - who was
supposed to handle it in her absence. Can you step in and try to move this along?
Thanks a lot.
EFTA00021402

=== Page 2 ===
Marc Fernich, Esq.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2019, at 3:26 PM,
)
wrote:
Marc,
It is the right number, so feel free to follow up later, but I can also give you her cell number which is
thanks,
From: Marc Fernich
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 14:56
To:
Cc: Marty Weinberg
>; Martin Weinberg
Subject: Re: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
Sorry to trouble again. No answer or VM pickup at that number. I'll try again later so long as it's the right number.
Can you confirm? Many thanks.
Marc Fernich, Esq.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2019, at 2:45 PM,
wrote:
Marc,
Apologies for the delay on this, and thanks for following up. The best way to coordinate this is to contact the case
agent directly - I just spoke to her so she'll be expecting your call. They're running around, so if you reach out and
aren't able to connect today please let me know, but hopefully we can get it coordinated. The contact is Special
Agent
and she can be reached at
EFTA00021403

=== Page 3 ===
thanks,
From: Marc Fernich
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 15:40
To:
Subject: Re: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
One of your agents told Marty the case agent would return Epstein's phone, the cash and other items taken from
his person upon arrest. Marty's returning to Boston shortly. Can you arrange for me to take possession of those
items?
Thanks,
Marc
Marc Fernich, Esq.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:53 AM,
wrote:
Marc,
Wanted to send this to you as well in case your co-counsel can't receive it in the Court. Please let me know if it
would be helpful to get a hard copy - I'm copying two of our paralegals who can bring you (or co-counsel) a copy;
l'll be unreachable for the next hour or so.
thank you,
From:
)
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 10:43
To:
Cc:
; 'Martin Weinberg'
is
is
is
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
To the Chambers of Judge Pitman:
EFTA00021404

=== Page 4 ===
In advance of the expected bail argument in the above-captioned case, in connection with the presentment and
arraignment referred by Judge Berman, attached please find a memorandum from the government on the issue
of detention. Defense counsel is copied, as is the chambers of Judge Berman at their request.
Thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
<U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum.pdf>
EFTA00021405


c1: EFTA00021870
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021870.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078-2 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
EFTA00021870

=== Page 2 ===
2
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE FILED: 7/23/2020
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Defense has moved for an order "prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel
for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case." Dkt. No. 27 at 1.
The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to
ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the
rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe
that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an
impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant's motion without prejudice. But the Court
warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it
will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The
Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant's right to
a fair trial will be safeguarded.
so ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2020
New York, New York
Alim D.Nitto
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
EFTA00021871


c1: EFTA00022176
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022176.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 21:46:50 +0000
Thanks
My inclination is to refer this through our civilian complaint reporting process, the same way our office
process any civilian complaints about new criminal activity.
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:58 PM
To:
>;
>;
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]
I don't think you want to get involved with this but thought I would bring it to your attention.
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]
No
I am not. These people are engaged in criminal acts, either way I'm still a victim of multiple crimes, a rape
survivor and II am alerting you to the fact that these people are hurting people. Why is the us attorney all of the sudden
not interested in criminal activity? Either way I need some help here.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 8:35 AM Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)
wrote:
The United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York does not have anything to do with the
compensation fund. All of that was done Civilly. Are you represented by a lawyer.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 3, 2021, at 12:42 AM
wrote:
>
>
> Hi
I was almost annihilated by the Epstein victims compensation fund. I'm still in a state of acute rape trauma.
I need to report what the fund is doing. I also have reason to believe a claim was processed in my name and the money
was kept by the staff.
>
> Can you please help me report this. I think the vulnerable adults act covers this as I am disabled. Please let me know,
thank you
EFTA00022176


c1: EFTA00021063
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021063.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Sigrid McCawley
To:
Subject: USVI
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:05:39 +0000
Attachments: DS_First_Quarterly_Account.pdf
Hello
You may have already seen this but just in case you did not - on p. 13 of the attached which was filed by the Epstein
Estate in the USVI you can see that Maxwell's lawyers at Haddon Morgan submitted a 621K bill to the estate for payment.
As you know, Maxwell previously testified that Epstein was not paying for anything associated with her or any litigation.
Attached above.
Best,
Sigrid
Sigrid McCawley
Partner
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
(t)
(m)
www.bsfllp.com
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that,
among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1 08201831BSF
EFTA00021063


c1: EFTA00020623
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020623.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
=
,
)"
Subject:
/Epstein Meet
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:11:53 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00020623


c1: EFTA00021715
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021715.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: ttps://deadline.com/2021/01/eleventh-hour-films-options-ghislaine-maxwell-podcast-
1234672637/
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:06:43 +0000
Embedded: https: deadline.com_2021_01_eleventh-hour-films-options-ghislaine-maxwel-podcast-
1234672637_msg
Sender:
Subject: https://deadline.com/2021/01/eleventh-hour-films-options-ghislaine-maxwel-podcast-1234672637/
Message-Id:
<BN3P110MB040346182EFBC4D4784E15D790A90@BN3P110MB0403.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
To:
To:
EFTA00021715


c1: EFTA00023040
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023040.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Voice Message Attached from
- WIRELESS CALLER
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:20:17 +0000
Thanks!
Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
Phone:
Original Message
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:20 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Voice Message Attached from
- WIRELESS CALLER
Hi
,
Thanks very much for flagging. Our protocol in this case has been to forward all tips to the FBI-- our case agents
have been logging tips through a specific protocol. We'll pass this on.
Thanks,
Original Message
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:15 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
)
Subject: FW: Voice Message Attached from
- WIRELESS CALLER
Hi
,
, and
- attached is a voice message from an individual claiming they have information
about Ghislaine Maxwell and that they are a friend of George Soros.
- not sure if this is something you want to follow up on.
,
if not can you send this individual
the crime reporting materials? Her number is
She was transferred to my line from the tent CSOs.
Original Message
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:53 PM
EFTA00023040

=== Page 2 ===
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: Voice Message Attached from
- WIRELESS CALLER
Time: Nov 23, 2021 12:53:29 PM
Click attachment to listen to Voice Message
EFTA00023041


c1: EFTA00021374
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021374.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bec: "USAHUB-USAJournalIT
Subject: RE: scheduling
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:12:16 +0000
Embedded: RE:_scheduling.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: scheduling
Message-Id: <414a2e9431e749cc98e9d2c57e7f5ee8@LAMAIL-01.PSandB.local>
Recipient:
EFTA00021374


c1: EFTA00020946
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020946.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: Epstein scheduling conference
Start Date: 2019-07-31 15:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-07-31 16:00:00 +0000
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-07-18 17:35:14 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-07-18 17:35:14 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-07-18 16:18:26 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00020946


c1: EFTA00023118
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023118.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
BOBBI C STERNHEIM
Cc: Christian Everdell
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 12:21:33 +0000
Good morning Bobbi-
I apologize for the delay in response, however, I will inquire with the
appropriate staff regarding both of your concerns.
Best,
BOBBI C STERNHEIM
10/26/2021 9:14 PM
Good evening-
I am still awaiting a reply to yesterday's email regarding Ms.
Maxwell's legal mail.
There are items that need to be picked up by the MDC.
I have provided the tracking information.
Please provide a response by 10:00 am tomorrow Wednesday.
Thank you-
Bobbi
Please note my new office address and preferred email address:
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
This message and any attached documents contain information from the
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim that may be confidential and/or
privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
EFTA00023118

=== Page 2 ===
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 8:33 PM, BOBBI C STERNHEIM
wrote:
V
> Good evening -
> During my in-person visit yesterday with Ms. Maxwell, the HEPA
filters were not operating in the visiting room that I have been
required
> to use, even when more than one attorney is present. The officers
told me to use the larger, corner room.
> Previous requests to use this more ample corner room have been denied
because the officers' claim
> the camera cannot be positioned. Yesterday, the officers simply and
easily positioned the camera focused on the corner room.
> I am requesting that future in-person visits be conducted in the
larger corner room.
> The previous reason for denying that request appears invalid.
>
> Also, legal mail sent to the MDC has not been picked up by the
facility. See tracking information below.
> Please promptly provide an explanation and inform me when Ms. Maxwell
will receive these deliveries.
> Thank you-
> Bobbi
V
>
Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 7.10.13 PM.png>
>
>
Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 7.07.56 PM.png>
>
Please note my new office address and preferred email address:
>
>
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
V
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
>
V
> Main:
> Cell:
> Fax:
V
>
> This message and any attached documents contain information from the
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim that may be confidential and/or
privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
> If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
V
EFTA00023119


c1: EFTA00023468
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023468.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===

=== Page 2 ===

=== Page 3 ===

=== Page 4 ===

=== Page 5 ===

=== Page 6 ===

=== Page 7 ===

=== Page 8 ===

=== Page 9 ===

=== Page 10 ===


c1: EFTA00023009
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023009.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: 21-58 United States of America V. Maxwell "Motion Order FILED denying for bail"
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:00:40 +0000
Attachments: Maxwell_Bail_Order.pdf
Great result.
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:59 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
)
Subject: FW: 21-58 United States of America V. Maxwell "Motion Order FILED denying for bail"
See below. Congratulations to
who did a really kickass job with this appeal.
From: cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov <cmecf@ca2.uscourts.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:57 PM
To:
)
Subject: 21-58 United States of America V. Maxwell "Motion Order FILED denying for bail"
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of
record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents
filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other
users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was filed on 04/27/2021
Case Name:
United States of America V. Maxwell
Case Number: 21-58
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
MOTION ORDER, denying motion for bail [39] filed by Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, by PNL, RJL, RJS,
FILED. [3087715][86] [21-58, 21-770]
Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Ms.
David Oscar Markus, -
EFTA00023009

=== Page 2 ===
, Assistant U.S. Attorney:
,
Assistant U.S. Attorney:
ssistant U.S. Attorney:
Ms. Bobbi C. Sternheim, -:
Notice will be stored in the notice cart for:
Quality Control 1
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Motion Order FILED
Original Filename: 21-58.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1161632333 [Date=04/27/2021] [FileNumber=3087715-0]
[c4dae9d83e3602096564248f5bfcc0e89b9f8c55fe4ec1014f3c2db1a909f4f7c8b360f2544b2115306751b7aa82b9
4f70f4198d95fcdcb8ef868b204742b03e]]
EFTA00023010


c1: EFTA00021839
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021839.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: SDNY Triggerfish Court Bundle copy
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 20:15:02 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_Triggerfish_Court_Bundle_copy.pdf: ATT00001.txt
Here's one
Original Message
From: Brier Temple
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 1:36 PM
To: Kathleen DuPont
Subject: FW: SDNY Triggerfish Court Bundle copy
Case Number is 20-mj-127-01-AJ
Original Message
From: Andrea Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 1:32 PM
To: Kathleen DuPont
>; Brier Temple
Subject: SDNY Triggerfish Court Bundle copy
Signed documents attached. Andrea
EFTA00021839


c1: EFTA00021172
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021172.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Hi everyone.docx
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 16:40:24 +0000
Attachments: Hi_everyone.docx
I made a few small changes.
Are you ok with this version?
Where are you sitting?
EFTA00021172


c1: EFTA00021341
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021341.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Matthew L. Schwartz"
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: Forfeiture question
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:38:52 +0000
Attachments: 2019.10.15_Letter_re_Hyperion_Air.pdf
- Thanks for speaking earlier. Attached is a letter setting out the same information I relayed to you on the phone.
Let me know if you need anything more.
-mls
From:
) [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:58 PM
To: Matthew L. Schwartz
Cc:
);
Subject: RE: Forfeiture question
Sounds great, thanks, I'm at my desk:
From: Matthew L. Schwartz
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:56 PM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Forfeiture question
I just freed up and can call you in a few minutes if that works.
Matthew L. Schwartz
(o)
(m)
On October 15, 2019 at 1:39:21 PM EDT,
)
wrote:
Matt,
With apologies: I now need to meet with a witness starting at 4 today, so unfortunately 4:30 no longer works.
Happy to talk between now and 4, or later this evening, if either works. Alternatively, I'm free at 9:30
tomorrow morning, or between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. tomorrow.
Thanks,
From: Matthew L. Schwartz
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 9:10 PM
To:
)
EFTA00021341

=== Page 2 ===
Cc:
V.
Subject: Re: Forfeiture question
4:30 is perfect. Where should I call?
Matthew L. Schwartz
(o)
(m)
On October 14, 2019 at 6:40:46 PM EDT,
)
wrote:
Hi Matt,
I'm available for a call tomorrow either at 1 p.m. or anytime from 4:30 onwards, if either of those windows
works for you.
Best,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Matthew L. Schwartz
wrote:
Thanks
If any of you have a moment for a forfeiture-related question in the next few days, please let
me know. FYI, this has nothing to do with my firm's representation of certain victims. Thanks.
-mls
Matthew L. Schwartz
(o)
(m)
On October 13, 2019 at 7:44:17 PM EDT,
wrote:
Hi Matt,
The Epstein case team are AUSAs
and
all cc'd on this
,
email. They're the right people to talk to about anything Epstein-related.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Matthew L. Schwartz
wrote:
Do either of you guys or the appropriate other person have 2 minutes to discuss a somewhat time-
sensitive, but by no means urgent, Epstein-related forfeiture question in the next few days?
Matthew L. Schwartz
(o)
(m)
EFTA00021342

=== Page 3 ===
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only
for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among other
protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this
communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic
message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1 08201831BSF]
EFTA00021343


c1: EFTA00020501
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020501.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
OFFICIAL RECORD
Intake (Rev. 5-23-17)
UNCLASSIFIED
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Intake
Date: 08/25/2020
Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571
(U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING
Drafted By:
Date/Time Received: 08/24/2020 12:06 PM EDT
Details:
On 08/24/2020, at 12:06:59 PM Eastern Time,
Last Name Unknown
(LNU), date of birth
Other telephone number
FL
34287, Internet Protocol (IP) address
which resolves to
North Port, Florida 34287, submitted an online tip to the FBI National
Threat Operations Center (NTOC) via tips.fbi.gov, regarding YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?verD _3415latc&feature=share of a claimed
employee of Jeffrey Epstein and a private testimony.
Note: This is in regards to crisis intake by
telephone
number
address
United States which provides
a description of the video however, this tip provides the actual link to
the video.
LNU provided the following information:
Date Submitted: 08/24/2020 12:06:59 PM ET
Transaction Number: 8A2FCF2A-A959-477E-900C-F21ECA93A3D5
UNCLASSIFIED
EFTA00020501

=== Page 2 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/25/2020
Threat To Life:
Submitted Text:
This was on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD_3415Tatc&featuresshare And the person
talking is supposedly an employee of Jeff ebstein.
Violation: Human Trafficking
Violation Questions
Please provide details about the specific location where the victim is
being held.: no specific location
How do you know the victim?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD _3415latc&feature=share
Who has control of the victim's identification and travel documents?:
Unsure
Complainant Information
First Name:
Middle Name:
Last Name:
Age:
DOB:
UNCLASSIFIED
2
EFTA00020502

=== Page 3 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/25/2020
Additional Info:
Type: Other
Phone:
Extension:
Type: Other
Address:
City:
State: Florida
Zip: 34287
Country: United States
Agency Name: FBI TIPS
Date of Report: 08/24/2020 12:00:00 AM
Report Number:
Phone:
Address:
City:
Zip:
Remote IP:
Remote Host: api.fbi.gov
UNCLASSIFIED
3
EFTA00020503

=== Page 4 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/25/2020
Http Referrer: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/operation-legend
User Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 12_4_8 like Mac OS X)
AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/12.1.2 Mobile/15E148
Safari/604.1
Latitude:
Longitude:
Country: US
Region: Florida
City: North Port
Postal Code: 34287
Timezone: -04:00
UNCLASSIFIED
4
EFTA00020504


c1: EFTA00020973
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020973.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
To:
Cc:
Subject: 302s
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:09:59 +0000
Attachments: (U_FOUO)_Highly_confidential_responsive_material_from_digital_evidence_processed_b
y_CART.pdf;
(U_FOUO)_Responsiveness_Review_of_Digital_Evidence_processed_by_CART.pdf
See attached 302s. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
EFTA00020973


c1: EFTA00023414
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023414.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Second Daubert Motion
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 04:43:33 +0000
Attachments: Motion_to_preclude_Hall_et_al_v3.docx
I should have noted -
did the vast majority of the heavy lifting on this one, and we're really grateful to him for
putting in so much work over the last few days to help us keep out Dr. Hall.
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 11:41 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Second Daubert Motion
Hi Chiefs,
I hope you had a nice weekend! Attached is our second Daubert motion for your review. It is due tomorrow.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00023414


c1: EFTA00021720
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021720.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(CRM)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(CRM)"
Subject: RE: Brunel
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:05:20 +0000
- Can we do 11:30 instead? Sorry about that.
From:
(CRM)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:55 AM
To:
(USANYS) ;
(USANYS) ;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: Brunel
Sure, I can do 11am.
Let me know what # to call.
DOJ Attaché/Magistrat de liaison américain
U.S. Embassy, Paris
Ofc.
(
Mob.
(
From:
(USANYS)
>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:36 PM
To:
(CRM)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: Brunel
Thanks very much,
Do you have a few minutes to speak today about this? I'm available after 11 am EST.
From:
(CRM)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 6:11 AM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: Brunel
Here are my comments.
DOJ Attaché/Magistrat de liaison américain
U.S. Embassy, Paris
Ofc.
(
Mob.
(
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 7:32 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>;
(CRM)
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: Brunel
Hi
EFTA00021720

=== Page 2 ===
Thanks again for the update and all of your help. Attached please find our MLAT request. Please let us know if you have
any questions or would like to discuss.
Best,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2021 11:12 PM
To:
(CRM)
i
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: Brunel
Thank you very much for letting us know. It sounds like this went very well. We are in the process of drafting an MLA
request and will get it to you ASAP. I can reach out to the lawyer for the two adult witnesses to inquire about their
openness to speaking with the French. Asking the French to propose search terms sounds like a good next step as well.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
(CRM)
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 5:17 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: Brunel
Dear all:
My meeting on Brunel went well this afternoon. Here is the quick read out:
General Points
There are three investigating judges assigned to this case, which is pretty unusual and suggests its importance for
them.
They can hold Brunel for 18 months initially, but with a neutral judge's approval, can likely keep him for up to 3-4
years while the investigation continues.
They did not flag any known critical points in the near future that would result in press coverage...but you never
know what will happen (he will likely ask for release, which would catch some press if so).
Right out of the gate, the lead judge expressed concern about confidentiality (in part because a long article about
their investigation appeared in a Paris newspaper yesterday). She expressed her expectation that our discussions
and cooperation would remain confidential.
U.S. Sharing with France
They are interested in your assistance in contacting the lawyer for the two adult victims, to see if the victims would
be willing to speak with them.
They are already in touch with lawyer for
so no more is needed there.
They are very interested in obtaining records/images from the your database created from the searches of the
Epstein residences/devices. They are willing to provide search terms, and can work to narrow the range (they are
interested to know how to best formulate search terms to take advantage of the platform the records are on (i.e,
can they do proximity searches, is facial recognition available to identify Brunel, etc.). The idea was also proposed
of potentially doing a more narrow search now, followed by a potentially more expansive search for relevant data
after your trial when the SDNY/FBI bandwith might increase and confidentiality concerns might be less acute.
In addition to the database, they wonder if there are transcripts or reports of witness interviews that you would be
willing to provide, that bear on Brunel.
In the same vein, they were interested to know if Maxwell talked to FBI post-arrest and if she said anything of
potential interest to them (I told them I doubt it, but said 1 would ask you).
EFTA00021721

=== Page 3 ===
In terms of the confidentiality of the records you would produce, they would be put in the file, and available to the
defense and civil parties but they are strict limits to the circumstances in which they would have access to the
information, and it may even be able to be placed under seal which would apparently not preclude defense
access, but would make it very difficult for the defense to access the info.
They are interested to know if you might expand your investigation to other accomplices/co-conspirators.
They might be interested in a direct dialogue with you, but only if it were a useful exercise (they were less
enthusiastic than I expected about this)
France Sharing with U.S.
They responded positively regarding your interest in connecting with
who is represented by counsel.
They indicated a willingness to assist on the basis of an MLAT request sent through normal channels.
But here's the important part: they made it quite clear that they are not going to help SDNY unless we show a
good faith effort to help them, and begin sending evidence their way. The sharing needs to be reciprocal, in
other words.
Path Forward
I'd propose that you draft the MLAT request for
and that we get it into translation ASAP. In the
meantime, I will invite them to send narrowed search terms, and you can contact the lawyer for the two adult
victims but let me know your thoughts.
DOJ Attaché/Magistrat de liaison américain
U.S. Embassy, Paris
Ofc.
Mob.
(
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 12:38 AM
To:
(CRM)
i
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: France
This looks accurate to me, thanks very much. One point you might want to add regarding our searches is that we also
gathered a large number of photographs, including photos that feature Brunel. Again, if they can narrow their request, we
would be open to sharing certain images if that would be useful to them.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
(CRM)
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:15 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: RE: France
and
:
Further to our call yesterday, here are the points I plan to make at my meeting tomorrow. Thanks in advance for letting me
know if you see any errors, omissions, or additions to make:
3 Ways DOJ Can Offer to Help Advance the French Case
Willing to connect French authorities with attorney for
EFTA00021722

=== Page 4 ===
DOJ has awareness of two non-French adult victims who were abused in Paris in relation to Epstein; neither allege
specific illegal conduct involving Brunel, one of them definitely met Brunel at some point. DOJ is willing to ask their
lawyer if the victims would be willing to speak with French authorities.
DOJ executed searches at two Epstein residences (in NYC and the USVI), searched devices, and has created a
significant database of data relating to Epstein. If French authorities can provide more targeted search terms, DOJ
would be willing to review those results to identify records that can be provided to French authorities regarding
Brunel.
Info to Obtain from French
Are French authorities targeting others besides Brunel?
What is the anticipated timeline of the investigation/prosecution; and are there any critical steps that would result
in press attention in the near term (i.e., before summer 2021);
:
Assistance from French in contacting/speaking with her...with awareness that matter is time sensitive given
upcoming trial;
Assistance in obtaining records from French authorities (including prior interviews) pertinent to her;
Is she represented by counsel?
DOJ available to her/her counsel to discuss how we inform/protect victims and victim information (as part of
general victim-centric approach to this case).
DOJ Attaché/Magistrat de liaison américain
U.S. Embassy, Paris
Ofc. (
Mob.
From:
(CRM)
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:02 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
(CRM)
Subject: France
Here is our go-by for an outgoing request to France.
DOJ Attaché/Magistrat de liaison américain
U.S. Embassy, Paris
Ofc.
Mob.
EFTA00021723


c1: EFTA00022143
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022143.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
,
USANYS)"
Subject: Watermarking
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:40:34 +0000
Attachments:
302_Redacted.pdf; Notesfrom
nterview_Redacted.pdf
How does the watermarking look on these?
EFTA00022143


c1: EFTA00022522
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022522.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Berman, Geoffrev (USANYS)"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Epstein Bail Statement
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 23:19:41 +0000
Not necessary. I'm not wedded to it.
On Jul 17, 2019, at 6:47 PM,
wrote:
I'm not sure if they feel it's a litigation risk or that it just looks bad, but we can regroup with them tomorrow to
clarify and get back to you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2019, at 6:41 PM, Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
wrote:
Ok, but we are missing an opportunity.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 6:40 PM
To: Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: Re: Epstein Bail Statement
I think mainly that it's not our usual practice. And that we stated on the record Monday that we've already had "many
responses" to the tip line and dramatically widened our investigation as a result.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2019, at 6:34 PM, Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
wrote:
What's their concern?
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:17 PM
To: Berman, Geoffrey (USANYS)
Cc:
Subject: Epstein Bail Statement
We conferred with
and
they expressed misgivings about making any statements regarding detention and
at this point, we agree.
EFTA00022522

=== Page 2 ===
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney's Office I Southern District of New York
I
Mobile:
Press Office:
EFTA00022523


c1: EFTA00023362
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023362.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Laura Menninger
Jeff Pagliuca
Cc:
Subject: Witness-3 - proposed redactions
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 02:50:15 +0000
Attachments: 20cr330_Temp_Sealed_Mem._Op._&_Order_11.19.21.pdf;
2021.11.11_Letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_Response_to_Government_Letters_re_Accuser-
3_Evidence.PDF; Govt_Letter_re_MV-3_[proposed_redactions].pdf
Counsel,
Attached are our proposed redactions to the supplemental filings and order regarding Witness-3.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00023362


c1: EFTA00021390
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021390.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: Briefing in Florida regarding whether the Florida NPA extends to New York
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:06:24 +0000
Thank you for sending us these materials, we appreciate being able to stay up to date, and we'll continue to keep an eye
on the docket for submissions that may be relevant for our investigation.
Separately, might you be available for a quick call sometime tomorrow (Friday) or next week? No rush or emergency, but
we wanted to talk with you about a question in connection with your expertise on the CVRA generally. At your
convenience.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 13:01
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Briefing in Florida regarding whether the Florida NPA extends to New York
Hi
I wanted to make you aware of a recent filing (on Tuesday) by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in the Florida CVRA case. See attached.
You may find interesting our argument at pp. 3-6, in which we explain why Judge Marra must craft remedies in the case
that relate solely to Florida crimes and Florida victims because the NPA only covers Florida.
We filed our reply brief on remedies on Tuesday - and that should have brought all briefing on remedies for the CVRA
violation to a close. But yesterday Epstein's lawyer (Marty Weinberg) filed a motion for a sur-reply. See attached. In
point (a) on page 2, he argues that he should have an opportunity to file a sur-reply discussing, among other things, the
scope of the NPA. On Monday, we will be filing an opposition to Weinberg extending the briefing further. It appears that
Judge Marra is poised to rule rapidly on the motion for a sur-reply, as he asked for us to respond quickly.
I wanted to make you aware of these developments. My clients were told back in 2013 that the NPA did not extend to
New York or other jurisdictions - and that is the point we are making to Judge Marra.
for Jane Doe 1 and 2
(fax)
EFTA00021390

=== Page 2 ===
You can access my publications on
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message.
is admitted to the
Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Any views he expresses in this email are his own.
EFTA00021391


c1: EFTA00020974
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020974.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
OFFICIAL RECORD
FD-1087a
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Collected Item Log
Event Title:
(U//FOUO) Highly confidential
Date: 01/27/2021
responsive material from digital
evidence processed by CART
Approved By:
Drafted By:
Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571
(U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING
CHILD VICTIM AND CHILD WITNESS IDENTITY INFORMATION
This document contains information regarding a child victim's or child witness's
identity, which may only be disclosed to individuals who have a need-to-know
such information by reason of their participation in the associated proceeding,
or if disclosure is necessary to protect the welfare and well-being of the
child.
Details:
Responsive material from digital evidence processed by CART. Highly
confidential responsive material includes nude and partial nude images
and videos. Highly confidential responsive material is included on this
drive from the following devices:
CART #
1B #
NYC024318
71
NYC024321
61
NYC024327
28
NYC024328
57
NYC024329
57
NYC024332
70
NYC024336
62
NYC024337
62
NYC024340
52
NYC024343
47
NYC024348
30
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its
contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
EFTA00020974

=== Page 2 ===
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
Title: (U//FOUO) Highly confidential responsive material from digital
evidence processed by CART
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 01/27/2021
NYC024349
29
NYC024350
32
NYC024353
54
NYC024354
73
NYC024355
74
NYC024362
80
NYC024363
81
NYC024364
82
NYC024365
85
NYC024366
87
NYC024369
98
NYC024369
98
NYC024371
102
NYC024372
107
NYC024383
118
NYC024388
120
NYC024392
123
NYC027904
84
NYC027905
83
Collected From: (U//FOUO)
Receipt Given?: No
Holding Office: NY - NEW YORK
Item Type
Description
1B Digital
(U//FOUO) Highly confidential responsive material to
include nude and semi nude images and videos from
digital evidence items processed by CART.
Collected On: 01/26/2021 04:00 PM EST
Seizing Individual:
Located By:
Device Type: Portable Hard Drive
Designation: Derivative
Number of Devices Collected: 1
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
2
EFTA00020975

=== Page 3 ===
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
Title: (U//FOUO) Highly confidential responsive material from digital
evidence processed by CART
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 01/27/2021
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
3
EFTA00020976


c1: EFTA00020506
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020506.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
OFFICIAL RECORD
Intake (Rev. 5-23-17)
UNCLASSIFIED
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Intake
Date: 09/14/2020
Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571
(U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING
Drafted By:
Date/Time Received: 09/14/2020 12:12 PM EDT
Details:
On 09/14/2020, at 12:12 p.m. Eastern Time,
date of birth
,
telephone number
/
address refused, stated he
deported himself to Canada, email address
, called
the National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) to provide information on
the Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell case.
saw a Facebook post regarding Maxwell, which triggered a memory
of him meeting Epstein and Maxwell.
remembered vividly a night
in 2008, when he and Epstein were at a strip club called SCORES, located
on US 1 Federal Highway, between Oakland Park and Commercial.
struck up a conversation with Epstein, in which Epstein kept repeating
that he was a billionaire. Epstein told
he came to the club
often, that he lived in Palm Beach, and said he wanted a young girl,
younger than 16 years.
made a remark about that being
disgusting and Epstein's chauffeur showed up immediately, grabbed
and told him to leave Epstein alone.
threatened the
chauffeur and pushed him away.
then saw a female, who he later
came to know was Ghislaine Maxwell, running toward Epstein. Maxwell asked
Epstein if he told
anything. The chauffeur said Epstein told
everything. The chauffeur also told Epstein "I have something
on you, remember what I buried!" Maxwell told the chauffeur, they had
that same thing on him.
Later,
overheard Maxwell tell Epstein she spoke to one of the
girls who worked at the club. The worker told Maxwell she had a 15 year
old friend from high school who is out on the street, and who needed
help. Maxwell told Epstein they were going to pick her up when they left
the club.
kept telling writer to talk to the chauffeur, he was a small
UNCLASSIFIED
EFTA00020506

=== Page 2 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 09/14/2020
man, maybe 5 foot, with black hair. The Chauffeur knows information about
something worse than what is on the surface.
also reported
Epstein's height as 5'4-5'5.
UNCLASSIFIED
2
EFTA00020507


c1: EFTA00021893
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021893.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: new materials for Maxwell upload to Relativity
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:55:03 +0000
Understood.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 3:48 PM
To:
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: new materials for Maxwell upload to Relativity
It has been sent! It should get there tomorrow.
From:
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 3:30 PM
To:
Cc:
is
>;
>
Subject: RE: new materials for Maxwell upload to Relativity
Hello,
I was just checking to see if the hard drive was sent out to arrive today?
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:48 PM
To:
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: new materials for Maxwell upload to Relativity
I know you're on vacation this week, but wanted to very briefly follow up on the below - I'm going to ask
to mail
you the thumb drive referenced below, which has folders for five devices (NYC024332, NYC024369, NYC024369_1,
NYC024372, and NYC024384) on this coming Monday, so that you'll be around when it arrives (and in case you have to
EFTA00021893

=== Page 2 ===
sign for it). Per usual, if you could please take a look at it when you receive it, and then send on to PAE for processing and
upload to Relativity, that would be great. Thank you!!
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 13:44
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
is
(
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
Following up on the below, thanks for those responses, that's very useful. In terms of the one outstanding item, in the
thumb drive I received from
yesterday with CART materials, NYC027913 is not included, so we are still missing that
one.
But I do see that each of the items with the "Included next round" label from the most recent spreadsheet (attached, with
those items highlighted in red) are included, so that's helpful, thanks.
In terms of any of the folders that have been produced so far, I know that you've sent supplemental materials on a
handful of them (approximately seven total, I think) - do you currently expect to send any other supplemental materials
for any of the devices we've received so far? Or are we fully complete?
And then assuming those are all fully complete, or once they are, the only items pending will be the devices highlighted in
gray in the attached, which we understand are being processed for hardware recovery.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 19:17
To:
Cc:
is
i
i
is
is
is
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. It's been kinda crazy. I'll answer your questions in order, so match them up. I'm
going off what I can see on my phone.
The final items were given to
She should have them. Reach out to her for delivery.
The 3 folders you mention contain supplemental files, do not ignore them.
I am pretty sure NYC027913 is included with the items
has. If not, please let me know.
As far as the old questions, you should have everything now.
The zero byte files are just that. Sometimes the software will recover either file headers, or items off the
directory listings, but no actual content. It lists them as zero length files.
Need anything further, let me know.
EFTA00021894

=== Page 3 ===
On Aug 3, 2020 3:33 PM,
)"
wrote:
I know you may still be traveling, but I wanted to check in on a handful of outstanding issues. If you're not available,
perhaps
can assist?
1. On this past Sunday and Monday, you had said you had you had additional materials you planned to get to us on
Monday. I don't believe we ever received anything additional this past week. Are those still pending, and if so,
when can we get those materials?
2. There were three folders that were included in the first disc you provided to us, but then also provided again on
the most recent disc. Those folders are: NYC024328, NYC024366, and NYC024392. Can you please let us know
why those were provided twice? In particular, we need to know whether any supplemental information is in the
new folders with those NYC numbers, or whether we can ignore them on the recent disc because we already
received them.
3. One item is listed on your spreadsheet as having been provided on 7/23, but it was not on the most recent disc
you sent. That item is: NYC027913 (row 40 in your spreadsheet).
In case it's useful, I'm attaching a version of the spreadsheet you put on the disc, but with all the items we received
folders for on the most recent hard drive highlighted in yellow.
Separately, we're still waiting on answers to the questions from Thursday and Friday, July 23 and 24. To refresh, those
questions are:
4. Comparing your most recent spreadsheet to the prior one, and leaving aside the "Nothing for Southern"
designations as well as the NYC numbers that look like they're for the desktops that held the actual drives we're
looking at (such as NYC024385, 387, 389, 391, and 393, and NYC027909), I think there are just three additional
devices listed here that weren't on the spreadsheet you previously sent. I have those as: NYC024328 (row 10),
NYC024367 (row 62), and NYC027910 (row 96). Please confirm that these were added, and also that we're not
missing any? I believe those were all provided on the first disc.
5. As previously mentioned, the vendor has advised that in the initial seven devices provided, there were
approximately 71,000 documents that are zero bytes (i.e., empty files). They are listed in the second attached
spreadsheet. Is that accurate? Or does that reflect some issue with the extraction process?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 15:09
EFTA00021895

=== Page 4 ===
To:
Cc:
in
is
is
>;
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
I don't have the evidence in front of me, but it is probably accurate. It is not unusual for the software to find such
files. I will review Monday to make sure. As to your questions from last night, the sheet should be
comprehensive. I only recall 1 addition, but I am sure that what I have is reflected in the sheet. As for the items
in dark grey, there are 2 servers with multiple drives. Some of those drives have physically failed. We have to get
them to one of our HQ specialists for recovery. Since they are physically broken, data recovery may or may not
be possible. It can be a very long process. We will get that moving ASAP. Need anything else, let me know.
On Jul 24, 2020 2:20 PM,
)"
wrote:
In addition to the pending questions below, we've been advised by the vendor that is reviewing the initial seven devices
(that were provided on a per-device extraction basis, as previously discussed) that those materials include approximately
71,000 documents that are zero bytes (i.e., empty files). They are listed in the attached spreadsheet.
Is that accurate? Or does that reflect some issue with the extraction process?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 18:08
To:
Cc:
is
>;
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein Evidence status
This is very helpful, thank you. Comparing this to the prior spreadsheet, and leaving aside the "Nothing for Southern"
designations as well as the NYC numbers that look like they're for the desktops that held the actual drives we're looking at
(such as NYC024385, 387, 389, 391, and 393, and NYC027909), I think there are just three additional devices listed here
that weren't on the spreadsheet you previously sent. I have those as:
1. NYC024328 (row 10)
2. NYC024367 (row 62)
3. NYC027910 (row 96)
Could you please confirm that I have those additions correct, and that I'm not missing any? And it looks like all of those
were included in the drive you provided today.
EFTA00021896

=== Page 5 ===
I also see there are some drives that are still being processed, including NYC024376 through 380 and several drives in
NYC024395 - could you please let us know what that means?
Thanks very much, and we'll circle back if any issues with anything we received today, which should get to
in the
next day or two.
thanks again,
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 14:44
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Epstein Evidence status
Here is the up to date spreadsheet. I color coded things to hopefully make it easier. There are 5 items I have to
get you (as we discussed this morning) Those should take another day or 2, so looking at Monday/Tuesday for that. Any
questions, let me know.
EFTA00021897


c1: EFTA00023413
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023413.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
)"
Subject: Paul Kane Q&A
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:30:33 +0000
Attachments: Kane_Q&A.docx
Hey
Attached is a draft Paul Kane Q&A. There are a couple questions that may seem weird - basically, since PCS didn't create
this record, the questions are aimed at a line of Second Circuit cases holding that "Records maintained but not created by
a company may be admissible as business records of that company if witnesses testify that the records are integrated into
[the] company's records and relied upon in its day-to-day operations." United States V. Kuthuru, 665 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir.
2016).
Let's chat about the other hearsay issue when you have a minute?
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00023413


c1: EFTA00022195
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022195.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To: testimony
)"
Subject: RE: AT&T FILE # 227815.002 - USA V GHISLAINE MAXWELL 20 CR 330 (AJN)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 02:12:00 +0000
Hello,
Yes, an AT&T custodian is still needed likely on December 8-9.
Thanks,
From: testimony
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 2:59 PM
To:
>;
)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AT&T FILE # 227815.002 - USA V GHISLAINE MAXWELL 20 CR 330 (AJN)
Importance: High
AT&T FILE # 227815.002
USA V GHISLAINE MAXWELL 20 CR 330 (AJN)
Greetings,
Please provide an update to confirm if and when AT&T is needed for an appearance on the above case.
AT&T Court Appearance Team
Finance - Global Legal Demand Center
AT&T
North Palm Beach FL 33408
Office -
opt 5 I Fax -
I
dgr
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of AT&T, may be confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any
other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited without authorization.
EFTA00022195


c1: EFTA00022144
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022144.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
)"
)"
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:43:01 +0000
Following up on our conversation from a few minutes ago, the Civil Division AUSA who handled the requests from counsel
following Epstein's suicide was
As I mentioned, the criminal team is happy to assist any civil AUSA(s)
who are the point of contact, and we do think it would make sense to have a formal division to ensure that any necessary
protocol is fully established and followed in connection with requests, including this current one, which we understand to
be very narrowly tailored. As also discussed, we're happy to take a look at a draft letter to counsel explaining what their
formal request should include (nature and status of litigation; what the requests are; and how the requested materials are
pertinent to the active litigation, etc.).
Please let us know if any additional information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 12:42
To:
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
You in today?
From:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 3:49 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
Following up on our brief discussion of this issue earlier this month, I wanted to see if you had any additional thoughts on
how to handle requests from counsel for plaintiffs who are suing Epstein and his estate who ask us for information or
materials in connection with our investigation - I think you had said we should instruct them to submit Touhy Requests,
and that you would designate a Civil Division person to whom we could have them direct those requests. If that's right,
could you please let us know who that person will be? So far we've just gotten the request from one plaintiff's counsel,
Robbie Kaplan at Kaplan Hecker, and her request is very narrow but we want to set up the system in a way that will work if
we get additional and/or more expansive requests going forward. And we would like to let her know how she should
proceed relatively soon because that case has a status conference on January 10 and I think they'd like to make the
request before then.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
EFTA00022144

=== Page 2 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00022145


c1: EFTA00021051
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021051.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(NY) (FBI)"
To:
)"
"
)"
)"
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)"
i
,
Subject: Press Conference at Epstein's
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:27:49 +0000
All,
I have been getting some questions about the press conference that occurred today at Epstein's mansion, do any
of you know that was about? Our media affairs department has been getting questions. In addition, our Victim
Specialists have been fielding calls from irate victims who weren't notified.
https://twitter.com/AaronKatersky/status/1221833096686903299/photo/1
thanks,
SSA
Squad C-20
Crimes Against Children/Human Trafficking
FBI New York
office
mobile
EFTA00021051


c1: EFTA00023365
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023365.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Nathan NYSD Chambers
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: US V. Maxwell - Proposed redactions re Witness-3
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 21:02:30 +0000
Attachments: Gov't_Letter_re +3_[proposed_redactions].pdf;
20cr330_Temp._Sealed_Mem._Op_&_Order_11.1921_[proposed_redactions]pdf;
2021.11.11_Letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_Response_to_Government_Letters_re_Accuser
3_Evidence_[revised_proposed_redactions].pdf
Chambers,
Pursuant to the Court's order at Dkt. No. 477, and as referenced in the Government's letter motion at Dkt. No. 481,
attached are the Government's proposed redactions related to Witness-3.
Respectfully submitted,
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00023365


c1: EFTA00022525
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022525.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted: Epstein scheduling conference
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:24:22 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00022525


c1: EFTA00021842
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021842.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078-3 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT C
EFTA00021842

=== Page 2 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
:
- V. -
:
S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
X
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
1.
The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
2.
As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
EFTA00021843

=== Page 3 ===
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
During the time periods charged in this
Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
EFTA00021844

=== Page 4 ===
4.
Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
means and methods, including but not limited to the following:
a.
MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by
asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim.
b.
Having developed a rapport with a victim,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would
3
EFTA00021845

=== Page 5 ===
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
d.
In addition, Epstein offered to help some
minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them.
e.
Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters.
5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
EFTA00021846

=== Page 6 ===
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6.
Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims
were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
a. A a multi-story private residence on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
"New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
photograph:
5
EFTA00021847

=== Page 7 ===
b.
An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
C.
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
6
EFTA00021848

=== Page 8 ===
d.
MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
England.
7.
Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with
respect to minor victims:
a.
MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor
Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
7
EFTA00021849

=== Page 9 ===
and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
b.
MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
8
EFTA00021850

=== Page 10 ===
19
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
massage Epstein.
C.
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage.
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8.
In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
EFTA00021851

=== Page 11 ===
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9.
From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2422.
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
10
EFTA00021852

=== Page 12 ===
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges:
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
11
EFTA00021853

=== Page 13 ===
13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
12
EFTA00021854

=== Page 14 ===
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423 (a).
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2423 (a).
Overt Acts
17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
EFTA00021855

=== Page 15 ===
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
C.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT FOUR
(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
14
EFTA00021856

=== Page 16 ===
aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423 (a) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
A.
I don't know what you' re talking about.
15
EFTA00021857

=== Page 17 ===
Q.
List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
A.
I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17
at this point.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q:
Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house?
A:
No, not that I recall.
Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities?
A.
No.
16
EFTA00021858

=== Page 18 ===
Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities?
A.
I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself.
a
I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activities with anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involved with you?
A.
That is my testimony, that is correct.
Q.
Is it your testimony that you' ve never given
anybody a massage?
A.
I have not given anyone a massage.
Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
your testimony?
A.
That is my testimony.
Q. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
testimony?
A.
I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
FOREPERSON
John
AUDREY Audrey United STRAUSS Strais
Acting States Attorney
17
EFTA00021859

=== Page 19 ===
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a),
and 2)
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
The
Foreperson
18
EFTA00021860


c1: EFTA00021568
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021568.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: Working doc
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 02:48:51 +0000
Attachments: 2021.02.26,_GM,_Omnibus_Opposition_to_Defense_Motions_WB_MASTER_COPY.docx
Hey
Did you add the redaction on page 117? (It may have been there from an old version this morning.) Either way, since it
now quotes from the public Second Circuit docket, I think we don't need to redact that bit.
Will, I caught a nit in the first sentence of V.C.I - it says "Ex. 10 14:9" instead of "Ex. 10 at 14:9."
Otherwise, I am pencils down! (Maurene, if you still think it's useful to create a public, redacted version of the July depo, I
can do that quickly while you finalize.)
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 9:17 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Working doc
Here you go. Almost done with inputting your edits as well.
From:
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 9:14 PM
To:
Subject: Working doc
Hey
- would you send me the working doc when you have a second? I'm just taking a quick look at the redactions, no
textual changes are coming!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00021568


c1: EFTA00020908
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020908.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Stoddart, Allison"
To:
Cc: "Sahni, Anjan"
Subject: JPMorgan Chase Production
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:48:32 +0000
Attachments: 2019-11-15_SDNY_Letter.pdf
Attached is a letter on behalf of our client, JPMorgan Chase, which is also being sent via FedEx. The password for the disc
is: \E%z{.5B&8bhV73j
Please let us know if you have any issues accessing the materials.
Thank you,
Allison
Allison Stoddart I WilmerHale
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007 USA
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify us immediately-by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster@wilmerhale.com-and destroy all
copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com.
EFTA00020908


c1: EFTA00021175
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021175.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: revised Press Remarks
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:25 +0000
Attachments: Ghislaine_Maxwell_Press_Remarks_v5.docx
Sorry I failed to attach.
EFTA00021175


c1: EFTA00023241
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023241.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Final Voucher 11061409-1(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:26:28 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 11061409-1(1) has been prepared by your travel arranger and is ready for your review. Please log
into E2 Solutions to review the document.
Trip ID: 11061409-1
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13400 - Epstein Investigation Witness interviews
Destination: Beverly Hills, CA, United States
Dates: 2020-02-26 - 2020-02-29
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1194.11
Estimated trip cost: 1634.37
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0012
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00023241


c1: EFTA00021966
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021966.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The
Silvio
Building
New York, New York 10007
November 6, 2021
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Christian Everdell, Esq.
Cohen & Gresser LLP
New York, NY 10022
Laura Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
Denver, CO 80203
Bobbi Sternheim, Esq.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10007
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Counsel:
Today the Government is producing additional materials, including Jencks Act and
Giglio material, regarding witnesses who may be called to testify at trial in the above-referenced
case. Enclosed please find an index detailing the materials included in today's production.
The Government is also producing today certain materials relating to individuals the
Government does not currently intend to call as witnesses at trial in the above-referenced case.
These materials do not contain a comprehensive set of Jencks Act and Giglio materials, as the
Government does not expect to call these individuals to testify at trial. Instead, these materials
contain, among other things, certain witness statements. Enclosed please find an index detailing
these materials. This production should not be taken to indicate that the Government believes it
has any obligation to provide all of these materials; rather, we make this production as a courtesy.
Moreover, although the Government presently does not intend to call the individuals listed in the
enclosed index, we reserve the right to do so and will notify you should the Government determine
that it intends to call any of these individuals at trial.
EFTA00021966

=== Page 2 ===
Page 2
Please note that this letter, the enclosed indices, and the enclosed materials are
governed by the July 31, 2020 Protective Order in this case. In particular, certain materials are
designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. The index is itself designated as
"confidential," because it includes information regarding records designated as
"confidential" under the Protective Order. The Department of Justice directed this office to
cease the dissemination of materials marked with the word "confidential" in order to avoid
potential confusion with markings reserved for classified documents. Accordingly, in order to
note the appropriate designation of this production under the operative Protective Order in this
case, the materials being produced today are marked with the following label: "SUBJECT TO
PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17." This marking directly refers to
the specific paragraphs of the Protective Order that govern today's production.
Additionally, please note that many of the individuals referenced in this production are
represented by counsel, as detailed in the enclosed indices. The Government reserves its right to
amend and supplement these disclosures.
Very truly yours,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
EFTA00021967


c1: EFTA00020881
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020881.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Weinstein, Marc A.
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:51:56 +0000
Attachments:
(CMA) - Vol. I - 12-04-09.pdf;
_Vol._Il.pdf
The transcripts are attached. We trust that the US Attorney's Office will keep these confidential other than to the extent
disclosure is required in any pending case.
Regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein | Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:03 PM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
I connected with Jack Scarola last week. I just sent him an email to confirm that we can provide you with the
transcript. Once we receive confirmation from him, we will send you the transcript.
Best regards,
Marc
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
EFTA00020881

=== Page 2 ===
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Hi Marc,
Hope you're doing well. I wanted to check in on the status of this issue - have you been able to connect with Mr. Scarola?
Thanks,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Tuesday, September
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Thanks
I will give him a call.
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks for following up on this. If it's okay with you, I think it makes sense to connect you with the plaintiff's attorney,
Jack Scarola, so that he can convey this to you directly. I have spoken with him and explained the context here, and he
has told me that he would be happy to speak with you. He is also seeking a copy of the transcript, as he has informed me
that he no longer has his case files for matters this old. Here is his contact information:
Jack Scarola
EFTA00020882

=== Page 3 ===
Thank you,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:24 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
We haven't found a governing protective order, but to be safe, would you be able to get a letter or email from
attorney stating that they are not aware of a protective order/agreement governing the disclosure of the transcript, and
to the extent one existed, they are waiving any provisions in order to permit the Estate to provide the transcript to the US
Attorney's Office, and that they will not claim, in any forum, that the Co-Executors, the Estate, or any representatives of
either, breached any such order/agreement in that case by providing the transcript to the US Attorney's Office.
Let us know if that works on your end.
Best regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 3:01 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Hi Marc,
Thanks - we have conferred with plaintiff's counsel, who has informed us that he is unaware of any protective order
relating to the
lawsuit.
Best,
EFTA00020883

=== Page 4 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Weinstein, Marc A. <
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:07 PM
To:
Cc:
;
Subject: Re: SDNY investigation
we are still looking to see what confidentiality restrictions might apply. If her lawyer has any such confidentiality
or protective order that governed the case, it might be helpful if you could obtain and share that.
Marc A. Weinstein I Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
On Sep 14, 2020, at 11:56 AM,
wrote:
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks very much. Are you able to provide it to us? If there are any issues with providing it to us, or if a call would be
useful to discuss, please let us know.
Thanks,
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:51 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
we have the transcript of
deposition.
Regards,
EFTA00020884

=== Page 5 ===
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Thanks, Marc. We'll look forward to hearing from you, and thanks for your assistance with this.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:35 PM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
Thanks
It wasn't clear to me from the call that it was the plaintiff's deposition that you were after, as opposed to
another witness in the case. Now that it's clear, we will see if we can track it down.
Regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Weinstein, Marc A.
Cc: Andrew Tomback
EFTA00020885

=== Page 6 ===
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Marc,
Thanks for speaking earlier. The plaintiff's name is
who is represented by Jack Scarola. The deposition
took place in 2009, and Jeffrey Epstein was represented by Mark Luttier and Bob Critton of Critton, Luttier, and Coleman
LLP in West Palm Beach.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 11:11 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
I just realized that you didn't share with us the deponent's name for the transcript you are looking for. Let us
know so that we can make the appropriate inquiries.
Best regards,
Marc
Marc A. Weinstein Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
From:
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Weinstein, Marc A
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: RE: SDNY investigation
EFTA00020886

=== Page 7 ===
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
That works well, thanks very much. Talk to you then.
From: Weinstein, Marc A.
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:13 AM
To:
Cc: Andrew Tomback
Subject: Re: SDNY investigation
if 11:00 works, I can send a dial-in.
Marc A. Weinstein | Partner
Chair, White Collar Defense
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-
mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 10:46 AM,
wrote:
CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm.
Andy and Marc,
Are you available for a brief call tomorrow? I'm available before 1 p.m., if there's a time that works for you in that window.
Thanks very much,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00020887


c1: EFTA00020850
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020850.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Epstein tips
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:14:47 +0000
Embedded: FW: HIGHLY URGENT: To Geoffrey S. Berman; The United_States_Attorney_for_the_S
outhern _District_of New_York &
Victim_Witness_Coordinator_at_T
he_United_States_Attorney's_Office.msg;
FW: EXTREMELY URGENT: NEW SUBMISSIONS & FORMAL_COMPLAINTS;_TO
Dr Nikola Stepanov (PhD) Queensland Integrity Commissioner &_The_Hon_Ronald_Sack
ville_AO_QC,_The_Royal_Commission_into_Violence,_Abuse,_Neglect_and_Exploitation_of
_People_with_Disability._-...nsg
FYI, attached, per our usual practice.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00020850


c1: EFTA00022377
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022377.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UBS Financial Services Inc.
Private Wealth Management
UBS
299 Park Avenue
25th Floor
Resource Management Account
New York NY 10171-0002
November 2016
CNP7005535531 1116 X135 Y1 0
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
P.O. BOX 308
TEANECK NJ 07666-0308
Account name: GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Friendly account name: Indiv.A45685004
Account number:
Your Financial Advisor:
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
Phone: 212-821-7000/800-308-3140
Questions about your statement?
Call your Financial Advisor or the
Value of your account
RMA ResourceLine at 800-RMA-1000,
on October 31 ($)
on November 30 ($)
account 029023568
Your assets
817,718.75
557.14
Visit our website:
Your liabilities
0.00
0.00
www.ubs.com/financialservices
Value of your account
$817,718.75
$557.14
Sources of your account growth
Tracking the value of your account
during 2016
Value of your account
$ Thousands
at year end 2015
$798,007.41
Net deposits and
1,721.2
withdrawals
-$854,604.16
Your investment return:
Dividend and
798.0
817.7
interest income
$19,599.47
Change in
market value
$37,554.42
0.6
Value of your account
Dec 2014
Dec 2015
on Nov 30, 2016
$557.14
Oct 2016
Nov 2016
Member SIPC
CNP70008005535531 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 1 of 6
EFTA00022377

=== Page 2 ===
UBS
Resource Management Account
Account name:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Financial Advisor:
Friendly account name: Indiv. A45685004
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
November 2016
Account number:
212-821-7000/800-308-3140
Your account balance sheet
Summary of your assets
Value on
Percentage of
November 30 ($)
your account
A
Cash and money balances
557.14
100.00%
Your current asset allocation
B
Cash alternatives
0.00
0.00%
C
Equities
0.00
0.00%
D
Fixed income
0.00
0.00%
E
Non-traditional
0.00
0.00%
F
Commodities
0.00
0.00%
G Other
0.00
0.00%
Total assets
$557.14
100.00%
A
Value of your account
$557.14
Eye on the markets
Percentage change
Index
November 2016
Year to date
S&P 500
3.70%
9.79%
Russell 3000
4.48%
10.58%
MSCI - Europe, Australia & Far East
-1.98%
-1.86%
Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index
-2.37%
2.50%
Interest rates on November 30, 2016
3-month Treasury bills: 0.48%
One-month LIBOR: 0.62%
CNP70008005535532 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 2 of 6
EFTA00022378

=== Page 3 ===
Resource Management Account
Account name:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Financial Advisor:
UBS
Friendly account name: ndiv.A45685004
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
November 2016
Account number:
212-821-7000/800-308-3140
Change in the value of your account
Summary of gains and losses
November 2016 ($)
Year to date ($)
Values reported below exclude products for which gains and losses are not classified.
Opening account value
$817,718.75
$798,007.41
Realized gains and losses
Unrealized
November 2016 ($)
Year to date ($)
gains and losses ($)
Deposits, including investments
transferred in
0.00
35,660.00
Long term
0.00
-790.56
0.00
Withdrawals and fees,
including investments transferred
out
-811,814.80
-890,264.16
Cash activity summary
Dividend and interest income
2,250.69
19,599.47
See Account activity this month for details. Balances in your Sweep Options are included in the opening and
closing balances value. FDIC insurance applies only to deposits at UBS Bank USA, not to deposits at UBS AG,
Change in market value
-7,597.50
Stamford Branch or bank deposits placed through the UBS International Deposit Account program. SIPC
37,554.42
protection applies to money market sweep fund holdings but not bank deposits. See Important information
about your statement on the last two pages of this document for details.
Closing account value
$557.14
$557.14
November 2016 ($)
Year to date ($)
Dividend and interest income earned
Opening balances
$806.52
$92.72
Additions
For purposes of this statement, taxability of interest and dividend income has been determined from a US
Deposits and other funds credited
0.00
35,660.00
tax reporting perspective Based upon the residence of the account holder, account type, or product type,
some interest and/or dividend payments may not be subject to United States (US) and/or Puerto Rico (PR)
Dividend and interest income
2,250.69
19,599.47
income taxes. The client monthly statement is not intended to be used and cannot be relied upon for tax
purposes. Clients should refer to the applicable tax reporting forms they receive from UBS annually, such as
Proceeds from investment transactions
0.00
56,154.38
the Forms 1099 and the Forms 480, for tax reporting information It is the practice of UBS to file the
applicable tax reporting forms with the US Internal Revenue Service and PR Treasury Department, and in
Total additions
$2,250.69
$111,413.85
such forms accurately classify dividends and/or interest as tax exempt or taxable income. Please consult your
individual tax preparer.
Subtractions
November 2016 ($)
Year to date ($)
Professional management fees and
related services
557.14
-5,181.84
Taxable dividends
2,250.69
19,599.33
Other funds debited
-3,057.21
-75,767.59
Taxable interest
0.00
0.14
Funds withdrawn for investments
Total current year
$2,250.69
$19,599.47
bought
0.00
-30,000.00
Total dividend & interest
$2,250.69
$19,599.47
Total subtractions
-$2,500.07
-$110,949.43
Net cash flow
-$249.38
$464.42
Closing balances
$557.14
$557.14
CNP70008005535533 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 3 of 6
EFTA00022379

=== Page 4 ===
UBS
Resource Management Account
Account name:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Financial Advisor:
Friendly account name: Indiv. A45685004
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
November 2016
Account number:
212-821-7000/800-308-3140
UBS Bank USA Deposit Account APY
Interest period Oct 7 - Nov 6
Opening UBS Bank USA Deposit balance Oct 7
$38.16
Closing UBS Bank USA Deposit balance Nov 6
$903.36
Number of days in interest period
31
Average daily balance
$848.16
Interest earned
$0.00
Annual percentage yield earned
0.00%
Your investment objectives:
You have identified the following investment objectives for this account If you have questions
about these objectives, disagree with them, or wish to change them, please contact your
Financial Advisor or Branch Manager. You can find a full description of the alternative
investment objectives in Important information about your statement at the end of this
document.
Your return objective:
Capital appreciation
Your risk profile:
Primary Aggressive
Investment eligibility consideration - None selected
Your account instructions
Your account cost basis default closing method is FIFO, First In, First Out.
CNP70008005535534 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 4 of 6
EFTA00022380

=== Page 5 ===
Resource Management Account
Account name:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Financial Advisor:
UBS
Friendly account name: Indiv. A45685004
November 2016
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
Account number:
212-821-7000/800-308-3140
Your assets
Some prices, income and current values shown may be approximate. As a result, gains and losses may not
be accurately reflected See Important information about your statement at the end of this document for
more information
Cash
Cash and money balances
Opening balance
Closing balance
Price per share
Average
Dividend/Interest
Days in
Holding
on Nov 1 ($)
on Nov 30 ($)
on Nov 30 ($)
rate
period
period
Cap amount ($)
Cash
0.00
557.14
UBS BANK USA DEP ACCT
806.52
0.00
250,000.00
Total
$806.52
$557.14
Your total assets
Percentage of
Cost
Estimated
Unrealized
Value on Nov 30 ($)
your account
basis ($)
annual income ($)
gain or loss ($)
Cash
Cash and money balances
557.14
100.00%
557.14
Total
$557.14
100.00%
$557.14
Account activity this month
Date
Activity
Description
Amount ($)
Dividend and interest income
Taxable dividends
Nov 1
Dividend
GENL MILLS INC PAID ON
1882
903.36
Nov 15
Dividend
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO PAID ON
1508
588.12
Nov 15 Dividend
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO PAID ON
1134
759.21
Total taxable dividends
$2,250.69
Total dividend and interest income
$2,250.69
Date
Activity
Description
Amount ($)
Fees
Nov 30 Refund
PRORATED ADVISORY FEE
557.14
Total professional management fees
$557.14
Date
Activity
Description
Amount ($)
Other funds debited
Nov 1
Transfer
JOURNAL TO Y1 23575 GHISLAINE MAXWELL
-806.52
continued next page
CNP70008005535535 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 5 of 6
EFTA00022381

=== Page 6 ===
UBS
Resource Management Account
Account name:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Your Financial Advisor:
Friendly account name: Indiv. A45685004
SCOTT STACKMAN/LYLE CASRIEL
November 2016
Account number:
212-821-7000/800-308-3140
Account activity this month (continued)
Date
Activity
Description
Amount ($)
Other funds debited (continued)
Nov 28 Transfer
TO Y1 36506 8200
-2,250.69
Total other funds debited
-$3,057.21
Investment transactions
For more information about the price/value shown for restricted securities, see Important information about
your statement at the end of this document.
Proceeds from
Funds
investment
withdrawn for
Accrued
Date
Activity
Description
Quantity
Value ($)
Price ($)
transactions ($)
investments bought ($)
interest ($)
Nov 28
Transfer
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CRP TO Y1 36506
-969.000
-66,269.91
8200
Nov 28
Transfer
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSNG INC TO Y1
-72.000
-6,953.04
36506 8200
Nov 28
Transfer
BLACKROCK INC TO Y1 36506 8200
-72.000
-26,542.80
Nov 28
Transfer
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO TO Y1 36506 8200
-1,508.000
-100,176.44
Nov 28
Transfer
EOG RESOURCES INC TO Y1 36506 8200
-500.000
-46,735.00
Nov 28
Transfer
FORTINET INC TO Y1 36506 8200
-2,000.000
-60,480.00
Nov 28
Transfer
GENL MILLS INC TO Y1 36506 8200
-1,882.000
-116,834.56
Nov 28
Transfer
AECOM TO Y1 36506 8200
-600.000
-22,182.00
Nov 28
Transfer
JOHNSON & JOHNSON COM TO Y1 36506 8200
-66.000
-7,466.58
Nov 28
Transfer
MCDONALDS CORP TO Y1 36506 8200
-1,018.000
-124,012.76
Nov 28
Transfer
NEXTERA ENERGY INC COM TO Y1 36506 8200
-162.000
-18,840.60
Nov 28
Transfer
PEPSICO INC TO Y1 36506 8200
-1,154.000
-118,619.66
Nov 28
Transfer
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO TO Y1 36506 8200
-1,134.000
-94,201.38
Total
Securities transferred out
-$809,314.73
Date
Activity
Description
Amount ($)
Money balance activities
Oct 31
Balance forward
$806.52
Nov 2
Deposit
UBS BANK USA DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
96.84
Nov 16
Deposit
UBS BANK USA DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
1,347.33
Nov 29
Withdrawal
UBS BANK USA DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AS OF 11/28/16
-2,250.69
Nov 30
Closing UBS Bank USA Deposit Account
$0.00
The UBS Bank USA Deposit Account is your primary sweep option.
CNP70008005535536 NP7000185219 00002 1116 030575004 Y123568550 101010
Page 6 of 6
End of statement for account number Y1 23568 S5
EFTA00022382


c1: EFTA00023290
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023290.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Roberta Kaplan
To:
(USANYS)"
, Alexandra Conlon
Cc: "Kate L. Doniger"
)"
Subject: Re: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 02:31:33 +0000
Thank you.
Roberta Kaplan
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 7:22:32 PM
To: Alexandra Conlon
>; Roberta Kaplan
Cc: Kate L. Doniger
>;
Subject: RE: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Alexandra and Robbie,
Thank you for this. I will contact you regarding the request.
Thanks,
From: Alexandra Conlon
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 7:54 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>; Roberta Kaplan
Cc: Kate L. Doniger
is
Subject: RE: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
SENT ON BEHALF OF ROBERTA KAPLAN
AUSA
Thank you for contacting us. Attached please find a Touhy letter and supporting exhibit requesting documents from the
Department of Justice in connection with our pending litigation against Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
We are happy to schedule a time to talk if it would be helpful to discuss our request.
Best Regards,
Robbie
Alexandra Conlon Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
EFTA00023290

=== Page 2 ===
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 6:59 PM
To: Roberta Kaplan
Cc: Kate L. Doniger
>; Alex Conlon
Subject: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Ms. Kaplan,
Please find attached a letter regarding the request you discussed with AUSA
for certain information
relating to Jeffrey Epstein. As stated in the letter, please contact me once you have had a chance to review the letter if you
would like to discuss the issues therein further.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
EFTA00023291


c1: EFTA00020508
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020508.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
OFFICIAL RECORD
Intake (Rev. 5-23-17)
Document signed
UNCLASSIFIED
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Intake
Date: 10/09/2020
Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571
(U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING
Drafted By:
Date/Time Received: 10/09/2020 07:22 PM EDT
Details:
On 10/09/2020, at 7:22:58 PM Eastern Time,
date of birth
cellular telephone
number
called the FBI National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) to report information
regarding a Jeffrey Epstein party.
provided the following information:
met Lisa Villeneuve at a hospital where they were roommates in 2000. Villeneuve now goes by
Ghislaine Lisa Villeneuve and sells real estate in Irving California.
After
and Villeneuve left the hospital they remained friends. Later that year in 2000 around
Christmas time Villeneuve invited
to a party on Palm Beach Island, FL.
believes the house
belong to Epstein. Before the part Villeneuve took
to meet Bobby Cox. Cox was a young man and
introduced himself as a model scout. Villeneuve laughed in response to Cox's introduction and said "No,
you're a pimp." Villeneuve, Cox and
then went to the party. They entered the property through the
back yard and Villeneuve said she would go inside to speak with the hostess which
believes was
Ghislaine Maxwell. When Villeneuve took
inside Villeneuve told
to stay close and not go into
any of the rooms. Villeneuve took
to meet a man named Curt Schmidt, who is currently the CEO of
Blue Buffalo. When Villeneuve and
approached Schmidt he asked Villeneuve if
was cool.
stated she was cool. Villeneuve said no, he means cool to have sex. Schmidt said no he meant
cocaine. Villeneuve took
back inside and someone told the party that Donald Trump had invited
them all to a party at Mar a Lago.
told Villeneuve she wanted to go, but Villeneuve told
it
wasn't that kind of party, it was for prostitutes.
hasn't spoken to Villeneuve since 2002.
UNCLASSIFIED
EFTA00020508


c1: EFTA00021729
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021729.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
To:
Cc:
Subject: URGENT-Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509 COURT ORDER
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:05:18 +0000
Attachments: 127128346956.pdf; ATT00001.htm
By Order of the Court (attached)
You are directed to give 1s.Maxwell access to her laptop on weekends and holidays. Please comply
immediately.
Thank you-
Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq.
Docket Text:
MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on [115] LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell
addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re:
Laptop Access. ENDORSEMENT: The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of
Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and
holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. so ORDERED. (Signed by
Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2021) (Inl)
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127128346956?caseid=5396128de_seq_num=371&magic_num=56905676
EFTA00021729


c1: EFTA00023233
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023233.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted:
Proffer (Ordered) (re Epstein)
Start Date: 2019-09-10 16:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-09-10 17:30:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location:
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-12-11 04:53:26 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-12-11 04:53:26 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-09-04 16:44:11 +0000
EFTA00023233


c1: EFTA00020481
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020481.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
OFFICIAL RECORD
Intake (Rev. 5-23-17)
UNCLASSIFIED
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Intake
Date: 08/11/2020
Case ID #: 50D-NY-3027571
(U) EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING
Drafted By:
Date/Time Received: 08/11/2020 07:26 AM EDT
Details:
On 08/11/2020, at 7:26 a.m. Eastern Time,
Last Name Unknown
(LNU), email address
/
who resides in Virginia Beach,
VA, Internet Protocol (IP) address
,
which resolves to
Virginia Beach, VA 23464, submitted an online tip to the FBI National
Threat Operations Center (NTOC) via tips. fbi.gov, to report a sexual
encounter with Jeffrey Epstein when she was 15 years old.
Date Submitted: 08/11/2020 07:26:56 AM ET
Transaction Number: 0B153A14-9B5A-425F-ACAB-46CC624AD735
Threat To Life: False
Submitted Text:
Hi, my name is
I don't know who I need to talk to about this but
I think I may have been a victim by jeffrey epstein. I was about 15 at
the time. My friend said we could make some quick money just by giving a
massage. So we met with her friend who his name was Andy. When we went I
sat down while she went inside the bedroom. She came out & Andy said he
wanted me to come in. When I walked in there was another man sitting on
UNCLASSIFIED
EFTA00020481

=== Page 2 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/11/2020
the bed which made me even made hesitate to go in but I went in. I gave a
quick massage to a man who looks very much like him. Then he proceeded to
take my clothes off without my permission. All I remember is getting
touched, touching a man, & then having a
on me. After it was all
done he gave us money & we left. I'm really trying to remember if it was
him or not since I've blocked absolutely so much of those years out of my
head. But he looks so familiar & that voice of his as well. Not only that
but months later Andy drives by the place I stayed at & asked me was
there anyone in the government or law enforcement looking for him. He
said that he was part of a thing with a powerful man & he has to get out
of town if they were looking for him. I told him they weren't which it
was the case. I know Andy & other men he knew would give girls but mostly
Russian girls places to stay & help them with work. Much of that work was
prostitution for rich men that Andy pimped them out to. So I am hoping
you can help me figure out if I was Epstein victims by answering some
questions so I can piece it together. Such as could you please tell me if
you have proof that jeffrey epstein was in Virginia Beach, Virginia in the
2000's? Did Epstein have Russian girls in Virginia Beach, Virginia? Do
you have a Virginia Beach home address on file for him that I could
verify back to you? Finally has the name Andy ever come up in ur files
that's related to Epstein in anyway? If you would be so kind to email me
back it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Violation: Other
Violation Questions
What was the exact crime that occurred?: It's about Jeffery Epstein
When did the crime/incident occur? (Please provide an approximate date
and time) : 2000's
Where did the crime/incident occur? (Please provide the specific
location/address if possible): Virginia Beach, VA
UNCLASSIFIED
2
EFTA00020482

=== Page 3 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/11/2020
Complainant Information
First Name:
Middle Name:
Last Name:
Age:
DOB:
Additional Info:
Account:
Type: Other
Address:
City: Virginia Beach
State: Virginia
Zip:
Country: United States
Subject Information
First Name: Jeffery
Middle Name:
Last Name: Epstein
Age: N/A
UNCLASSIFIED
3
EFTA00020483

=== Page 4 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/11/2020
DOB:
Additional Info: No
How is Contact Known: Written above
Type: Other
Address:
City:
Zip:
Witness Information
First Name:
Middle Name:
Last Name:
Age:
DOB:
Additional Info: N/A
How is Contact Known: N/A
Type: Other
Address:
City:
Zip:
UNCLASSIFIED
4
EFTA00020484

=== Page 5 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/11/2020
Remote IP:
Remote Host: api.fbi.gov
Http Referrer: https://www.fbi.gov/tips
User Browser:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Country: US
Region: Virginia
City: Virginia Beach
Postal Code: 23464
Timezone: -04:00
Domain Awareness Caveat: When collected, this information was determined
to be of no current lead value and did not provide a basis to investigate
further. No investigative action should be taken with regard to this
information alone.
Databases Queries:
UNCLASSIFIED
5
EFTA00020485

=== Page 6 ===
UNCLASSIFIED
Re: 50D-NY-3027571, 08/11/2020
Sentinel, Guardian, and DIVS queries revealed zero results.
UNCLASSIFIED
6
EFTA00020486


c1: EFTA00021914
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021914.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "
To:
Subject: Fwd: Victim Notification Letters
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:51:23 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 20, 2020 at 12:56:44 EDT
To:
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: Victim Notification Letters
Hey
will you be in today? I want to discuss the below.
Thanks
Forwarded message
From:
Date: Jul 20, 2020 12:54 PM
Subject: Victim Notification Letters
To:
Cc:
I have included a list of clients we represent who I believe have all spoken with the FBI or were identified as victims in
the Non-Prosecution Agreement in 2007. Please let me know if any of these names are unfamiliar to you or if you are
unable to provide a victim notification letter for any of them.
Claimant First Name
Claimant Last Name
EFTA00021914

=== Page 2 ===
Thank you so much for everything you do,
EDWARDS
POTTINGER LLC
Trial Attorney
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Direct Dial:
Office:
Facsimile
www.epllc.com
EFTA00021915


c1: EFTA00020450
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020450.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
Subject: RE: Suicide reconstruction report
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 14:50:21 +0000
Yes, I agree on both.
From:
)
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 10:48 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Suicide reconstruction report
Thanks very much. How terrifying, and how remarkable that he is remaining so optimistic.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:47 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Suicide reconstruction report
See below from
He's asked us to keep it confidential.
From:
(OIG)
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 10:39 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Suicide reconstruction report
I don't mind sharing as long as it remains confidential. You can share with
as well because it may also impact
our QPDF case, but please keep it confidential beyond that.
My simple advise is to enjoy EVERY day with your loved ones, especially your children, and never take your health for
granted.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:23 AM
To:
D. (OIG)
Subject: Re: Suicide reconstruction report
I'm glad to hear that you're home. If you're comfortable sharing, I'd love to know what's going on. Regardless, thinking of
you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 3, 2020, at 10:22 AM,
D. (OIG)
wrote:
EFTA00020450

=== Page 2 ===
Hi
:
Thx again for your concerns and thoughts.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:18 AM
To:
D. (OIG)
Subject: RE: Suicide reconstruction report
Thanks,
How are you feeling?
From:
D. (OIG)
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 10:13 AM
To:
(BOP)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(OIG)
Subject: FW: Suicide reconstruction report
:
Thanks for advising about
transfer to Englewood. Can you please expedite the below request relating to Epstein's
finalized suicide reconstruction report. Thx much in advance for your assistance.
From:
D. (OIG)
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 4:54 PM
To:
Cc:
(OIG)
Subject: Fwd: Suicide reconstruction report
:
Hope all is well with you and fam. Can you please advise? Thx!
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
(USANYS)"
Date: August 24, 2020 at 2:09:15 PM EDT
To:
(OIG)"
>,
(OIG)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Suicide reconstruction report
and
I hope you and yours are doing well and staying healthy.
EFTA00020451

=== Page 3 ===
We do not yet have a final version of the suicide reconstruction report, as far as I'm aware. Have you received this
from BOP/MCC? If so, could you send it to us? If not, could you reach out to your contacts at BOP for the final version
or an estimated completion date?
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Tel:
Fax:
EFTA00020452


c1: EFTA00021334
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021334.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Important Presentation Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:27:02 +0000
Oh, sorry to hear it - get some rest and feel better, and we'll let you know how it goes.
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 16:27
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Important Presentation Tomorrow
No I went home- - not feeling so hot. I (unsurprisingly) brought a cold home with me from London.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:20 PM,
wrote:
Are you totally booked the rest of this afternoon? I know you have trial stuff so totally understand if so but if we can do
all three of us I think that'd be optimal - no pressure but even if you can sneak out for like 10 mins and then jet if it goes
longer. But if not, say the word and we can do it!
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 16:19
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Important Presentation Tomorrow
You guys go ahead without me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2019, at 4:15 PM,
wrote:
I'm available now if you guys are.
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:15 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Important Presentation Tomorrow
Can we meet briefly on the victim meetings this afternoon?
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:06 PM
To:
EFTA00021334

=== Page 2 ===
Cc:
Subject: RE: Important Presentation Tomorrow
Thanks, we appreciate it. In terms of
in general, based on our conversations with her attorneys, we expect
she'll eventually tell us that she was 18 years old when she arrived in the U.S. through Brunel's modeling agency, and
that she met Epstein shortly thereafter at a party and he invited her to his houses, and she quickly became dependent
on him financially, and also that her modeling opportunities seemed to somewhat mysteriously dry up at the same
time. (The media reporting that she was "sold" to Epstein by her parents and/or that she knew him when she was a
minor are inaccurate.) She quickly became Epstein's "girlfriend" but was also subjected to significant sexual abuse,
including being directed by him to engage in sexual encounters with other young women (though never any other
men). Her attorneys say they believe she doesn't recall knowing that any of those individuals were minors. They also
recounted a pretty horrifying list of other controlling behaviors, including encouraging disordered eating, requiring
plastic surgery, etc., which not surprisingly resulted in a lot of negative feelings but also some Stockholm Syndrome /
attachment disorder kinds of responses.
Also generally, it doesn't seem like she had much interaction with Maxwell, whom
believed didn't like her; in
the initial several years of being in Epstein's orbit,
also had relatively little interaction with
despite
being in proximity to her on trips and sometimes in the residences. Her attorneys say that Epstein discouraged the
various women from talking with each other, and that
and
were in different silos in his life (girlfriend
vs. assistant), but that
and
actually ended up becoming friends after Epstein was prosecuted in
Florida. That was also around the time
started to become more independent of Epstein, and she broke off
their relationship in approximately 2010 (though she continued to receive financial support from him, and has lived in
the
building for many years, up through Epstein's arrest in July).
All that said, we expect that because tomorrow is the first proffer, it likely will be a high-level discussion going through
the chronology and starting to build rapport. In subsequent proffers we hope to get into more detail about
information that would corroborate the accounts of other victims/witnesses as to Epstein's other associates,
conversations or understandings relating to
and Maxwell in particular, and any other relevant information as to
anyone else she has information on.
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 15:37
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Important Presentation Tomorrow
Understood, that is important. Do you have a sense from an attorney proffer as to what she will say?
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:30 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Important Presentation Tomorrow
Hey just FYI, we're doing our first proffer with
tomorrow at 12:30, so that's why we won't be there-
apologies for that, and we tried several times to find other available times (but were significantly constrained because
the agents aren't available all of next week), and originally was planned for later in the afternoon but defense counsel
asked to move it. If anything changes we'll join, but assuming it doesn't wanted to let you know we had made best
efforts.
EFTA00021335

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 15:24
To: USANYS-Criminal AUSA Only
Subject: Important Presentation Tomorrow
On Friday at 12:30 in the Maxine Pfeffer Memorial Library, there will be a presentation by PSEU (Policy and Statutory
Enforcement Unit). Your attendance is important.
(I am hoping to get some tips on writing a Policy on Enforcing USA compliance)
EFTA00021336


c1: EFTA00020906
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020906.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: any of you have vouchers for Epstein victims.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:55:41 +0000
I don't
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 14, 2019, at 09:50,
wrote:
Victim Witness Coordinator
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Tel.
EFTA00020906


c1: EFTA00020574
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020574.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Thank you, Ariel.
As a result of this new law, victims of childhood sexual abuse
whose voices were never heard and whose stories were never
told have now been given a new chance to come forward, to
share their experiences, and to vindicate their rights;
All of these goals are wholeheartedly shared by our Office,
which is committed to using the federal criminal law to the
maximum extent possible to investigate and prosecute those
who sexually abuse and traffic minors.
As many of you know, several months ago our Office brought
criminal sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein, a serial
predator.
To bring that prosecution, we relied on the courage of many
young women who were victimized as minors and who were
willing -- years after their abuse - to share their stories. And
while Epstein committed suicide before he could face trial, our
investigation into his co-conspirators continues.
I have said publicly before, we can only do the work we do with
the assistance of victims willing to come forward.
By providing victims of childhood sexual abuse with a new
opportunity to be heard, this law marks not only an important
step for victims' rights but will help facilitate the work of law
EFTA00020574

=== Page 2 ===
enforcement in identifying and prosecuting those who prey on
our most vulnerable.
I want to thank Safe Horizon for inviting me to this important
event. As the country's largest victim services organization,
Safe Horizon provides support on a daily basis to victims of
human trafficking, sexual assault, and child exploitation. This
work is incredibly important -- and incredibly challenging.
Our Office knows that it takes great courage for victims of
trafficking and assault to report their experiences to law
enforcement. It also takes coordination, trust, and
partnerships between service providers like Safe Horizon and
prosecutors.
For years, our Office has received case referrals from Safe
Horizon and we look forward to continuing our partnership to
hold traffickers and predators accountable and to seek justice
for victims of violence.
EFTA00020575


c1: EFTA00023461
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023461.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
United States of America,
DATE FILED: 10/29/21
-v-
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter regarding delivery of Defendant's legal mail
at MDC. Dkt. No. 381. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Tuesday,
November 2, 2021 at 12:00 p.m.
so ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2021
Alim D. Netto
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
1
EFTA00023461


c1: EFTA00022640
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00022640.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: AUSA
OIA approval
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:02:37 +0000
Attachments:
-_OIA_10.12.20.pdf
AUSA
OIA approval.
From:
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 4:53 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: AUSA
ECC package
Importance: High
Hi RMP,
Please see the attached ECC request package for AUSA
If required, please inform the traveler how to determine who the POC is for this trip.
Please advise the traveler of any additional steps they may need take.
Hi
Please let EOUSA know if you have checked to see if a visa is required for your destination.
View the state dept. link for the country you are traveling to visa link for the country you are traveling to.
Visa policies may be found on the Department of State's website or on the website hosted by each country's embassy.
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html
Traveler, Consult EOUSA
mailbox to obtain a visa for you.
To provide sufficient time for the State Dept. to issue the authorization letter and for the foreign government to process the visa
request, it is recommended that visa request package be submitted to EOUSA's RMP Travel.
Staff 15 business days prior to the proposed date of departure.
Thank you
EFTA00022640


c1: EFTA00021023
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021023.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: Epstein search warrant documents
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:03:29 +0000
Just FYI
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 12:03
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
totally happy to chat, and it's exactly the same issues as we talked about on the phone a couple weeks ago when we
first raised this -- I wonder if it makes sense to get in a room together? Otherwise it's a lot of games of telephone.
But basically the way to think about it is, imagine if we had seized papers from approximately 100,000 filings cabinets in a
dozen different office buildings. And then instead of keeping them organized or labeled by room, or even by office
building, all 1.3 million documents (so far) just got dumped into one big pile - except before that, any documents that had
multiple parts stapled together got separated. And then if any of those documents that was larger than about 100 pages
couldn't be opened. That's what we've got, just electronically.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 11:15
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I was out yesterday, let's touch base so we can get this resolved. I'm confused as to what is going on here, sounds like
there are issues that you haven't been able to resolve by going direct with
Thanks,
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 12:00 PM
To:
-
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
i
i
>;
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Unfortunately I don't think this is very helpful to us. Did you take a look at the example spreadsheet I sent on 2/24? The
excel file you sent has descriptions that don't match up to the items listed in the search warrant returns (that we sent on
2/23), and we don't have the 1B or CART numbers to be able to cross-reference. We also can't tell what you mean by
"loose media" without a specific comparison to what was seized, we don't know which items you're referring to as
EFTA00021023

=== Page 2 ===
"Windows machines," and we can't tell whether the entirety of any particular item has been transferred, or just partial.
For example, it looks like we have gotten very, very few image files, which is surprising.
We have also encountered some very significant problems in trying to review the more than 1 million documents we
recently received:
-
The data we've received has no way to put any emails and attachments together. So if an email says, "see the
attached flight records," for example, we have no way of linking that up with the records themselves. Not only is
that a big problem for us in review, it's going to be a huge problem for producing the documents to defense
counsel.
The load file has no link to the native file, so when we load the data to the database, there's no way to have the
native files show up in the database. Because many of the files are too large to open in the viewer, it effectively
means that there are many files that are completely invisible to us.
-
Related, the control numbers in the load file don't match up to the native files. So we have two sets of numbers
and no way to match up anything-that is, even if we were to try to go hunt down every individual large file in the
native files, it would be impossible.
So the data that we most recently got, we need to get in a form that addresses those issues, and we likely will need to get
a similar reproduction of the data we received a couple months ago. Otherwise we're sifting through more than a million
documents without much rhyme or reason.
I've re-attached the spreadsheet we sent last week - I think that's a good place to start in terms of our necessary record-
keeping, and we need that info at the very least, as well as anything else you think would be useful. Also attaching the SW
returns for reference. And again, we're happy to meet up anytime and hash all this out in person if that's useful.
thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 16:36
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
>;
>;
i
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Here is a listing of what I have already handed over in load files to the US Attorney's Office for taint review. Some points of
clarification: There were 9 IDE hard drives found in the Manhattan apartment, they turned out to be 3 copies of 3 drives
(9 drives in total) from a July 2007 search on one of his properties. I only processed 3 (as they were all copies). All the
loose media from the NY apartment is included. All the Windows machines from the NY apartment are included. Only 2
Macs from NY and 1 from the Island are included.
I will have to more closely coordinate with whoever is loading up Relativity with the remaining Macs as the tool
they have to be processed with does not easily re-name the load files.
Spreadsheet is attached.
(office)
EFTA00021024

=== Page 3 ===
(cell)
From:
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
i
>;
>;
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I could do Thursday morning, but I think it would be helpful for us to get the accounting in advance of the meeting so we
can figure out in advance what (if any) additional steps we need - is that possible?
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 09:59
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
>;
>;
i
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Can we do Thursday morning? My network should be back by then and I can give you a good accounting.
cell
desk
On Mar 2, 2020 11:15 AM,
)"
wrote:
Doing the weekly check in on this - is there a time this week when everyone can meet on this?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 17:38
To:
>;
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
>;
i
i
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Totally understand about the network issues-we can relate. I do still think it will be helpful to all sit down together to
have an in-person discussion, to make sure everybody is on the same page. Are folks available for that next week? And
what I think would be most helpful to facilitate that would be a spreadsheet of each separate device referenced in the two
EFTA00021025

=== Page 4 ===
search warrant returns, with columns for whether we've dumped the contents, whether they've been reviewed and/or
transferred, what portions were transferred, etc.
Something roughly like the attached, with any other categories you think would be useful - and the info on the attached is
mostly hypothetical, obviously, just as examples. That will help us fully understand what's been reviewed, transferred,
and received so far, and what remains.
(Also just on the pictures, we do want copies of those as well, please including from the discs and the devices - I think FBI
was going to do an initial screen to make sure no CP, and since I think the answer was no, we'll need to get those to be
able to review them as well.)
many thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 09:24
To:
(USANYS)
>;
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
in
>;
>;
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Sorry for the delayed response. They are tearing out our old network and giving us a new one, they mandated we
delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth). Now that they are working on replacing the network, we can do only local
work. I should be able to give you an accounting of what is what. I can say, off the top of my head, that all
windows based items from the NY search have been handed over as well as all loose media. The CDs from NY
only contained pictures, no documents. There are still some Apple items from NY that need to be produced. As
far as the Island stuff goes, the 1st item on your spreadsheet, the "kitchen" mac has been produced. Still working
on the rest.
cell
desk
On Feb 23, 2020 12:21 AM,
)"
wrote:
Team,
Following up on the below from last weekend, I'm still not sure how we're addressing this so I thought it would make
sense for us to all schedule a (hopefully relatively brief) meeting to all get on the same page? We didn't hear back on
which files had previously been provided, but our tech folks did their best to differentiate, and we got access to the
materials yesterday and its well over a million documents, and we don't have any idea what we're looking at - i.e., which
devices the materials came from, whether it's full or partial results, how many more devices we have coming, etc.
Based on the attached search warrant returns, it looks like from the New York mansion (the PDF) there are approximately
40 devices that would have storage (computers, hard drives, thumb drives, etc.) and that's not even counting at least 60+
CDs. And then from the Virgin Islands (the Excel spreadsheet), at least more than 25 devices, including multiple servers /
server racks.
So we gotta know what we've already received, what remains, anticipated schedule, etc, and I know it's a lot of moving
pieces on all sides so wanted to loop in everybody at once. The case team will be in California this coming week from
EFTA00021026

=== Page 5 ===
Tuesday through Friday, but then I think generally around the first week of March, which will hopefully be plenty of time
to schedule a productive meeting.
thanks all,
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 16:30
To:
is
Cc:
in
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure who's the exact right person to ask this, so wanted to get everybody on one email chain about it - I have the
hard drive that
dropped off that has new Epstein search warrant materials, but it looks like there are also old
materials (that I think we had previously received and uploaded??) on the hard drive, and so I'm not sure what's new.
Just generally, and
and I talked about this last week too, but it's basically impossible for us to keep track of what
we're getting, and what has been completed, without some kind of identification or labeling system, along with a list of
which devices have been extracted and downloaded.
So for example on the hard drive currently, there are 38 folders labeled "loadFiles" through "37loadFiles" with a modified
date of 11/14/19, which I think we may have already previously received - but I'm not sure, because we haven't gotten
any info on which folders match up to which devices, etc. And then there's another folder titled "NYC024362" that has a
modified date of 1/27/20, so I think that may be the materials we hadn't previously received? That folder by itself has
more than 600,000 items.
I don't want to give
anything that we've already previously received and uploaded, and I can't tell from the folder or
file names whether everything on the drive is new, or whether just additional materials were saved onto it in addition to
what we already have.
are you able to give us some guidance on this? Ultimately what we really need is a
spreadsheet of every device, whether it's been dumped (or partially dumped), and then identifying that same info -
which device, and what materials from it - are being given to us with each data transfer. Otherwise I think
organizationally and for review purposes it will be a total disaster for us.
We're happy to have a meeting on this if that's helpful - and thanks everybody for the assistance.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00021027


c1: EFTA00020663
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00020663.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: Ghislaine Maxwell (USMS No. 02879-509) - Legal Calls
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:48:51 +0000
This seems worth having in your outline just in case Mark misrepresents this during the hearing.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 7:45 AM
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell (USMS No. 02879-509) - Legal Calls
Good morning,
As discussed yesterday, this is the list of legal calls Ms. Maxwell has had:
(1) 7/6/20 - at approximately 8:30 pm to Christian Everdell.
(2) 7/7/20 - after 2 pm to Christian Everdell
(3) 7/8/20 - 10 am to Christian Everdell
(4) 7/9/20 - 12:00 pm 1.5 hours with Christian Everdell & Mark Cohen and 1:30 pm 1 hour with Laura Menninger & Jeff
Pagliuca
(5) 7/10/20 - 10 am to Christian Everdell and 1 pm 1 hour call with Jeff Pagliuca and 2 pm 1 hour call with Mark Cohen,
Christian Everdell, and Lea Harmon (Pretrial services)
(6) 7/13/20 - 10 am to Christian Everdell and 2:30 pm to Christian Everdell
(7) 7/14/20 - 10 am to Christian Everdell
Times are approximate. Calls were approximately 30 minutes unless otherwise indicated.
Under current protocols, attorney calls are 30 minutes unless otherwise specified.
Thanks,
EFTA00020663


c1: EFTA00023317
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00023317.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
"
"
Cc:
Bec:
Subject: Fwd: Follow-up
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:33:10 +0000
Embedded: Fwd:_Follow-up.msg
Sender:
Subject: Fwd: Follow-up
Message-Id:
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00023317


c1: EFTA00021442
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0004/EFTA00021442.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 1 of 70
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
V.
UNITED STATES
/
JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES
Bradley J. Edwards
Edwards Pottinger LP
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone : (800) 400-1098
E-Mail: brad@epllc.com
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: (801) 585-5202
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
* This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes
only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah.
EFTA00021442

=== Page 2 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 2 of 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
THIS CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE AGREED PREMISE THAT THE NPA ONLY
COVERS THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
3
DISCUSSION
6
I. INTERVENOR EPSTEIN HAS RECEIVED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS THROUGH
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON ISSUES PERTAINING
TO REMEDIES.
6
A.
As an Intervenor, Epstein Has Received Procedural Due Process
6
B.
The Court's Findings About Epstein Counsel's Awareness of Concealment of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement are Well-Supported and Unchallenged
10
1.
Through Counsel, Epstein Was a Party to the Illegal Concealment of the Non-
Prosecution Agreement
10
2.
Evidence Exists that the Epstein Defense Team Acted in Bad Faith.
18
3.
The USAO-SDFL Was Not Authorized to Extend Epstein Immunity Without First
Conferring with his Victims.
23
II. THE
CVRA
AUTHORIZES
RESCISSION
AS
A
REMEDY.
26
A.
The CVRA Authorizes Rescission as a Remedy.
26
B.
The Victims Are Not Time-Barred Under the CVRA.
28
III. PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW SUPPORT A RESCISSION REMEDY.
34
A.
Under the CVRA, Contract Law Principles Require Rescission
34
B.
The Civil Releases Signed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 Did Not - and Could Not - Waive
their CVRA Claims Against the Government
40
IV. THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITABLE AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ARE INAPPLICABLE.
45
A.
Jane Doe 1 and 2 Have Not Violated Any CVRA Requirement in Handling Their
Petition.
45
B.
Congress Has Not Added Doctrines of Estoppel to the CVRA.
46
C.
Epstein Has Failed to Satisfy the Elements of the Equitable Estoppel Doctrine
48
D.
Epstein Has Failed to Satisfy the Elements of the Judicial Estoppel Doctrine
50
i
EFTA00021443

=== Page 3 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 3 of 70
V. ALLEGED PRINCIPLES OF "SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS" DO NOT PRECLUDE
RESCISSION REMEDIES
53
VI. SEPARATION OF POWERS DOES NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM EXERCISING
ITS STATUTORY POWER TO ENFORCE THE CVRA.
59
VII. THE VICTIMS' REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (REMEDY #2)
IMMEDIATELY BECOMES RIPE UPON THE GRANTING OF A RESCISSION (REMEDY
#1).
61
VIII. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE VICTIMS
IN THIS CASE.
62
IX. ADOPTION OF EARLIER PLEADINGS BY REFERENCE
63
X. THE COURT SHOULD EXPEDITE ITS RULING ON REMEDIES AND ON THE
VICTIMS' RIGHTS TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS AND TO NOTICE
63
XI. REQUEST
FOR
A
HEARING
(IF
NECESSARY)
65
CONCLUSION
65
ii
EFTA00021444

=== Page 4 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 4 of 70
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
V.
UNITED STATES
/
JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES
COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through
undersigned counsel, having previously provided a submission on proposed remedies (DE 458)
and in light of Intervenor Epstein's Brief in Opposition (DE 463) (hereinafter cited as "Epstein
Remedies Br."), to now reply to Epstein in support of their submission on proposed remedies. For
the reasons explained in their earlier submissions (see, e.g., DE 458 and 464) and below, the Court
should reject the Intervenor Epstein's arguments and grant Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 the various
remedies their seek to enforce and protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act
(CVRA) - including rescission of the non-prosecution agreement.
INTRODUCTION
As Jane Doe 1 and 2 explained in their earlier submissions, this case involves deception of
dozens of Florida victims of an international sex trafficking organization - the organization led by
1 As discussed below, Epstein was granted "limited" intervention in this case to address
remedies. Since remedies are now at issue, Epstein has full intervention rights and will be
referenced throughout this reply as "Intervenor Epstein."
1
EFTA00021445

=== Page 5 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 5 of 70
Intervenor Epstein. The Government² and Epstein reached a secret non-prosecution agreement
(NPA) and then concealed that agreement until it was firmly in place - and the victims lost any
opportunity to object. This secret justice for Epstein and his co-conspirators has led to a national
outcry about unfairness and unequal treatment of the wealthy and powerful in the criminal justice
system.
This Court has previously determined that Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights to confer with
prosecutors were violated through the machinations of prosecutors and Epstein. This Court then
called for briefing on the appropriate remedy for that violation. DE 454. Jane Doe 1 and 2 have
proposed rescission of the NPA's "immunity" provisions, which have prevented victims from
conferring with prosecutors in the USAO-SDFL about prosecuting Epstein for the crimes he
committed in Florida against them. Epstein claims that this remedy is not available to this Court.
But the Court has previously held that it is a permissible remedy and nothing that Epstein raises
should cause the Court to reverse course. The NPA's immunity provisions were founded in
illegality - specifically, their concealment from the victims - something that Epstein well knew
and, indeed, specifically sought. Accordingly, this Court can and should rescind the immunity
provisions as the appropriate remedy for the victims. Rescission will vindicate Jane Doe 1 and 2's
CVRA rights, by permitting them to confer with prosecutors in this district about obtaining federal
prosecution here - against Epstein and all of his coconspirators.
Epstein has little to say about the other remedies that the Jane Does seek, and accordingly
the Court should (for reasons articulated earlier) grant those remedies as well.
2 References to the "Government" in this case should be generally understood to refer to
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), which is currently
being represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
2
EFTA00021446

=== Page 6 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 6 of 70
THIS CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE AGREED PREMISE THAT THE NPA
ONLY COVERS THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA.
For many years, this case has been litigated on the premise that the NPA negotiated by
Epstein with prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida only precludes his prosecution in the
Southern District of Florida. Indeed, the NPA's plain terms directly limit the agreement to "this
District." See NPA at 2 (noting that the agreement was signed "on the authority of R. Alexander
Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida" and requires that "prosecution
in this District for [various federal offenses] shall be deferred" and that no federal prosecution of
Epstein "will be instituted in this District"). This is consistent with the statute creating the Office
of U.S. Attorney, which allows each U.S. Attorney to prosecute offenses only "within his district."
28 U.S.C. $ 547.
In light of this plain language, the NPA has no application to prosecutors in other judicial
districts, such as the Southern District of New York. See United States V. Fernandez, No. 17-CR-
167 (JMF), 2017 WL 6372783 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("The Second Circuit has squarely held that
"[w]hen the express terms of a plea agreement set forth promises by 'the Government,'
the
plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea
is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction, or
unless there is evidence to show that a prosecutor is attempting to evade its own obligations under
the plea agreement by transferring a prosecution to another office" (citing United States V.
Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998)).
The fact that the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Epstein applies only to the Southern
District of Florida has been made explicitly throughout this litigation - without any objection from
3
EFTA00021447

=== Page 7 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 7 of 70
Intervenor Epstein. See, e.g., DE 205-6 at 30 (". the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the
possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on alleged sexual
acts that Epstein committed against [Jane Doe 1 and 2]. Such charges can still potentially be
pursued in other districts, such as the Southern District of New York "); DE 205-2 at 8-9 ("a
number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New
York .) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal
criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against [Jane Doe 1 and
2]. Epstein is thus subject to potential prosecution for such acts in those districts."); see also DE
464 at 13 n.4 ("The NPA negotiated by attorneys in the Southern District of Florida obviously only
precluded prosecution in the Southern District of Florida"). Several of the remedies the victims
have proposed are clearly predicated on this long-standing assumption. For example, the victims
have sought documents about the investigation regarding Epstein conducted by FBI-Miami
(remedy #10), education in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (remedy
#14), and sealed remedies involving other U.S. Attorney's Offices (remedy #18). The victims
would have crafted all of these proposed remedies (and others) differently if they had any
suggestion from Epstein that this case involved immunity that extended nationwide.
Moreover, other important aspects of this case have involved the predicate that this case
concerned Epstein's federal crimes subject to prosecution in this District. For example,
Government notifications to crime victims about this case have apparently only gone to Epstein
victims in this District.
Intervenor Epstein's factual "background" section of his brief only makes clearer that the
NPA at issue in this case does not have any nationwide reach. As Epstein's "background" section
4
EFTA00021448

=== Page 8 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 8 of 70
argues, the negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
(USAO-SDFL) and Epstein's high-powered legal team focused on the defense claim that this case
"was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." Epstein Remedies Br. at 15 (quoting former First Assistant
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman). Indeed, one of the experts that Intervenor Epstein hired
represented to the Justice Department during discussions about the NPA that "[t]his is a case about
purely local activity, involving local actors, and affecting local interests and thus, should be
handled by local authorities." Id. at 15. In other words, according to Epstein's defense attorneys
at the time that the NPA was under consideration, this was not a case "present[ing]
multijurisdictional obstacles" beyond the ability of "States and localities" to confront. Id. at 16.
This Court has previously ruled that this case is to be decided based on a possible CVRA
rights violation "of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all 'other similarly situated victims" (DE 324 at
9), where all the victims under contemplation have been victimized by Epstein through federal
crimes subject to prosecution here. Ultimately, as Epstein himself puts it, this case involves "the
exercise of discretion by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida." Id. at 18.
It is common knowledge that Intervenor Epstein is currently being prosecuted by federal
prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. The NPA in this case has no connection to or
bearing on that prosecution there - and the Court should craft remedies for the victims in this
District for the violations of rights that occurred here.
5
EFTA00021449

=== Page 9 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 9 of 70
DISCUSSION
I.
INTERVENOR EPSTEIN HAS RECEIVED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
THROUGH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON
ISSUES PERTAINING TO REMEDIES.
A.
As an Intervenor, Epstein Has Received Procedural Due Process.
Intervenor Epstein begins his arguments with a procedural claim that he has somehow been
denied "procedural due process" in this matter. Epstein Remedies Br. at 14-19. His argument is
difficult to understand. More than six years ago, Epstein filed a motion for "limited intervention"
in this case, seeking to "intervene in these proceedings when and if they reach the stage at which
the Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the [victims']
rights under the CVRA." DE 207 at 1. As Epstein explained in his motion, this Court had earlier
ruled that "rescission relief" was an available remedy in this case. Id. Accordingly, Epstein had
"clear and compelling interest[s] in opposing any remedy that would entail rescission of his non-
prosecution agreement with the government," and these interests were "personal to him and would
not be adequately represented by the government should the Court determine that a CVRA
violation occurred and that rescission or re-opening of the non-prosecution agreement was one of
the remedial options under consideration." Id. The victims did not oppose his intervention. DE
209 at 3-4. And the Court duly granted Epstein's intervention motion. DE 246 at 1 (order allowing
Epstein "to intervene with regard to any remedy issue concerning the non-prosecution
agreement").
Of course, this Court subsequently found a violation of the victims' CVRA rights, squarely
posing remedial issues. And the Court thereafter asked for submissions on how to proceed to
determine appropriate remedies, receiving briefing on scheduling from the two victims and the
6
EFTA00021450

=== Page 10 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 10 of 70
USAO-SDFL - and from Epstein. In his scheduling brief, Epstein explained that "[r]egarding the
mechanism for determining remedy, neither party disputes that Mr. Epstein has a right to be heard
Mr. Epstein respectfully submits that he should be given an opportunity to file a response to
the substantive legal briefs of the parties on the issue of remedy within 30 days after [the victims']
brief is filed, before the Court permits the taking of any evidence in this matter." DE 453 at 2.
Thereafter, the Court established a briefing schedule that essentially tracked what Epstein
proposed, and specifically allowed Epstein to "file affidavits or declarations in support of his
position." See DE 454 at 2.
In the wake of all this, Intervenor Epstein now broadly asserts that "summary judgment
was granted against the government, not Mr. Epstein" and that, therefore, "there can be no remedy
that prejudices him." DE 463 at 25. But the legal support for this claim is a mystery. It was
Epstein himself who proposed limited intervention as the appropriate procedural device to allow
him to be heard in this case. And obviously Epstein has had full notice and opportunity to be heard
on remedy issues, including an opportunity to submit any relevant evidence he wants and to
challenge any finding that he believes are inaccurate. As Epstein's own authority makes clear, the
key requirement for due process is whether a litigant has "received a 'full and fair' opportunity to
litigate [his] claims." Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. V. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 (1979). Epstein
raises no suggestions that he has been denied that opportunity here.
Epstein does point to the fact that the Eleventh Circuit has previously ruled in this case that
he is not "an ordinary litigant." Jane Doe 1 V. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 2014).
But that ruling, which involved the disclosure of certain correspondence, is of no relevance now.
The Eleventh Circuit was simply describing this Court's earlier ruling on intervention. Indeed, the
7
EFTA00021451

=== Page 11 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 11 of 70
Eleventh Circuit made clear it was fully approving this Court's approach of allowing Epstein to
raise remedial issues at the end of the case:
The victims argue that Epstein has made himself an ordinary litigant through his
intervention, but we disagree. [T]he district court has granted Epstein limited
intervention to challenge only the disclosure of his attorneys' correspondence and
any remedy that involves the non-prosecution agreement. Epstein's only
opportunity to challenge the disclosure order is now because there will not be an
adverse judgment against him or his attorneys. The district court instead will enter
any judgment against either the victims or the United States. And, even if the victims
succeed in their petition to rescind the non-prosecution agreement, Epstein can
challenge only that remedy, not the judgment against the United States. The victims
intend to use the correspondence from Epstein's attorneys to prove that the United
States violated the Act, which is an issue separate from the kind of relief necessary
to remedy that violation. And it is all the more likely that the district court would
fashion a remedy that does not involve the non-prosecution agreement, if the district
court were to conclude that rescission is unavailable, which might then bar an
appeal by Epstein of that remedy.
749 F.3d at 1005-06 (emphasis added). Plainly when it ruled in 2014, the Eleventh Circuit foresaw
a situation where Epstein might need to challenge a rescission remedy during a remedial phase of
this case - which is precisely what has happened.
The very purpose of allowing a person to intervene in a case is to ensure "that a single set
of factual findings will bind" the intervenor and the other parties. Huff V. Commissioner of IRS,
743 F.3d 790, 797 (11th Cir. 2014). And the "fundamental requirement of due process is the
opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Reams V. Irvin, 561
F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mathews V. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). Here
Epstein argues that he has been "deprived
of the ability to contest numerous allegations and
stipulations at the liability phase." Epstein Remedies Br. at 28. This is simply untrue. Epstein
was free to challenge all allegations (and alleged "stipulations") from the liability phase, to the
8
EFTA00021452

=== Page 12 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 12 of 70
extent that they had any bearing on remedy. Indeed, this Court made clear that Intervenor Epstein
could "file affidavits or declarations in support of his position." See DE 454 at 2.
Epstein complains, for example, about the fundamental premise of this case: that Jane Doe
1 is a "crime victim" covered by the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Epstein argues that this
is not possible, because there are no pending federal charges against Epstein in this District. But
this Court has already cited evidence and explained the reasons for concluding that Jane Doe 1
was a victim of a federal crime committed by Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. 359
F.Supp.3d at 1204. If Epstein wanted to challenge that finding, all he had to do was file an
affidavit, under oath, to that effect. He chose not to do so - and due process hardly precludes
continuing to move forward in this case on the basis of an unchallenged and factually supported
finding made long ago.
Moreover, if taken seriously, Epstein's position would sap the CVRA of much of its value.
This Court has already held that exercising CVRA rights is possible before criminal charges are
formally filed, noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) provides that "the CVRA's enumerated rights
'shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if
no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." Does
V. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. $ 377(d)(3)
(emphasis added)). This Court explained that the CVRA's language allows CVRA's rights to "be
enforced before a prosecution is underway id. (emphasis added) - i.e., to be "enforced" in
this Court. Of course, the Crime Victims Rights Act creates rights for "crime victims," which in
Epstein's (erroneous) view can never exist until a formal indictment is filed. Epstein's argument
would essentially eviscerate the CVRA's pre-charging protections and should be rejected.
9
EFTA00021453

=== Page 13 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 13 of 70
B.
The Court's Findings About Epstein Counsel's Awareness of Concealment of
the Non-Prosecution Agreement are Well-Supported and Unchallenged.
1.
Through Counsel, Epstein Was a Party to the Illegal Concealment of
the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Intervenor Epstein also argues that his defense counsel "acted in good faith." Epstein
Remedies Br. at 30. But he never defines what he means by "good faith." Rather than debating
how to characterize the actions of the defense team, the salient factual issue is this Court's specific
findings that the Government decided "to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims
to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1219. And the Court
has also previously found that "Epstein's counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately
keeping the NPA secret from the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect." Id. at
1208 (citing DE 407 at 1 48 (emphasis added)).
While Intervenor Epstein quibbles over the accuracy of these findings, one preliminary
point is important: Epstein does not offer any factual evidence to the contrary. For instance, even
though this Court invited Epstein to provide any affidavits or declarations in support of his position
(DE 454 at 2), Epstein offered nothing. Nor did Epstein challenge the admissibility of evidence
that Jane Doe 1 and 2 have previously provided. As a result, in attacking this finding, Epstein can
only rely on the existing evidence.
Epstein's main point appears to be not that this Court was wrong in finding that the NPA
was concealed from the victims through misleading statements, but rather that this Court was
technically incorrect about when the concealment began. Thus, Epstein argues (in bold face type)
that "nowhere in the record is there any evidence that Mr. Epstein's counsel, prior to September
10
EFTA00021454

=== Page 14 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 14 of 70
24, 2007, urged the government not to consult with [the victims] about the government's
intentions." Epstein Remedies Br. at 31 (emphasis reorganized).
The Court will immediately notice the hedged and negative proposition that Epstein
defends - i.e., Epstein does not argue that the Court's conclusion about concealment is somehow
incorrect but merely that no record evidence exists to prove the point. But record evidence
obviously demonstrates that Epstein and his lawyers signed the NPA, which itself provided that
"[t]he parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the
United States received a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process
commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that
disclosure." NPA at 13 (emphasis added). This Court noted this provision as part of its factual
findings. 359 F.Supp.3d at 1208. The NPA's plain language thus makes clear both that Epstein
knew the NPA was being concealed and, by requiring that notice go to him before disclosure, that
it was at Epstein's insistence that this provision is included. After all, the Government would have
no reason to bind itself to an undertaking to provide special notice to Epstein.
Perhaps recognizing that is difficult to contest that he sought the concealment provision,
Epstein quickly falls back to the position that his lawyers "never conditioned his agreement to the
NPA on non-disclosure to victims of the intended resolution." Epstein Remedies Br. at 31. To be
sure, it may be impossible to say exactly how the negotiations proceeded and what was a vital
"condition" for either side. Many of the important details were hammered out in unrecorded, face-
to-face meetings between prosecutors and defense attorneys. And for reasons that Epstein never
explains, his attorneys were discussing with prosecutors how to meet "off campus" to finalize the
agreement. See DE 361 at 14 (line prosecutor writes to defense counsel that "[m]aybe we can set
11
EFTA00021455

=== Page 15 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 15 of 70
a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine"). Indeed, the
documentary evidence in this case makes clear that at least one additional meeting was held off
campus between the Government and Epstein. Id.
But while the Court may never know precisely what Epstein "conditioned" his agreement
on, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Epstein was "seeking assurances" that the agreement
would not be disclosed - or, at the very least, not disclosed without an opportunity for him to
object. Indeed, the record makes clear that it was Epstein's lawyers who first asked about whether
the NPA would be made public. DE 361 at 15. And, as the NPA was being executed, defense
counsel followed up again with the line prosecutor, specifically requesting that she "do whatever
you can to keep [the NPA] from becoming public." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1207.
Moreover, even before the NPA was signed, uncontested documentary evidence shows that
Epstein was working to conceal what happened from the victims. For example, as the Court noted
in its findings, the line prosecutor and Epstein's counsel were working together to "avoid the
press." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1206. These documents pertain to events before the NPA was executed
on September 24, 2007, proving that Epstein's defense attorneys sought to have the NPA
concealed in advance of its signing. Given that concealment of the NPA necessarily meant that
the victims were being denied their right to confer, Epstein clearly became a party to the CVRA
violation even before the NPA was executed.
But it is hardly necessary to the Court's CVRA findings that Epstein have been involved
in concealing the NPA before it was signed. The NPA was not actually consummated until months
later, in June 2008. And by being party to - and surely instigator of - that extended concealment,
Epstein was responsible for the CVRA violations.
12
EFTA00021456

=== Page 16 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 16 of 70
If there is any doubt on this point, it only reinforces the victims' motion that it should
receive all records associated with the negotiations, including information about the Government's
deliberations. Given that both the Government and now Epstein are making representations about
what occurred during the negotiations, there is every reason for finding a waiver of work product
and other protections, and a compelling need for disclosing all documents about what happened.
See generally Jane Doe 1 and 2's Motion for Finding of Waiver of Work Product and Similar
Protections and for Production of Documents, DE 414 (currently pending before the Court per DE
464 at 14).³
Epstein also points to internal Justice Department regulations, arguing that they show that
the CVRA was technically inapplicable in this case. Epstein Remedies Br. at 21. But to the extent
that those guidelines failed to extend victims' rights during the pre-charging process, those
guidelines were simply illegal - as this Court ruled long ago. Does V. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d
1337, 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
Epstein also fails to fully describe what the Justice Department regulations required the
Justice Department to do during the investigative stage of a case. The 2005 Attorney General
Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance (hereinafter "2005 A.G. Victim Guidelines"4) to
which he refers required the FBI to "provide the victim with the earliest possible notice concerning
the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is appropriate and will not interfere
3 In an effort to comply with the Court's scheduling order - and to provide consolidated
briefing - Jane Doe 1 and 2 have not filed a separately docketed motion for production of the
materials, instead explaining in their briefs the grounds for production. If the Court believes that
a separate motion is necessary to raise this issue, Jane Doe 1 and 2 would respectfully request
leave be permitted to rapidly file such a motion.
4 A full copy of the 2005 Guidelines is available in Justice Department archives at
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olp/docs/ag_guidelines2012.pdf.
13
EFTA00021457

=== Page 17 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 17 of 70
with the investigation." 2005 A.G. Victim Guidelines at p. 25, Part IV.A.3.a.3 (citing 42 U.S.C.
§ 10607(c)(3)A)⁵) (emphasis added)). Presumably, this requirement that the FBI keep victims
informed is why Epstein and the prosecutors were discussing meeting privately "off campus," as
a normal "on campus" meeting would have involved FBI agents and others Justice Department
employees (e.g., victim-witness coordinators) who would have been obligated by these regulations
to provide Epstein's victims with more information about what was happening.
Epstein also refers to a 2010 opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal (OLC),
which concluded that the CVRA did not extend rights until the filing of formal charges. Epstein
Remedies Br. at 32. Of course, the OLC opinion did not exist in 2007-08, when USAO-SDFL and
Epstein were concealing the NPA. Moreover, it is unsurprising to find that the Justice Department
would be staking out a very narrow (but unsupportable) position on its legal obligations under the
law. Cf. Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Applying the Crime Victims'
Rights Act Before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59, 76-77 (2014)
("OLC's analysis is unpersuasive.").
But this debate over legal application of the CVRA in pre-charging situations is ultimately
wide of the mark as an attack on the Court's findings regarding the CVRA violation here. The
USAO-SDFL had made its own determination that the CVRA did, indeed, apply in this case - and
was telling victims that they had CVRA rights well before the NPA was ever signed. As this Court
has previously found, as early as March 2007, the USAO-SDFL sent official notices to Epstein
victims informing them that they had rights under the CVRA. For example, on about June 7, 2007,
5 This statute has since been superseded by other victim enactments and has accordingly
been repealed.
14
EFTA00021458

=== Page 18 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 18 of 70
FBI agents delivered a standard CVRA notification letter to Jane Doe 1. 359 F.Supp.2d at 1205.
In this letter, the USAO-SDFL promised that it would "make its 'best efforts' to protect Jane Doe
1's [CVRA] rights, including 'the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States
in
the case Id. Jane Doe 1 "relied on those representations and believed that the government
would protect those rights and keep her informed about the progress of the case." Id. Nowhere in
his response does Epstein claim that his counsel were unaware of this approach.
This issue about the Justice Department's guidelines has already been evaluated by this
Court. As this Court explained in granting summary judgment:
Nor did the Justice Department guidelines create an exemption from the CRVA's
statutory requirements. Although the Government points to guidelines that
conflicted with the requirements of the CVRA (by restricting CVRA rights until
after a formal indictment), the Court is not persuaded that the guidelines were the
basis for the Government's decision to withhold information about the NPA from
the victims. If that had been the case, the Government would not have sent the
victim letters telling them that they had rights protected under the CVRA. Nor
would they have told Epstein's attorneys that it had obligations to notify the
victims. In any event, an agency's own "interpretation" of a statute cannot
supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. V. Silver, 447 U.S.
807, 825 (1980).
Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated
to confer with them and treat them fairly. Epstein does not argue (much less provide evidence)
that his extensive legal team was unaware that the USAO-SDFL was following CVRA
requirements. Thus, the record fully supports the conclusion that, through his many lawyers,
Epstein was aware that the CVRA was in play and that, as a result of his pressure, the Government
was not conferring with his victims.
Even more important, Epstein cannot point to anything in Justice Department policy
requiring that a non-prosecution agreement be concealed from victims, much less permitting
15
EFTA00021459

=== Page 19 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 19 of 70
prosecutors to mislead victims. While Epstein claims that he was simply asking USAO-SDFL to
"follow its own national guidelines," Epstein Remedies Br. at 22, he was in fact asking for a clear
departure from standard procedures. Indeed, the USAO-SDFL has admitted that "Epstein's
counsel convinced the [Office] that (contrary to standard Government practice) Epstein should be
permitted to provide input into any message being delivered, and ultimately that the victims should
not be told anything 'until after Epstein pleas." DE 361 at 5-6 (citing Exhibit 25) (emphasis
added). And, as this Court has previously explained, "Particularly problematic was the
Government's decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that
federal prosecution was still a possibility. When the Government gives information to victims, it
cannot be misleading." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1219.
After the NPA was signed, Epstein concedes that he was involved in the notifications to
victims. Thus, Epstein points to a letter sent by his counsel, on December 6, 2007, indicating that
he did not object some form of notice being given to the alleged victims." Epstein Remedies Br.
at 32 (citing DE 403-15:3). But as even a quick glance that letter makes clear, the "form of notice"
that Epstein had in mind was very limited - indeed, Epstein's counsel was proposing that it merely
be sent by the State Attorney and presumably would not mention the federal non-prosecution
provisions. DE 403-15:3-4. Moreover, that same letter makes clear that Epstein was strenuously
seeking an opportunity to review victim notices from the government. Id. at 3. Accordingly, when
just a few weeks later the Government began circulating "misleading" notices, the record plainly
supports the conclusion that Epstein had seen and approved the notices - and Epstein advances no
argument (or evidence) to the contrary.
16
EFTA00021460

=== Page 20 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 20 of 70
Remarkably, despite all this evidence that Epstein was pressuring the USAO-SDFL not to
discharge its statutory obligation to confer with the victims, Epstein attempts to claim that "federal
law enforcement's decision to not [confer] with [the victims] was made, not for Mr. Epstein's
benefit, but rather to protect their own prosecutorial interests." Epstein Remedies Br. at 23. The
basis for this claim is selected excerpts from an affidavit of the line prosecutor. Id. (citing DE 403-
18). The fact that Epstein, joined by the USAO-SDFL, are both now using this affidavit discussing
internal deliberations of the Office only confirms that work product and other protections have
been waived over documents regarding those deliberations. See generally Jane Doe 1 and 2's
Motion for Finding of Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections and for Production of
Documents, DE 414.6 Once again, the victims reassert their motion that they are entitled to see
those documents, to be in position to challenge the USAO-SDFL's arguments about benign
intentions - and now Epstein's similar claims. See DE 464 at 14 (reasserting DE 414).
Moreover, Epstein fails to fully discuss what the line prosecutor's affidavit essentially
admits. The affidavit only attempts to provide an explanation for failing to disclose the NPA's
financial compensation provisions. See, e.g., DE 403-19 at 10-11 9 21 (claiming that disclosure
would have subjected victims to cross-examination). But the affidavit never explains why the
most significant feature of the non-prosecution agreement was being concealed from the victims
- i.e., the fact that the agreement would lead to Epstein's non-prosecution. As a result, through its
6 Waiver by the Government is also further demonstrated by the press conference held by
then-Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on July 10, 2019. Before the Washington press corps
and a global television audience, Acosta discussed the substance of the affidavit and deliberations
by the USAO-SDFL on the case. See https://www.c-span.org/video/?462479-1/labor-secretary-
defends-handling-epstein-plea-deal-amid-calls-resignation/ Indeed, the affidavit was part of the
"press packet" Acosta handed out.
17
EFTA00021461

=== Page 21 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 21 of 70
silence, the affidavit concedes what is glaringly obvious: That due to Epstein's pressure, the
USAO-SDFL was hiding from the victims that Epstein had already secured a signed agreement
providing immunity from federal prosecution in Florida to him (and all "potential co-conspirators"
for good measure).
This Court has already discussed the point, noting that, in January 2008, when the USAO-
SDFL sent notices to the victims counseling "patience," the Office "had bound itself to the terms
of the NPA unless Epstein failed to comply with the terms. It was a material omission for the
Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to investigation about which
it had already bound itself not to prosecute." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1221. Obviously, the notices to
the victims could have been written differently to avoid a "material omission." But it was clearly
due to Epstein's efforts that the immunity provisions were being concealed to avoid a firestorm of
controversy that would have occurred if that fact was disclosed publicly.
2.
Evidence Exists that the Epstein Defense Team Acted in Bad Faith.
Epstein further asserts that the existing "record conclusively refutes any bad faith" on the
part of his counsel. Epstein Remedies Br. at 20. But the victims have also previously made well-
supported allegations of bad faith actions. In their summary judgment motion, for example, Jane
Doe 1 and 2 alleged that on February 1, 2007, the Epstein defense team sent a 24-page letter to the
Office, which "falsely stated: "Epstein did not know or believe any women were under 18 years of
age.' It also contained other deceptive factual and legal arguments about Epstein's culpability."
DE 361 at 10 (citing Exhibit 43) (emphasis added). Jane Doe 1 and 2 further alleged that, on July
6, 2007, Epstein's lawyers sent a 23-page letter to USAO-SDFL which "falsely claimed that 'Mr.
Epstein never targeted minors'
"
DE 361 at 11 (citing Exhibit 47) (emphasis added). Jane
18
EFTA00021462

=== Page 22 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 22 of 70
Doe 1 and 2 also alleged that Epstein's lawyers were discussing with the prosecutors a disposition
that would make it difficult for a judge to know what was really happening. DE 361 at 14 (citing
Exhibit 7). And Jane Doe 1 and 2 also alleged that Epstein and government lawyers were using
private, home e-mail address to conduct some of their discussions - and noted that no emails sent
to or from any home e-email addresses of prosecutors has every been produced. DE 361 at 15.
Jane Doe 1 and 2 reassert all of these thus-far uncontested factual claims and ask that the
Court accept them as part of deciding the basis for crafting an appropriate remedy. Epstein has
not challenged any of these facts proffered by Jane Doe 1 and 2. If Epstein wants this case to be
decided based on how his legal team acted, he needs to provide affidavits or other evidence of its
conduct - and he has not done so.
Even more significantly with regard to the alleged "bad faith" of Epstein's defense team is
19
EFTA00021463

=== Page 23 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 23 of 70
20

=== Page 24 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 24 of 70
21
EFTA00021465

=== Page 25 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 25 of 70
22
EFTA00021466

=== Page 26 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 26 of 70
3.
The USAO-SDFL Was Not Authorized to Extend Epstein Immunity
Without First Conferring with his Victims.
Epstein also argues that the NPA is "a legal agreement." Epstein Remedies Br. at 25. By
this he apparently means that, if one looks merely at the four corners of the document, no provision
is, on its face, illegal. But as Jane Doe 1 and 2 have explained earlier, it is well accepted that a
contract or other agreement can be illegal based on the way in which it was formed. See Victims'
Remedy Reply to the Gov't, DE 464 at 27. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has clearly held that the
manner in which an agreement is formed can render an otherwise-valid agreement unenforceable.
In San Pedro V. United States, 79 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit held that in
order for any provision in a plea agreement to be enforceable, "there must have been a valid,
binding agreement in the first instance Id. at 1068. In San Pedro, a defendant sought to
block a deportation proceeding by immigration authorities, arguing that a promise by prosecutors
of transactional immunity included a promise of nondeportation. Id. at 1067-68. In that case, as
in this one, it could have been argued that a promise of nondeportation was "a legal agreement."
But, nonetheless, the promise was unenforceable because, the Eleventh Circuit explained, the
prosecutor who made the commitment was not authorized to do so. Id. at 1070. In particular, "the
23
EFTA00021467

=== Page 27 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 27 of 70
United States Attorney and the AUSAs who negotiated the plea agreement with San Pedro did not
have the authority to promise that he would not be deported." Id. at 1072.
So too here. Prosecutors were simply not authorized to offer Epstein immunity until they
had conferred with Epstein's victims. Accordingly, the NPA's immunity provisions were not part
of a "valid, binding agreement in the first instance." 79 F.3d at 1068. And thus, Epstein is not
entitled to take advantage of the non-prosecution provisions, at least with respect to crimes against
Jane Doe 1 and 2 and any other victim who desires to have him prosecuted.
In their remedy briefing, Jane Doe 1 and 2 have asked for "partial" rescission of the
immunity provisions - that is, rescission of the immunity provisions for only those victims who
seek rescission. DE 464 at 17-30. In response, Epstein could have theoretically made an argument
for the NPA's "total rescission." Indeed, the victims have previously discussed this issue in
responding to the briefing of the USAO-SDFL, explaining that the Office itself lacked "standing"
to advance a request for total rescission. Id. at 30. The victims then explained that Epstein would
have standing to advance such a "total" rescission argument - if he wanted to. Id. And after this
briefing - explicitly noting that Epstein would need to advance such an argument for total
rescission - Epstein has not done so.
Presumably the reason that Epstein is not asking for total rescission of his NPA with the
USAO-SDFL is that it would eliminate what is reportedly his main defense to recent sex trafficking
charges in the Southern District of New York - that somehow an agreement with the U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of Florida blocking prosecution in "this District" prevents federal
prosecutors in New York from prosecuting crimes committed there. But the Court need not reach
any conclusion about Epstein's motives for declining to ask for total rescission. In light of this
24
EFTA00021468

=== Page 28 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 28 of 70
sequence of events, Epstein has clearly waived any right to seek total rescission of the NPA. And
- as the victims predicted (DE 464 at 30-31) - the case as presented to this Court now boils down
to either upholding an illegal agreement or partially rescinding it.
Given the choice between the only two options presented to it (at least that this time¹²), this
Court's duty is clear. Congress has instructed that "[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense
against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described
in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(b)(1) (emphasis added). This Court also previously held that
"[w]hile Epstein was within his rights to attempt to persuade higher authorities with the
Department of Justice to overrule the prosecutorial decisions of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the
Southern District of Florida, the CVRA was designed to give victims the same opportunity to
attempt to affect prosecutorial decisions before they became final." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1221
(emphasis added). While the victims have asked for partial rescission to give them the "same
opportunity" that Epstein's high-powered legal team had to "attempt to affect prosecutorial
decisions" in this District, Epstein fails to provide any other alternative. Thus, partial rescission
of the NPA's immunity provisions is the only remedial option before the Court that comes close
to permitting the Court to discharge its obligation to "ensure" that victims are afforded their rights.
18 U.S.C. $ 3771(b)(1). It is only after rescission of the immunity provisions pertaining to them
that Jane Doe 1 and 2 will receive "the full unfettered exercise of their conferral rights at a time
that will enable [them] to exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. V. BP
Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna V. United
12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible
for some reason, then total rescission is required. DE 464 at 30-36.
25
EFTA00021469

=== Page 29 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 29 of 70
States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006) (when trial court denied a victim his
right to give a statement at the defendant's sentencing, the trial court must be "cognizant that the
only way to give effect to [the victim's] right to speak
is to vacate the sentence and hold a new
sentencing hearing"). Any other conclusion would require the Court to approve the illegal bargain
struck by Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. After the passage of the CVRA, the Court is simply not
permitted to approve a violation of crime victims' rights.
II.
THE CVRA AUTHORIZES RESCISSION AS A REMEDY.
Intervenor Epstein next argues that the "CVRA itself" precludes a rescission remedy.
Epstein Remedies Br. at 27-33. The Court has already ruled to the contrary, and nothing in
Epstein's legal arguments should cause the Court to reverse course.
A.
The CVRA Authorizes Rescission as a Remedy.
Intervenor Epstein's first argument is a purely legal argument - that the CVRA's plain
language somehow restricts the Court from rescinding provisions in the NPA as a remedy in this
case. But Epstein's argument ultimately boils down to the proposition that a provision that
contains a limitation on a victim making "a motion to re-open a plea or sentence" (18 U.S.C. §
3771(d)(5) (emphasis added)) somehow restricts the ability of a victim to make a motion regarding
a right to confer regarding a non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as this Court has held,
the fact that the CVRA permits re-opening of pleas and sentences in some circumstances, fully
confirms that a non-prosecution agreement can likewise be reopened. Moreover, in attempting to
apply the limitations contained in $ 3771(d)(5), Epstein quickly produces a non-sequitur. The
limitations he cites apply during a court "proceeding" - i.e., the victim must have asserted "the
right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue." An NPA can be drafted and signed
26
EFTA00021470

=== Page 30 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 30 of 70
before any "proceeding" is held. It is for this reason that the CVRA (as it existed in 2007-08¹³)
required an objection during a "proceeding" as a prerequisite to re-opening a plea or sentence -
but not for an NPA.
Moreover, distinguishing between a non-prosecution agreement (negotiated outside of the
court processes) and "plea" and "sentence" makes considerable sense. As this Court explained,
an "NPA entered into without notice has a more damaging impact on victims than a plea agreement
entered into without notice. When a plea agreement is entered into without notice, the victim will
at least have an opportunity to provide input to a judge at sentencing. Once an NPA is entered into
without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any
aspect of the case." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1220 n.7 (emphasis added).
Unable to provide a logical explanation for his position, Epstein claims that two CVRA
appellate decisions support him. But both decisions dealt with a separate issue - whether crime
victims seeking to overturn a district court decision denying enforcement of their rights in appellate
courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See
U.S. V. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and
holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United States V. Hunter, 548 F.3d
1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (same). Interestingly, Congress has since essentially overruled both
of those decisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (2015 amendment) (making clear that crime victims
13 Aware of the Government and Epstein's secret maneuvering in this case, in 2015
Congress amended the CVRA in order to codify this Court's earlier rulings here and ensure that
victims received timely notice of any NPA. 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(a)(9). In codifying this right, it
would be hard to imagine that Congress wanted to create for victims a hollow right - one that
could never be enforced in any way - which is the logical implication of Epstein's position.
27
EFTA00021471

=== Page 31 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 31 of 70
need only satisfy "ordinary" standards of appellate review). But, in any event, these decisions
discussing appellate issues provide no useful guidance here.
B.
The Victims Are Not Time-Barred Under the CVRA.
Intervenor Epstein also argues that rescission relief is somehow "time-barred." Epstein
Remedies Br. at 40. Epstein relies upon a provision in the CVRA that states that "[t]he district
court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith." DE 463 at 40
(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added)). Epstein, however, has waived any right to
complain about delay in this case. The Court will recall that back in 2013, Epstein and his lawyers
tried to assert an alleged "plea negotiation" privilege over various documents. After this Court
denied their assertion (DE 188) - and denied their motion for a stay pending appeal (DE 206) -
Epstein and his lawyers succeeded in obtaining an Eleventh Circuit stay of proceedings in this case
for months. They represented to the Eleventh Circuit that "[t]here will be no prejudice to [the
victims] from waiting until an appellate court can address the critically important issues at stake
here." Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Jane Does V. United States, No. 13-12923 (11th Cir. July
12, 2013). Having declined to raise - either with this Court or the appellate court - any need for
a "forthwith" ruling then, Epstein cannot belatedly raise such a claim years later.
In any event, relief in this case is not time barred. The CVRA's provision requiring this
Court to "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith," 18 U.S.C. §
3771(d)(3), is undoubtedly designed to ensure that victims can obtain immediate relief when they
need it. For example, if a trial is taking place without the presence of the victim, a victim might
require immediate relief, as otherwise any opportunity for the victim to attend might permanently
disappear. Cf. 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(d)(5) (a victim cannot obtain the remedy of a "new trial").
28
EFTA00021472

=== Page 32 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 32 of 70
In this case, this Court acted expeditiously and did take up and decide Jane Doe 1 petition
(later joined by Jane Doe 2) within just four days of its filing. On July 7, 2008, when counsel for
Jane Doe 1 began to learn that a secret, non-prosecution agreement might be in the works, they
filed an "emergency" petition for enforcement of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DE 1. Two days
later, on July 9, 2008, the USAO-SDFL responded. And just two days later, on the morning of
July 11, 2008, this Court held a hearing.
During the hearing, victims' counsel discussed what he understood to be a plea deal of
some sort that was then under negotiation. As counsel explained: "it is my understanding and
belief that the agreement with the federal government and with the U.S. Attorney's Office wasn't
signed on that day [i.e., June 30, 2008]. So it is still my belief, I could be wrong, but that that
agreement hasn't been completed as of this time." See Tr. (July 11, 2008) at 5-6 (emphasis added).
Victims' counsel went on to say that, if the Court were make the assumption that an agreement
had already been reached, then the Court should "[o]rder that the agreement that was negotiated is
invalid and it is illegal as it did not pertain to [or uphold] the rights of the victim[s]." Id. at 6.
Thereafter, the Government disclosed that it had, in fact, reached a secret agreement with Epstein
months earlier. Id. at 8.
Victims counsel then pushed to have the agreement invalidated. The Court explored the
posture of the case, deciding that the issues no longer required any "emergency" treatment because
Epstein had entered into the NPA long ago:
THE COURT: In view of the fact that this agreement has already been
consummated, and you want me to set it aside, as opposed to something that's about
to occur, would you agree that-- and I have done this very quickly because of the
petition and your allegation that something was about to happen. I'm not blaming
you.
MR. EDWARDS: I was mistaken.
29
EFTA00021473

=== Page 33 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 33 of 70
THE COURT: I'm not blaming you for doing that. In view of what you
know now, is there any need to treat this as an emergency that has to be decided by
tomorrow?
MR. EDWARDS: I can't think of any reason in light of what we just heard
[i.e., that the NPA had been signed eight or nine months earlier].
THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have anything else you wanted to add? Does
either side think I need to take evidence about anything? If I do, since this is not an
emergency anymore, I can probably find a more convenient time to do that. I don't
have the time today to take evidence. But if you do believe that I should take
evidence on this issue.
MR. EDWARDS: It may be best if I conferred with the U.S. Attorney's
Office on that and we can make a decision whether it is necessary or whether Your
Honor deemed it was necessary for you to make a decision.
THE COURT: I want to know what your respective positions are because it
may be something in terms of having a complete record, and this is going to be an
issue that's is going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [it] may be better to have a
complete record as to what your position is and the government's is as to what
actions were taken.
And because it is not an emergency, I don't have to do
something quickly, we can play it by ear and make this into a more complete record
for the court of appeals.
See Tr. (July 11, 2008) at 25-26.
As this recitation of events makes clear, the Court fully discharged its duty to "take up and
decide" a victim's motion "forthwith." Acting quickly, the Court held a hearing less than four
days after the petition was filed and decided, with the agreement of both parties to the action (i.e.,
Jane Doe 1 and 2 and the USAO-SDFL) that the appropriate course of action was to develop a full
evidentiary record of the events surrounding the NPA and whether the victims were entitled to
invalidation of the agreement secretly reached months earlier.
Given his vast resources, Epstein was likely aware that all this was happening that same
day. In any event, the record is clear that the USAO-SDFL quickly notified Epstein of these
proceedings, because disclosure of Epstein's then-secret NPA was involved. Id. at 30. As noted
above, the NPA directly provided that, if the USAO-SDFL was going to disclose the agreement,
it was required to "provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure." NPA at p. 5 9 13.
30
EFTA00021474

=== Page 34 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 34 of 70
So if Epstein had thought that, after July 11, 2008, some quicker resolution of the matter was
required, he was certainly free to press this point. He made no such argument - which must be
regarded as a deliberate waiver of any right to a more rapid decision that he may have had. To be
sure, Epstein was serving his jail sentence at that time. But issues surrounding unwinding a
sentence were always going to exist in this case after Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008, because
his jail sentence started then. Having these issues decided more quickly was something that
Epstein could have sought - but did not.
After setting an initial hearing within four days of the petition's filing, the Court continued
move this case along, setting a hearing on August 25, 2008, to resolve the issue of whether the
NPA would be turned over to the victims. During the hearing, the USAO-SDFL put on the record
that they had notified Epstein of the proceedings. Tr. (Aug. 25, 2008) at 8. Epstein, however, did
not ask to formally participate in the hearing. Nor did he ask to have the issues under litigation -
including potential invalidation of the NPA - be decided more rapidly. The Court made further
decisions about how best to proceed, including ordering disclosure of the secret NPA to the
victims. 14
Thereafter, of course, extended litigation has ensued in this case. A good summary of the
events between August 2008 and October 2010 is found in Docket Entry 41, in which Jane Doe 1
and 2 explained that during the summer of 2008, they had been told by the Government that it
would work with the victims to put together an agreed stipulation of facts. The victims then
14 During the hearing, victims' counsel speculated that rescission of the NPA might not be
in the victims' best interests. DE 27 at 4. Of course, that statement was made before counsel had
even seen the entire NPA - and after the document's release, counsel moved forward seeking
rescission.
31
EFTA00021475

=== Page 35 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 35 of 70
provided a set of facts, after which the Government reversed course and decided that it did not
want to discuss what had happened. See DE 41 at 2-3 (citing DE 19 at 2). Because of the
Government's decision not to work with Jane Doe 1 and 2 to develop a factual record, the victims
had to attempt to secure that information from other sources - an effort that proved to be an arduous
process. DE 41 at 3. Ultimately, on June 30, 2010, Jane Doe 1 and 2 were able to secure some
correspondence between Epstein and the Government regarding the NPA's negotiation -
correspondence proving that there "had been an orchestrated decision to deny them their rights."
DE 41 at 1; see also DE 39 at 3-4. And thereafter in this case, the USAO-SDFL (and Epstein in
some instances) proceeded to raise one objection after another, producing years of delay.
While Epstein was obviously aware of this case - and that the ultimate objective was
(among other things) invalidation of the NPA - he did not move to intervene in the case until
September 2, 2011 (DE 93), and even then he sought only "limited" intervention with regard to
remedy.
In arguing that relief for the victims is now somehow "time-barred," Epstein refers to the
effects of "missing a deadline." DE 463 at 42. In this case, the victims have missed no deadline.
As soon as they had an inkling about a secret plea deal, Jane Doe 1 and 2 filed an emergency
petition for review. And this Court has missed no deadline. It held a hearing on the initial petition
in less than four days and took up and decided how the victims' petition would be handled.
Thereafter, the proceedings unfolded in accordance with scheduling sought by the two parties.
And Epstein has never raised a peep about any of this scheduling - until his filing two weeks ago.
Moreover, it is more than a little ironic to see Epstein complaining that issues regarding
the NPA have not been resolved more quickly. Of course, it was Epstein himself who set in motion
32
EFTA00021476

=== Page 36 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 36 of 70
all the events designed to keep the NPA concealed from the victims. If he had not persuaded the
Government to deviate from its standard practice of keeping victims fully informed, all the issues
surrounding the NPA could have been presented before he pled guilty in state court. Of course, it
was precisely to keep that court - and the victims - from learning about the NPA that Epstein
arranged to have the NPA shrouded in secrecy. Any passage of time in litigating these issues is
directly attributable to Epstein's maneuverings.
Finally, even if the Court were to conclude that somehow the "forthwith" deadline in this
case had been missed, that fact would not allow it to refuse to enforce Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA
rights now. The U.S. Supreme Court has explored a similar question of a missed deadline in
connection with restitution for crime victims. Dolan V. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010),
involved the effect of a district court missing a 90-day deadline for awarding restitution. Dolan
held that the restitution statute's primary purpose was "to ensure that victims of a crime receive
full restitution." Id. at 612. In setting a 90-day requirement, "the statute seeks speed primarily to
help the victims of crime and only secondarily to help the defendant." Id. at 613.
Of course, in this case, precisely the same focus on victims exists. Naturally, the purpose
of the Crime Victims' Rights Act is to help crime victims. And the reason Congress required that
rulings should be "forthwith" was to help victims. As Senator Kyl explained, "[t]he enforcement
provisions of this bill ensure that never again are victim's rights provided in word but not in
reality." 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 (Apr. 22, 2004). It would invert the purposes of the statute to
allow a criminal like Epstein to take advantage of a "forthwith" enforcement provision added to
help victims. And, indeed, the CVRA blocks his attempt, providing that "[a] person accused of
33
EFTA00021477

=== Page 37 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 37 of 70
the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(d)(1) (emphasis
added).
Finally, to the extent that the "forthwith" provision has some application to Epstein, he
could have brought that claim to the attention of this Court long ago. As the Supreme Court noted
in connection with the 90-day requirement in Dolan, a defendant who is worried about the need
for prompt action "can usually avoid additional delay simply by pointing to the statute and asking
the court to grant a timely hearing." 560 U.S. at 616. The same thing is true in this case. Epstein
could have, at any time, simply pointed to the "forthwith" provision and asked for a quick hearing.
He did not do so. As in Dolan, reading the CVRA to require Epstein to have raise this argument
imposes on him only a "small cost" relative "to the prospect of depriving innocent crime victims"
of their CVRA rights. Id.
III.
PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW SUPPORT A RESCISSION REMEDY.
Intervenor Epstein next argues that "principles of contract law" preclude a rescission
remedy to enforce the victims' CVRA rights. Epstein's Remedy Br. at 33-36. The USAO-SDFL
had raised a similar contract law argument and, to avoid duplicative briefing, Jane Doe 1 and 2
simply incorporate by reference their previous responses. DE 464 at 19-26. But a few additional
words are appropriate in response to Epstein's specific claims.
A.
Under the CVRA, Contract Law Principles Require Rescission.
Epstein begins by citing a series of Florida state law cases. Epstein Remedies Br. at 33-
34. But Epstein never provides the legal predicate for his argument - that is, why this Court should
decide this case under Florida contact law. To the contrary, this case is controlled by an Act of
Congress, setting out federally protected rights for crime victims. In the Crime Victims' Rights
34
EFTA00021478

=== Page 38 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 38 of 70
Act, Congress has directed that this Court "shall ensure" that victims' CVRA rights are fully
protected. 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(b)(1). Even if Florida contract law were to the contrary (a point Jane
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 disprove below), the only way this Court can "ensure" the protection of Jane
Doe 1 and 2's right to confer about prosecuting Epstein's (and his coconspirators') sex crimes in
the Southern District of Florida is to rescind the immunity provisions. As this Court has explained,
rescission of these provision is required so that the victims can have "the full unfettered exercise
of their conferral rights at a time that will enable the victims to exercise those rights meaningfully."
DE 189 at 9.
Congress did not expect that victims' rights might be stripped away through contract law
principles. To the contrary, as Senator Kyl explained, "it is the clear intent and expectation of
Congress that the district
courts will establish procedures that will allow for a prompt
adjudication of any issues regarding the assertion of a victim's right, while giving meaning to the
rights we establish." 150 Cong. Rec. 22953 (Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases
added). Accordingly, this Court's remedial task is not to ensure that the NPA conforms to ill-
defined contract law "principles" but rather to give meaning to the rights of victims to confer with
the USAO-SDFL. To put it bluntly, a congressional command simply takes precedence over any
"principles" of contract law that Epstein can cite.
But if anything, standard contract law principles support Jane Doe 1 and 2's request for a
rescission remedy. This Court has held that "[p]ublic policy empowers this Court to decline
enforcement of a contract" that is contrary to law. Neiman V. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
217 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1286 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (citing United Paperworkers Int'l Union V. Misco,
Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 42 (1987)). Thus, as this Court has explained, under "Florida law, a contract
35
EFTA00021479

=== Page 39 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 39 of 70
that violates public policy is void and unenforceable." Neiman, 217 F.Supp.2d at 1286 (citing
Harris V. Gonzalez, M.D., 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).
Here, the Court would violate "public policy" - indeed, an Act of Congress, i.e., the Crime
Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 - to uphold the NPA's immunity provisions, which prevent
the victims from being able to exercise their CVRA right to confer with the USAO-SDFL. The
public policy Congress announced in the CVRA invalidates practices whereby victims "were kept
in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care
and by a court system that simply did not have place
for them." 150 Cong Rec. 7296 (April 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). The CVRA
demands that the Court award a rescission remedy in response to the prosecutors and Epstein
keeping the victims "in the dark."
Intervenor Epstein complains that a rescission remedy would violate contract law, because
rescission does not restore him to the "status quo." Epstein Remedies Br. at 34. After all, Epstein
notes, he has now served his jail time under the agreement. Id. But it can equally be said that not
imposing a rescission remedy fails to restore Jane Doe 1 and 2 to the "status quo" to which they
were entitled. Under the CVRA, they were entitled to confer with the prosecutors before any
immunity deal was struck with Epstein. The Court is thus faced with a choice - it can either protect
Epstein's (illegally obtained) immunity deal; or it can give Jane Doe 1 and 2 (and other victims)
the CVRA rights Congress has conferred on them. This Court must act to protect the statutorily
protected rights of victims rather than ill-defined "principles" of contract law that Epstein finds
useful.
Epstein also contends that a rescission remedy is akin to "reformation of a contract,"
Epstein Remedies Br. at 45, and thus must "conform" to the intention of the parties to the NPA.
36
EFTA00021480

=== Page 40 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 40 of 70
But, of course, the NPA was affirmatively concealed from the victims. It is precisely because the
NPA was clandestine that this Court must now rescind its immunity provisions. It was never the
intention of the victims to extend immunity to Epstein. Thus, reformation principles are
inapplicable.
Epstein also rattles the sword that a rescission remedy would somehow imperil financial
payments that he has previously made to his victims under the NPA. Epstein Remedies Br. at 34-
35. Many victims - including Jane Doe 1 and 2 - did not receive any financial benefits from the
NPA. Instead, they negotiated other financial terms without relying on the NPA. So, Epstein
would have no basis for seeking return of any moneys he paid them. But even with regard to
victims who relied on the financial provisions of the NPA, the "partial" rescission remedy that
Jane Doe 1 and 2 seek would not call into question Epstein's payments. The NPA's financial
provisions can only be invalidated if someone asks for them to be invalidated. Jane Doe 1 and 2
have not asked for that remedy. And neither did the USAO-SDFL, who would in any event lack
"standing" to make such a request. See DE 464 at 27-28. Intervenor Epstein is the only party to
the NPA who could ask for total rescission of the agreement - and he has declined to do. 15 Thus,
as noted above, the Court's choice is between either (1) affirming an illegal agreement or (2)
rescinding provisions that block certain victims from being able to exercise their CVRA rights -
the partial rescission remedy Jane Doe 1 and 2 lay out. Between those two choices, the Court must
clearly act to protect the victims. Cf. Neiman, 217 F.Supp.2d at 1286 (refusing to enforce contract
provision where doing so "would validate a [provision] founded in illegality").
15 Epstein does refer, at one point, to the "government's view" that financial payments
might be placed at risk through a rescission remedy. Epstein Remedies Br. at 35. But he never
adopts that argument or ask this Court to adopt a "total rescission" remedy.
37
EFTA00021481

=== Page 41 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 41 of 70
Once again, this conclusion is required by binding Eleventh Circuit case law. The Eleventh
Circuit has instructed that in order for any provision in a plea agreement to be enforceable, "there
must have been a valid, binding agreement in the first instance " San Pedro V. United States,
79 F.3d 1065, 1068 (11th Cir. 1996). In this case, with respect to the NPA's immunity provisions,
there never was a "valid, binding" agreement because the USAO-SDFL was not lawfully able to
offer such an agreement. Under the CVRA, it had to first confer with the victims.
On the other hand, with regard to the NPA's financial provisions, there was a "valid,
binding" agreement that obligated Epstein to make payments to those victims who want the
payment provisions enforced. The USAO-SDFL and Epstein were free to agree on those particular
terms. And, to the extent contract law is relevant, there would clearly be consideration supporting
those terms, since under the partial rescission that Jane Doe 1 and 2 propose, Epstein would still
continue to have the right to immunity from prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for any
victim who declined to ask for a rescission remedy. 16 As a result, "consideration" for the contract
(e.g., the NPA) would still exist, because something of value would exist for both sides. See
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 79.¹⁷
16 This argument assumes only that at least one of the dozens and dozens of Epstein Florida
victims would not seek rescission of the immunity provision connected with her case. In the
unlikely event that all of Epstein's victims unanimously demand rescission, then a different
circumstance might arise. The Court could address those circumstances if they ever occurred.
17 It may also be the case that Epstein retains some "consideration" for his NPA, because
the statute of limitations may have now expired on some of the crimes covered by his NPA. The
Court need not reach that issue, however, because other consideration exists. And Epstein's most
serious crimes covered by the NPA - specifically, the sex trafficking charges - are not time barred,
due to congressional extensions of the statutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299
("Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found
at
any
time
without
limitation
for any
felony under chapter 109A, 110 (except for section[s] 2257 and 2257A), or 117, or
section 1591")).
38
EFTA00021482

=== Page 42 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 42 of 70
Epstein also suggests that, if a partial rescission remedy is awarded, then he would be free
to raise a "collateral attack" on his state court guilty plea. Epstein Remedies Br. at 46. Of course,
whether he would be successful in doing so is dubious. Florida state courts take a dim view of
belated challenges to guilty pleas. See, e.g., Guzman-Aviles V. State, 226 So. 3d 339, 346 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2017) ("Every inroad on the concept of finality undermines confidence in the integrity of
our procedure
The impact is greatest when new grounds for setting aside guilty pleas are
approved because the vast majority of criminal convictions result from such pleas. Moreover, the
concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant is
only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea."). But any collateral attack would
ultimately be an issue for the Florida state courts - not this Court. The only issue for this Court is
whether to enforce the CVRA - and Congress has commanded that it must. 18 U.S.C. §
3771(b)(1). And after rescission, given that prosecuting sex trafficking is a high priority of the
Justice Department, we assume that the USAO-SDFL would quickly prosecute Epstein in this
District on serious federal sex trafficking charges - charges that the victims could help explain to
the prosecutors. DE 464 at 33-34.
Epstein also argues that "the NPA is not a divisible agreement." Epstein Remedies Br. at
46. But the NPA provision he cites does not say that. Instead, it simply provides that each of the
NPA's provisions is "material" to the agreement and is supported "by independent consideration."
NPA at p. 6. If Epstein had wanted an "indivisible" NPA (whatever that may mean), he was free
to bargain for one. But nothing in the NPA's language provides that it is "indivisible."
In any event, Jane Doe 1 and 2 are not arguing that the NPA is some sort of "divisible"
agreement. Rather, their position is that the NPA's immunity provisions are unenforceable and
39
EFTA00021483

=== Page 43 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 43 of 70
must be rescinded. Epstein argues that the immunity provisions must be specifically enforced.
But Florida law recognizes that "[s]pecific performance [of a contract] will be denied when the
rights of innocent third parties have intervened so that enforcement of the contract would be harsh,
oppressive, or unjust to them." Seaboard Oil Co. V. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296, 1306, 128 So. 821,
825 (1930) (citing 6 POMEROY EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, § 794). Obviously, it is unjust to Jane
Doe 1 and 2 to enforce immunity provisions in the NPA depriving them of congressionally
guaranteed rights.
Finally, Epstein never specifically asks this Court to rule that the NPA is "indivisible" and
therefore must be declared void in its entirely. As noted above, the reason that Epstein has chosen
not to ask for the NPA to be declared totally invalid is obvious - he apparently intends to try to
use the NPA's immunity provisions in the Southern District of New York. 18 But the key point
remains that Epstein has waived any opportunity to ask for total rescission. The Court accordingly
must choose between no rescission and partial rescission. The CVRA commands a choice in favor
of the victims.
B.
The Civil Releases Signed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 Did Not - and Could Not -
Waive their CVRA Claims Against the Government.
Intervenor Epstein next contends that Jane Doe 1 and 2 have somehow signed releases in
a civil case that bar a rescission remedy in this criminal case. Epstein Remedies Br. at 37-38. His
argument is specious.
18 Equally obvious are the reasons why Epstein has declined to have the financial
compensation provisions declared invalid. Doing so would expose him to compensatory and
punitive damages claims that, for each victim, would be worth tens of millions of dollars. See DE
464 at 34.
40
EFTA00021484

=== Page 44 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 44 of 70
Epstein points to civil releases signed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 that resolved their civil cases
against Epstein. The terms of those releases plainly do not cover this case against the Government,
seeking to enforce their rights in a criminal investigation. As Epstein's own exhibits makes clear,
the release covers only claims for "compensatory or punitive damages":
[Jane Doe] individually, and Jeffrey Epstein, individually (jointly referred
to as "Parties"), enter into this Settlement Agreement and General Release
("Settlement Agreement") in order to resolve the pending litigation against them as
follows:
2. General Release. [Jane Doe] and her agent(s), attorney(s),
predecessor(s), successor(s) heir(s), administrator(s), and/or assign(s) (hereinafter
"First Parties"), for and in consideration of the sum of [redacted] and other valuable
consideration, received from or on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein and his agent(s),
attorney(s), predecessor(s), successor(s), heir(s), administrator(s), assign(s) and/or
employee(s) (hereinafter, "Second Parties"), the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledge,
HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said
Second Parties and any other person or entity would could have been included as a
potential defendant ("Other Potential Defendants") from all, and all manner of,
action and actions of [Jane Doe], including State or Federal, cause and causes of
action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sum of money, accounts,
reckoning, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies,
agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions,
claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive
damages that said First Parties ever had or now have, or that any personal
representative, successor, heir, or assign of said First Parties hereafter can, shall, or
may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants, for, upon, or by
reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether or known or unknown),
from the beginning of the world to the day of this release.
DE 463-4. While the release is lengthy, what is being released is clear: claims "for compensatory
or punitive damages" against Epstein. Of course, this CVRA action does not seek any civil
"damages" against Epstein (or anyone else, for that matter). Accordingly, the release's plain
language makes clear it is inapplicable to this case.
41
EFTA00021485

=== Page 45 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 45 of 70
It is troubling that, in discussing this release, Epstein chooses to use ellipses to conceal the
critical language about the release being limited to "compensatory or punitive damages." Thus, in
Epstein's recounting of the tale, the general releases encompassed all "claims, and demands
whatsoever in law or in equity for, upon, or by reasons of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever
(whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release." Epstein
Remedies Br. at 47 (ellipses in original). Notice the ellipses - which remove the pivotal
"compensatory or punitive damages" language. The Court should not permit such misleading
briefing to carry the day. Cf. Loeffel Steel Prod., Inc. V. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 794,
823 (N.D. III. 2005) ("ellipses are not a cure for misquotation and indeed are often the vehicle for
misleading. See Posner, OVERCOMING LAW, 277 (1995) ("Beware a [lawyer] bearing ellipses.")).
This CVRA rights enforcement action does not involve any claim for damages - much less,
a claim for damages against Epstein.¹⁹ As Jane Doe 1 and 2 made clear in their initial remedies
submission, they "are aware, of course, that the CVRA provides that it does not "authorize a cause
of action for damages.' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Accordingly, Jane Doe 1 and 2 are not seeking
'damages' under the CVRA
DE 458 at 30 (emphasis added).
Even if the this case is somehow interpreted to involve "damages," Florida courts have
made clear that exculpatory clauses are only "enforceable where the intention to be relieved from
liability was made clear and unequivocal and the wording was so clear and understandable that an
ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away." Sanislo V.
19 The release also extends to "Other Potential Defendants," defined as any "other person
or entity would could have been included as a potential defendant" in the Jane Does lawsuit
alleging sex abuse. Obviously, the United States was a not sex abuser and could not have been
included in the lawsuit against Epstein.
42
EFTA00021486

=== Page 46 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 46 of 70
Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256, 260-61 (Fla. 2015); see also Fresnedo V. Porky's Gym
III, Inc., 271 So. 3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (releases "that purport to deny an injured
party the right to recover damages from another who negligently causes injury are strictly
construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability"); Diodato V. Islamorada Asset
Mgmt., Inc., 138 So.3d 513, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (reiterating the "well-settled principle that
[exculpatory] clauses are disfavored and are narrowly construed").
As the beginning of the settlement agreement makes clear, "[Jane Doe] individually, and
Jeffrey Epstein, individually (jointly referred to as "Parties"), enter into this Settlement Agreement
and General Release ("Settlement Agreement") in order to resolve the pending litigation against
them
Of course, this CVRA case is not litigation between Jane Doe 1 and 2 and Epstein, but
rather was (and is) styled as Jane Doe 1 and 2 V. United States. Thus, in the summer of 2010,
Epstein was not a party to the CVRA case. He was not even an intervenor at that time. The general
release that Jane Doe 1 and 2 entered into with Epstein did not apply - much less "clearly and
unambiguously" apply - to this CVRA case against the United States.
Confirming this understanding is the fact that, shortly after the civil cases settled, Jane Doe
1 and 2 filed a statement with this Court explaining that the settlements of civil cases with Epstein
in no way affected this CVRA action against the United States:
The fact that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have settled their civil cases against sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein in no way affects their determination to move forward with
the above-captioned CVRA action against a different entity - the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida. For reasons explained in their earlier
pleadings, that Office grossly violated their rights under the Act. The fact that
Epstein has settled with Jane Doe #1 and #2 to resolve his civil liability in no way
exonerates the U.S. Attorney's Office for its failure to discharge its responsibilities
under the Act.
43
EFTA00021487

=== Page 47 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 47 of 70
DE 39 at 2. Epstein never argued that this statement was inaccurate, presumably because he knew
that was what the parties had agreed to. At the time of the settlements, Epstein was well aware of
the CVRA action against the United States. He chose not to attempt to include that case in the
release.
For all these reasons, it is unambiguously clear that the civil release of their "damages"
claims against Epstein does not bar Jane Doe 1 and 2 from proceeding with their CVRA claim
against the United States, seeking to vindicate their CVRA rights. Indeed, even if the release had
dismissed CVRA claims, such a provision would have been void as against public policy. Any
such CVRA release would let a wealthy defendant (like Epstein²⁰) buy his way out of prison. The
CVRA applies only to criminal cases. Affluent criminal defendants should not be able to, first,
illegally conceal an NPA in violation of crime victims' rights and then, second, simply payoff
victims to avoid having justice done.
Of course, that is not what happened in this case — as the releases to which Epstein refers
simply do not cover the CVRA case. But even if they did, they would be obviously contrary to
clearly announced public policy and unenforceable. As this Court has held, under "Florida law, a
contract that violates public policy is void and unenforceable." Neiman V. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 217 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1286 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (citing Harris V. Gonzalez, M.D.,
789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Public policy in Florida (and elsewhere) favors the
20 According to financial information recently filed in the Southern District of New York,
Epstein "is extraordinarily wealthy, and he owns and maintains luxury properties and residences
around the world, including in Manhattan, New York; Palm Beach, Florida; Stanley, New Mexico;
and Paris, France." Letter from Gov't Regarding Bail, U.S. V. Epstein, No. 19-cr-490-RMB, DE
11 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2019).
44
EFTA00021488

=== Page 48 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 48 of 70
reporting of crimes - particularly crimes involving vulnerable child sex abuse victims. See, e.g.,
Valladares V. Bank of Am. Corp., 197 So.3d 1, 10 (Fla. 2016) ("Private citizens should be
encouraged to become interested and involved in bringing the perpetrators of crime to justice
."). And, of course, Congress can articulate public policy. The articulated public policy in the
CVRA is that this Court "shall ensure" that crime victims receive their rights. 18 U.S.C. §
3771(b)(1). Construing the civil releases the way that Epstein would, obviously violates that
announced policy of protecting crime victims and promoting prosecution of dangerous criminals.
IV.
THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITABLE AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ARE
INAPPLICABLE.
Next, convicted sex offender Epstein asks that Court rule against his sex abuse victims
under the "doctrine" of equitable and judicial estoppel. Epstein Remedies Br. at 39-43. Epstein
claims that Jane Doe 1 and 2 sought to enforce the terms of the NPA against him and, accordingly,
"[p]rinciples of equitable and judicial estoppel" now somehow preclude them from enforcing the
CVRA rights. Id. at 40. Epstein's estoppel arguments are meritless. 21
A. Jane Doe 1 and 2 Have Not Violated Any CVRA Requirement in Handling Their
Petition.
Intervenor Epstein's first argument is hinges on the fact that the CVRA requires a judicial
decision on a CVRA motion "forthwith." See id. at 40 (citing 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(d)(3)). Epstein
repeats his earlier argument, as discussed in Section II.B, supra, that Jane Doe 1 and 2 failed to
obtain a decision "forthwith." But as discussed above, the "forthwith" requirement was fully
satisfied in this case. The victims initially sought "emergency" relief and then this Court took
21 It bears emphasizing that the USAO-SDFL has not raised any estoppel arguments. See
DE 464 at 67-68.
45
EFTA00021489

=== Page 49 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 49 of 70
expeditious action in less than four days on the victims' motion. The CVRA contains no further
time requirements, so the notion that victims somehow deviated from CVRA requirements is
untrue. And, in any event, even assuming some sort of violation of the "forthwith" provision,
Epstein is precluded from taking advantage of it. The CVRA itself provides that "[a] person
accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(d)(1)
(emphasis added).
Moreover, Epstein seems to suggest that the victims somehow, as he puts it, "stymied the
operation of the CVRA." Epstein Remedies Br. at 40. But it was, of course, Epstein and the
USAO-SDFL who, in the first instance, "stymied" the CVRA by illegally concealing their NPA.
Since then, it has been a long and hard road for the victims - and the Court - to fully expose what
happened. But that Epstein succeeded in keeping the truth concealed for so long provides no basis
for withholding relief, particularly on alleged grounds of "equity."
B. Congress Has Not Added Doctrines of Estoppel to the CVRA.
Intervenor Epstein next resorts to what he describes as "doctrines" of "equitable" and
"judicial" estoppel. These doctrines will be of some interest to courts sitting in equity. But this
CVRA enforcement action is not an occasion where the Court is free to craft its own equitable
rules restricting the CVRA.
In the CVRA, Congress specifically directed that, when crime victims' issues come before
a court, "the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the
CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. $ 3771(b) (emphasis added). That mandatory language gives no room for the
Court to ignore violations of crime victims' rights based on ill-defined notions of "estoppel." As
the CVRA's legislative history makes clear, "It is not the intent of this bill that its significance be
46
EFTA00021490

=== Page 50 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 50 of 70
whittled down or marginalized by the courts
" 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 (Apr. 22, 2004)
(statement of CVRA co-sponsor, Sen. Feinstein). Allowing a CVRA violation to go unremedied
merely because a criminal can point to other competing estoppel considerations could not merely
"whittle down" the CVRA but completely destroy its effectiveness in some cases.
Controlling case law makes clear then when construing a remedial scheme for enforcement
of congressionally created rights, the courts must give "appropriate judicial deference toward the
will of Congress Hardison V. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
omitted). Congress is "in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be
served" by expansive or narrow remedies. Id. at 1264. Indeed, where Congress has created a
substantive right, the generally rule is that such a right "is not subject to equitable tolling or
equitable estoppel." Fulghum V. Embarq Corp., 785 F.3d 395, 416 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 537 (2015). If notions of, for example, equitable estoppel are to become part of the
CVRA, that choice is for Congress - not the courts.
Moreover, if the Court is going to read into the CVRA doctrines of estoppel, it must also
read in related defenses - such as the doctrine of "unclean hands." It is well-established that "[o]ne
defense to the equitable claim of estoppel is the doctrine of "unclean hands." Bird V. Centennial
Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 228, 234 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Peabody Gas & Oil Co. V. Standard Oil Co., 284
Mass. 87, 187 N.E. 112, 113 (1933) ("[O]ne must come into a court of equity with clean hands in
order to secure relief....")). ")). Thus, "equity requires that those seeking its protection shall have acted
fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue." Ellenburg V. Brockway, Inc., 763
F.2d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Johnson V. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U.S. 383, 387
(1944)). Here, Epstein - a sex offender who worked with the USAO-SDFL to illegally conceal an
47
EFTA00021491

=== Page 51 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 51 of 70
NPA from minor sex abuse victims - has unclean hands for multiple and obvious reasons - and
thus is barred from raising estoppel arguments.
C.
Epstein Has Failed to Satisfy the Elements of the Equitable Estoppel
Doctrine.
In any event, even if some sort of equitable estoppel "doctrine" applied here, Epstein's
equitable estoppel argument is meritless. Equitable estoppel precludes challenging a document
only where that party "rel[ies] on the terms of the written agreement in asserting [her] claims." MS
Dealer Service Corp. V. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999). Here, of course, Jane Doe
1 and 2 did not "rely" on the NPA's terms to establish a CVRA violation - in fact, they were
challenging the terms. Thus, the basic elements of equitable estoppel are simply not in play.
Moreover, because equitable estoppel requires close assessment of all relevant
circumstances, it is important to understand the very limited reference the victims made to
Epstein's NPA in their civil lawsuits. Jane Doe 1 and 2 filed their civil lawsuits in about September
2008, only after their CVRA petition had been filed - and had succeeded in forcing the USAO-
SDFL to disclose the previously secret NPA. The victims' civil lawsuits briefly alleged that
Epstein had agreed that he had sexually abused the various victims and was therefore estopped
from denying the abuse. See DE 401-2 at 24 (quoting complaint). Of course, in September 2008,
the CVRA petition had already been filed - but had not yet been finally decided, much less decided
48
EFTA00021492

=== Page 52 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 52 of 70
in their favor. Accordingly, the victims (acting through legal counsel) could only speculate as to
the ultimate outcome of this CVRA case and had to preserve all possible arguments in their civil
suit. But simply preserving a claim is not the same thing as actually prevailing on a claim - a
necessary predicate for equitable estoppel. Ultimately, the civil suits that Epstein refers to were
settled before trial and Epstein does not argue that any dispositive rulings were made against him
based on the NPA.
Any other conclusion would convert the equitable estoppel doctrine from one having
limited scope to one having sweeping implications. Frequently litigants in the early stages of
litigation must, to preserve their rights, assert multiple arguments that might ultimately prove to
be inconsistent with positions either taken in the same case or in other litigation. It is only when a
party actually receives a court ruling based on a particular predicate that estoppel issues even begin
to come in to play. If the victims had obtained money from Epstein based on a court ruling that he
was estopped from contesting liability to them by the NPA, then conceivably some of the
prerequisites for equitable estoppel would have been in place. But until the victims moved for -
and received - such a ruling, they did nothing more than preserve their rights by simply listing all
possible arguments in their complaint.
Preserving arguments is commonplace in modern litigation - not some basis for precluding
later arguments. A plaintiff, for example, may allege in a complaint that she was harmed by either
Defendant A or Defendant B - to be sorted out after further discovery. Or a defendant may allege
that he did not harm the plaintiff but, if he did, the damages were only minimal. These are not
occasions for equitable estoppel to apply, but simply the routine assertion of potentially diverging
legal positions that protect the rights of a party. It would hardly be equitable to preclude parties,
49
EFTA00021493

=== Page 53 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 53 of 70
who in early stages of court proceedings raises all possible arguments, to somehow later become
"estopped" from selecting among them.
D.
Epstein Has Failed to Satisfy the Elements of the Judicial Estoppel Doctrine.
Intervenor Epstein also contends that the doctrine of "judicial estoppel" applies, blocking
the victims from challenging the NPA. Epstein Remedies Br. at 41-42. Once again, his argument
is meritless.
For starters, for all the reasons just explained that Epstein's reliance on equitable estoppel
doctrine fails, his judicial estoppel argument likewise fails. For example, the decision of whether
to allow a doctrine of judicial estoppel to provide a basis for declining to enforce CVRA's rights
is for Congress, not the courts. In addition, Epstein has "unclean hands" and cannot raise an
argument sounding in equity.
Remarkably, Epstein seeks to rely on this doctrine even though, under Eleventh Circuit
caselaw, one of the foundational elements for applying the doctrine is proof of "a party's success
in convincing a court of the earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of the inconsistent later
position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay
Water V. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 1th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating
the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does not even attempt to
argue that Jane Doe 1 and 2 had "success" in convincing the courts that Epstein was estopped from
contesting liability. The reason for this is that the victims never reached the point in the civil
proceedings of making that argument against Epstein - much less, having success by winning the
argument. Indeed, Epstein vigorously defended liability in those cases. The reason Epstein was
able to fully contest liability is that the NPA created such a limited remedy for Epstein's victims
50
EFTA00021494

=== Page 54 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 54 of 70
that it was, for all practical purposes, meaningless. Jane Doe 1 and 2 never sought summary
judgment based on the NPA and instead looked forward to fully trying their cases.
The relevant provision in the NPA is paragraph 9, which provided that if a victim elected
to sue Epstein exclusively under 18 U.S.C. $ 2255, Epstein agreed not to contest liability - "so
long as the [victim] agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal,
or common law." The practical effect of this provision was to cap the victims' claims against
Epstein to no more than $150,000 (or, Epstein argued, no more than $50,000), the statutory
maximum under $ 2255. Given the horrific abuse that Epstein inflicted on his child sex abuse
victims, this cap meant that the NPA was essentially meaningless for many of the victims -
including Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, who were unwilling to waive all other claims for damages
and thus had to proceed entirely apart from the NPA to obtain appropriate damages. The victims
thus never had "success" relying on the NPA's provisions - but could only have success by
escaping from the limits on liability that the Government had agreed to with the sex offender they
were pursuing.
The Supreme Court has clearly held "[a]bsent success in a prior proceeding, a party's later
inconsistent position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations and thus poses little
threat to judicial integrity." New Hampshire V. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001). The victims
never had "success" in arguing that Epstein was estopped from denying that he has abused the
victims. Indeed, to the contrary, the victims pressed an argument that they were not limited to
seeking damages under the NPA. Judicial estoppel is not applicable to this course of events.
Citing a bankruptcy case, Epstein concedes the principles of judicial estoppel are very
limited. Indeed, Epstein admits that, in bankruptcy proceedings, the Eleventh Circuit "employs a
51
EFTA00021495

=== Page 55 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 55 of 70
two-part test to guide district courts in applying judicial estoppel: whether (1) the party took an
inconsistent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were
calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater V. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d
1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).
It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were confronting unprecedented secrecy
and violation of a congressional statute in trying to determine how to proceed. But Epstein gamely
argues that Jane Doe 1 and 2 made "a mockery of the judicial system [by] trying to convince one
court to rule in their favor based on the binding validity of the NPA and then trying to convince
this Court that the NPA was an "illegal agreement." Epstein Remedies Br. at 52. Epstein never
cites that specific document or argument in which Jane Doe 1 or 2 tried to somehow "convince
one court to rule in their favor" based on the NPA - and, indeed, this Court in fact had an essentially
identical case in front of it during the entire time where no such actions took place. See Doe V.
Epstein, 9:08-cv-80893-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2009-10). The reason that Epstein is unable to cite any
such example is that no such reliance on the NPA ever happened. For example, Jane Doe 1 and 2
never moved for summary judgment on liability in their civil cases - they were looking forward
to ultimately trying their case to a jury. And when they tried their cases to a jury, the victims
intended to call witnesses and fully prove that Epstein had sexually abused them - and then to seek
compensatory and punitive damages far in excess of what the NPA provided. No reliance on the
NPA ever existed, much less the kind of improper behavior that would make a "mockery" of the
system. Cf. Slater, 871 F.3d at 1178 (discussing deliberate concealment of claims from a
bankruptcy court).
52
EFTA00021496

=== Page 56 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 56 of 70
Moreover, all of the actions in the CVRA case and the civil cases took place in public
judicial proceedings in which Epstein was represented by a battery of lawyers. It "is difficult to
impute an intent 'to make a mockery of the judicial system' where the complaining party was
aware of the inconsistency in sufficient time and in a position to properly raise an objection in the
original proceeding." Ajaka V. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir.
2006). Here, Epstein and the Government was well aware of both this CVRA action and the related
civil suits. There is no concealment or unfairness that are the hallmarks for applying judicial
estoppel. Cf. Burnes V. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying doctrine
in circumstances showing deliberate concealment of assets).
Instead of presenting evidence (such as a court ruling) that Jane Doe 1 and 2 had "success"
in relying on the NPA's provisions, Epstein appeals vaguely to the notion that Jane Doe 1 and 2
"reaped for themselves the financial benefits of the NPA
" Epstein's Remedies Br. at 42.
What benefits? Jane Doe 1 and 2 settled their civil cases - and obtained benefits entirely apart
from the NPA. The circumstances in which judicial estoppel would even potentially be in play
did not occur.
V.
ALLEGED PRINCIPLES OF "SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS" DO NOT
PRECLUDE RESCISSION REMEDIES.
As his fifth argument against giving Jane Doe 1 and 2 their rights, Intervenor Epstein
contends it would violate "principles of substantive due process" to rescind the NPA's immunity
provisions. Epstein Remedies Br. at 43-45. In making his argument, Epstein cites run of the mill
cases in which the issue is interpretation of a plea agreement. Of course, the Government must
53
EFTA00021497

=== Page 57 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 57 of 70
generally abide by promises that it makes in such agreements. See, e.g., United States V. Hill, 643
F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir. 2011) (analyzing scope of government promises in a plea agreement).
But as the Eleventh Circuit (and other courts) have made clear, this general rule that the
Government is bound by plea provisions is subject to qualifications. The key case on this point is
the Eleventh Circuit's decision in San Pedro V. United States, 79 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 1996), cited
previously by Jane Doe 1 and 2 but not discussed by Epstein. San Pedro explains that: "[T]he
general rule requiring governmental adherence to promises made during plea negotiations is
subject to two conditions. First, the agent making the promise must be authorized to do so, and
second, the defendant must detrimentally rely on the promise. If either condition is lacking, then
the agreement is unenforceable
San Pedro V. United States, 79 F.3d 1065, 1068 (11th Cir.
1996); see also United States V. Kachkar, No. 16-20595-CR, 2018 WL 6974948 at *2 (S.D. Fla.
2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-20595-CR, 2019 WL 116864 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
(following San Pedro).
Here, of course, in adopting the CVRA Congress directed that prosecutors must reasonably
"confer" with the victim in a criminal case before making a binding resolution. 18 U.S.C. §
3771(a)(5). Prosecutors lack authority to deviate from this congressional command - and thus (at
least on the facts of this case) lacked "actual authority to make" a promise of immunity without
conferring with victims. San Pedro, 795 F.3d at 1068. The word "authority" means "[t]he official
right or permission to act, esp. to act legally on another's behalf " BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY
158 (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Here, as the Court has previously found (without challenge
from Epstein) "once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into
the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1221. In other words, the
54
EFTA00021498

=== Page 58 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 58 of 70
Government was no longer acting legally - and simply did not have authority to extend immunity
to Epstein.
The facts of San Pedro offer clear parallels to this case. There, the prosecutor offered a
promise of non-deportation to criminal defendant San Pedro. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that
this agreement was unenforceable, because by statute the power to enforce immigration laws rested
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. $ 1103(a)).
Here, Congress has also placed statutory limitations on the power of prosecutors,
specifically the USAO-SDFL - requiring it to follow the law. The statute establishing the duties
of the Office of U.S. Attorney provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, each United
States attorney, within his district, shall
prosecute for all offenses against the United States
28 U.S. § 547 (emphasis added). Thus, here the USAO-SDFL had authority to make prosecutorial
decisions about this District but had to proceed as "provided by law." See 28 U.S. § 547. One law -
the CVRA - required the USAO-SDFL to confer with victims before extending Epstein's immunity
offer. Because that was not done - a fact that Epstein well knew, and indeed had sought - the USAO-
SDFL was without authority to extend the secret immunity offer.
The fact that Epstein was represented by a multitude of high-powered lawyers is also relevant.
"This case does not involve any government overreaching by taking advantage of an unsophisticated
defendant." United States V. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996). Instead, Epstein and the
USAO-SDFL sought to maneuver around the statutory commands of the CVRA. Now that their
maneuver has failed, Epstein is not entitled to take advantage of his illegal agreement.
This conclusion follows even if the Court were to proceed on the assumption (contrary to the
facts of this case) that Epstein's legal team had no knowledge whatsoever that the Government was
violating its CVRA obligations. A helpful case is United States V. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996).
55
EFTA00021499

=== Page 59 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 59 of 70
There, the Seventh Circuit refused to enforce a provision in a plea agreement where "the parties'
bargain was founded on a mutual misunderstanding of the legal consequences of the bargain.
Alternatively and equivalently, it is a case in which the bargain is vitiated by illegality - an attempt to
attach an unauthorized consequence to an inappropriate order." Id. at 946. Even assuming arguendo
that this case simply involves Epstein and the USAO-SDFL reaching an agreement based on a "mutual
misunderstanding," the fact remains that the NPA continues to be "vitiated by illegality" and this Court
cannot attach any effect to the improper agreement.
In response to Walker, Epstein calls the Seventh Circuit's ruling an "entirely confused"
decision. Epstein Remedies Br. at 25. But the Seventh Circuit simply followed standard principles
that a court must follow the law when interpreting plea agreements. Indeed, numerous cases hold that
such agreements are unenforceable when they deviate from legal requirements. See, e.g., Craig V.
People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999) (court cannot enforce a plea agreement that waives the
mandatory parole period); State V. Garcia, 582 N.W.2d 879, 881-82 (Minn. 1998) (plea agreement
promised a sentence that did not contain the statutorily-required 10-year conditional release term);
State V. Wall, 348 N.C. 671, 675-76 (1998) (holding that court cannot enforce a plea agreement for
concurrent sentence where law mandated consecutive one); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006) (court cannot enforce an illegal sentence below the statutory range); State V.
Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 374 (2002) (court would not enforce plea agreement that called for court to
unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses).
Epstein acknowledges this long line of cases but claims that they are all distinguishable because
they stand for the proposition that "a court cannot enforce facially invalid plea agreements that contain
illegal terms or omit the required components of a sentence." Epstein Remedies Br. at 26. Epstein's
concession effectively gives away the game. Epstein never explains why the principles expressed in
56
EFTA00021500

=== Page 60 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 60 of 70
these cases should be limited to "facially" invalid agreement. Here this Court has held that the NPA
was reached in violation of congressional command, which equally renders it plainly illegal - and thus
unenforceable.
Craig V. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999), for example, explains that when "the parties
attempt to fashion a sentence that is itself contrary to law, the resulting illegality is not subject to
specific enforcement." Id. at 959. Here, Epstein and the USAO-SDFL attempted to "fashion" an NPA
that was "contrary to law" - because it was reached without the congressionally required conferral with
Epstein's victims.
Similarly, State V. Wall, 348 N.C. 671 1998), holds that the defendant was not entitled to
specific performance of a plea agreement to receive a concurrent sentence, because "such action would
violate the laws of this state." Id. at 676. So too here. To allow Epstein to obtain specific performance
of the secret NPA would "violate the laws of this" country - i.e., the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Directly contrary to Epstein's theory that "facial invalidity" only applies to the specific terms
of an agreement is Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). There, the Court refused
specific performance of an illegal arrangement, explaining that "[a]lthough the plea bargain seemed
fair on its face when executed, it has become unenforceable due to circumstances beyond the control
of the Applicant or the State, namely the fact that one of the enhancement paragraphs was
mischaracterized in the indictment, resulting in an illegal sentence far outside the statutory range of
punishment." Id. at 515. Here, even if it could be argued that the NPA was "fair on its face," the fact
is that it is now unenforceable due to the fact that the victims were never given their CVRA right to
confer. Indeed, in Ex parte Rich, the court refused to enforce the plea agreement "due to circumstances
beyond the control" of the defendant and the State. Id. Here, of course, the resulting "circumstances"
57
EFTA00021501

=== Page 61 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 61 of 70
(i.e., non-conferral with the victims) were entirely within the control Epstein and USAO-SDFL - and,
in fact, were something that they conspired together to achieve.
Epstein further argues that he should not be held accountable for what he describes as "[t]he
government's failure to comply with its obligations to third parties." Epstein Remedies Br. at 45.
The Court would be faced with a more difficult question if Epstein had actually understood that
the Government was fully complying with its conferral obligations but had simply dropped the
ball. The situation here is entirely different. It was both the Government and Epstein who worked
together assiduously to hide the ball from the victims. Against that backdrop, no "inequities" (id.)
would result from rescinding the NPA's immunity provisions. Epstein chose to arrange for an
illegal deal - he is not entitled to reap the benefits of that illegality.
Finally, Epstein also refers to his alleged "full performance" of his obligations under the
NPA. Id. But that fact has recently been called into doubt by the ruling denying Epstein bail in
the criminal case proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
See Decision and Order Remanding Defendant, DE 32 at 19-20, U.S. V. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-490-
RMB (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019) (finding that "Mr. Epstein has not always been compliant with his
legal obligations as a registered sex offender"). As the Court noted there, Epstein's counsel
claimed that Epstein has been "scrupulously fulfill[ing] his obligations in every jurisdiction in
which he was required to register [as a sex offender]" since his 2008 Florida convictions." Id. at
19. But it appears that Epstein has not been compliant, for example, in New York. See id. at 20
(noting that, notwithstanding a New York judge's order imposing a sex offender reporting
requirement, according to an investigative report Epstein "has never reported as a sex offender to
New York law enforcement"); see also id. at 21 (noting lack of information from Epstein's counsel
58
EFTA00021502

=== Page 62 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 62 of 70
demonstrating proper sex offender registration in New Mexico, Florida, and the Virgin Islands).
These facts further undercut any claim by Epstein to being able to rely on the NPA.
VI.
SEPARATION OF POWERS DOES NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM
EXERCISING ITS STATUTORY POWER TO ENFORCE THE CVRA.
Intervenor Epstein next argues that the rescission remedy would somehow interfere with
separation of powers. Epstein Remedies Br. at 46-49. But Epstein lacks standing to assert
interference with Executive prerogatives. The USAO-SDFL has been actively engaged in this
litigation and has filed dozens of pleadings. Any issues regarding interference with the Executive
branch have, no doubt, been properly advanced by that Office - and Epstein is simply an interloper
who is not free to kibitz on constitutional issues regarding separation of powers. The federal courts
are "not empowered to seek out and strike down any governmental act that they deem to be
repugnant to the Constitution. Rather, federal courts sit 'solely, to decide on the rights of
individuals." Hein V. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.)
(citing Marbury V. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a
"right" to separation of powers.
Second, as discussed above in connection with the statutory authority of the U.S.
Attorney's Offices, Congress is entitled to pass laws establishing rights for crime victims. To our
knowledge, no litigant - and certainly not Epstein - has ever argued that the CVRA's extension of
rights to victims unconstitutionally intrudes on executive power. Indeed, this Court has already
explained why the CVRA does not interfere with prosecutorial discretion: "The Government
correctly notes that the CVRA provides that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair
59
EFTA00021503

=== Page 63 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 63 of 70
the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.' 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3771(d)(6). The Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court
is simply ruling that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims' rights under
the CVRA." 359 F.Supp.3d at 1222. The Court would say exactly the same thing in providing
the victims a rescission remedy. The Court would not be ruling that the immunity provisions were
"improper." The Court would simply say that, under the facts of this case, the provisions have to
be rescinded because they were adopted in violation of the victims' CVRA rights.
This Court's ruling to that effect would not "thrust the Court into the role of prosecutor and
negotiator Epstein Remedies Br. at 47. Instead, the Court would simply be performing the
task that Congress assigned to it by directing that district courts "shall ensure" that victims receive
their CVRA rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). Once the immunity provisions have been rescinded,
the victims would confer with the USAO-SDFL and then the prosecutors would be free to proceed
as they saw fit. Ensuring that victims receive their procedural CVRA rights in no way intrudes
on substantive decisions by prosecutors.
To be sure, judicial authority is limited "when reviewing the Executive's exercise of
discretion over charging determinations." United States V. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 741
(D.C. Cir. 2016). But Jane Doe 1 and 2 are not asking this Court to review any prosecutor's
ultimate charging determination; all the victims seek is that they have their promised opportunity
to "confer" with the prosecutors about what that determination should be. Thus, in enforcing the
victims' rights, the Court would not be "rejecting the deal agreed to by the parties." Epstein
Remedies' Br. at 49. It would simply be enforcing the victims' right to be involved in shaping that
deal. As this Court has held, "the CVRA was designed to give the victims the same opportunity
60
EFTA00021504

=== Page 64 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 64 of 70
to attempt to affect prosecutorial decisions before they became final" as defendants have. 359
F.Supp.3d at 1221. Enforcing that congressional decision is well within judicial authority.
VII. THE VICTIMS' REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (REMEDY #2)
IMMEDIATELY BECOMES RIPE UPON THE GRANTING OF A RESCISSION
(REMEDY #1).
Intervenor Epstein next argues that, even if the Court grants rescission (remedy #1), it
would be premature for this Court to rule on whether the Constitution would permit his prosecution
(remedy #2). Epstein Remedies Br. at 49. Epstein claims that such a ruling is precluded by the
"ripeness" doctrine, which on closer examination turns out to involve a claim that no "case or
controversy" would exist for such a determination. Id. at 50.
If the Court grants rescission (remedy #1), the issue of declaratory relief (remedy #2)
immediately becomes ripe. Specifically, unless this Court declares that it is permissible for the
USAO-SDFL to prosecute Epstein, it will not be giving Epstein's victims "the same opportunity
[as Epstein had] to attempt to affect prosecutorial decisions before they became final." 359
F.Supp.3d at 1221. See generally Victims' Resp. to Government Remedies Submission at 35-37.
Without such a declaration, the Jane Does would not be put back in the same position as they
would have been had the Government complied with the CVRA.
But, in any event, given the way that briefing has proceeded in this case, this request
(remedy #2) is now largely subsumed by the way in which Epstein has advanced his arguments
against rescission. If the Court reviews and rejects all of Epstein's arguments (as we believe it
should), then the victims would largely receive the declaratory relief that they need. Epstein
obviously believes that he is entitled to obtain a ruling on all of his constitutional arguments
advanced here. And Epstein has presented a wide array of constitutional and separation of powers
61
EFTA00021505

=== Page 65 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 65 of 70
arguments against the rescission remedy. See, e.g., Epstein Remedies Br. at 14-27 (arguing that
"procedural due process" precludes rescission); id. at 43-46 (arguing that "substantive due
process" precludes rescission); id. at 46-49 (arguing that separation of powers precludes
rescission). A Court ruling that, in spite of these constitutional arguments, rescission is nonetheless
appropriate would appear to sweep away most of the constitutional barriers that the victims have
been concerned about.
Accordingly, for remedy #2, the victims simply ask the Court to reach - and reject - all of
Epstein's constitutional claims. Following a court decision to that effect, the victims could then
approach the Court if any constitutional issues remained at that time that were improperly
impeding their ability to confer.
VIII. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE
VICTIMS IN THIS CASE.
Jane Doe 1 and 2 have requested that the Court hold a hearing in this case, at which time
they could address the Court - and Epstein and prosecutors - about this case. DE 464 at 46-49.
The Government responded by agreeing that a court hearing was appropriate but suggesting a
slightly different format than the victims. DE 462 at 7. Jane Doe 1 and 2 have replied to the
Government, continuing to agree with the Government that a hearing is appropriate but reaffirming
their request (for example) that Epstein and former-U.S. Attorney Acosta attend the hearing. DE
464 at 46-49.²²
22 Since the filing of that brief by the victims, Secretary Acosta has decided to resign his
position as Labor Secretary. But during his press conference on July 10 on the topic of the NPA,
Acosta stated that he might be willing, at some point, to "circle back" with the victims to discuss
his handling of the case so as to be "more transparent." On July 15, counsel for Jane Doe 1 and 2
sent a letter to Acosta, advising him of the hearing that the victims and his prior Office was
62
EFTA00021506

=== Page 66 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 66 of 70
Now Epstein has weighed in, claiming that the Court has "no authority" under the CVRA
to preside over such a hearing. But, to the contrary, the CVRA provides enforcement powers to
district courts to enforce the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). And contrary to Epstein's
suggestion, there is clearly a "case or controversy" as to how to best provide the victims their
CVRA rights. In the unusual circumstances that exist in this case, where even the Government
concedes no remedy (rescission or otherwise) can fully put the victims back in the position that
they would have been had the Government properly conferred in 2007, this Court clearly has power
to act. As Senator Kyl explained, "it is the clear intent and expectation of Congress that the district
courts will establish procedures that will allow for a prompt adjudication of any issues
regarding the assertion of a victim's right, while giving meaning to the rights we establish." 150
Cong. Rec. 22953 (Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added). A hearing of the kind
that the victims - and the Government -propose is an appropriate way to give at least some
meaning to important CVRA rights.
IX.
ADOPTION OF EARLIER PLEADINGS BY REFERENCE
Jane Doe 1 and 2 have also advanced numerous arguments in other filings that defeat
Epstein's claims. To avoid duplicative briefing, Jane Doe 1 adopt by reference, in response to
Epstein, all of the arguments they have advanced in DE 458 and DE 464.
X.
THE COURT SHOULD EXPEDITE ITS RULING ON REMEDIES AND ON THE
VICTIMS' RIGHTS TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS AND TO NOTICE.
At this time, all of the briefing that the Court requested in its scheduling order (DE 454)
has been completed. Accordingly, all the matters discussed in this submission are ripe for decision.
proposing and asking whether he would voluntarily attend the hearing. Jane Doe 1 and 2 have yet
to receive any response to the letter.
63
EFTA00021507

=== Page 67 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 67 of 70
Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to request a rapid ruling on remedies by this Court. 23 Any delay
in ruling could further compound the damage that has already been done to Epstein's Florida
victims by denying them an opportunity to meaningfully confer about federal charges being filed
in this District - particularly given recent and on-going developments in New York that, while
independent of this case, may make it more difficult for Jane Doe 1 and 2 to seek prosecution here.
Jane Doe 1 and 2 also have pending before the Court two additional arguments as why the
CVRA has been violated - specifically, that their rights to be treated with fairness and to notice
have been violated. See DE 458 at 33. As previously explained, the Government has not
challenged that the Court should hold that these two rights have been violated. DE 464 at 15. And,
likewise, Epstein has not made any argument to the contrary. (He does not even cite the right to
fairness in his brief.) Accordingly, the Court should summarily find that these rights have also
been violated. After such a ruling, Jane Doe 1 and 2 would respectfully respect the opportunity to
provide additional briefing on what additional remedies would then become available to them.
Their existing briefing on remedies, of course, has been confined to explaining what remedies the
Court should award based on its existing findings. The Court would have more expansive remedial
powers based on more expansive findings of CVRA violations.
23 To be clear, having previously discussed the issue with the Court and seen the Court's
approach to resolving the pending issues, Jane Doe 1 and 2 are not seeking a jury trial on any
aspect of this case. With regard to crafting remedies for the violation of their right to confer, the
Court should exercise its remedial power. And with regard to the victims' still-pending claims that
there has been a violation of their rights to be treated with fairness and to notice, the Court can
make the necessary factual determinations to decide the matters.
64
EFTA00021508

=== Page 68 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 68 of 70
But none of these other possibilities should prevent the Court from moving forward rapidly
with the issues that are fully briefed and squarely before it now. The victims request that the
Court rule as rapidly as possible.
XI.
REQUEST FOR A HEARING (IF NECESSARY).
If the Court requires any further factual predicate from Jane Doe 1 and 2 in response to
Epstein's arguments, they request a hearing and opportunity to provide that predicate to the Court.
CONCLUSION
Intervenor Epstein set in motion a plan whereby he joined with the USAO-SDFL to reach
a secret non-prosecution agreement - and then to have it put it in place without the victims having
any opportunity to object. That plan to keep the victims in the dark was patently illegal under the
CVRA. And the plan was in service of keeping a deal secret that could never have survived public
or judicial scrutiny.
This Court has now held that the Government's illegal actions, undertaken at Epstein's
specific request, violated Jane Doe 1 and 2's rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. And the
Court now possesses ample power to respond to this deliberate attempt to keep innocent victims
uncertain about why multiple federal sex crimes against them were to go unpunished. The Court
should accordingly grant Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 all the remedies they have requested,
including rescission of the NPA's "immunity" provisions precluding prosecution of Epstein and
his co-conspirators for federal sex crimes committed in the Southern District of Florida.
65
EFTA00021509

=== Page 69 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 69 of 70
DATED: July 23, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley I. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
Edwards Pottinger LP
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (800) 400-1098
E-Mail: brad@epllc.com
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: (801) 585-5202
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Does 1 and 2
* This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes
only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah.
66
EFTA00021510

=== Page 70 ===
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 466 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2019 Page 70 of 70
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on July 23, 2019, on counsel of record using
the Court's CM/ECF system:
Jill E. Steinberg
Nathan P. Kitchens
U.S. Attorneys' Office for the Northern District of Georgia
600 U.S. Courthouse
75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404)581-6000
Jill.Steinberg@uisdoj.gov
Nathan.Kitchens@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the Government
Roy Eric Black
Jacqueline Perczek
Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf
201 S Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
305-371-6421
Fax: 358-2006
Email: pleading@royblack.com
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
/s/ Bradley I. Edwards
67
EFTA00021511


