Epstein Secrets

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafafia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P

A-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 P-008809 Thru P-008847 File folder entitled "[Victim namej/Jane Doe #6" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product

x #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Laurie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, R. Garcia, K. A

ict of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Paul G. Cassell S.J. I uinne olle e of Law at the Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00209307 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 14 SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE

ly aware, the Department's prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not "de novo." See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, task

er in the former firm of Herman, , & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaila Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafafia Email with 4 page NPA attac

ea and Villafafia email to Leflcowitz re same B l') 6/23/2008 Villafafia, Kuyrkendall, Richards, cc: Atkinson Senior Email regarding New York Jane Doe and awaiting a response from DAG's office 6/23/2008 Emails between A. Marie Villafaiia, E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, J. Richards, K. Atkinson, and R.

x #3 P-013554 Thai File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Louric, R. Garcia, K. A

e informed the USAO and the FBI that she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epstein, and, as a result, the USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(e). 3. Denied. 4. Denied. 5. The

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan, IL Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Pub

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3 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 NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO PRIVLEGE LOG COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refe

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaiia Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafatia Email with 4 page NPA attac

Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2I United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, th

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder