Epstein Secrets

RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16 that was unsealed and became public in July 2013, specifically noted that "a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Flori

als at the Department of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number o

RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16 that was unsealed and became public in July 2013, specifically noted that "a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Flori

als at the Department of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number o

RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16 that was unsealed and became public in July 2013, specifically noted that "a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Flori

als at the Department of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number o

RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16 that was unsealed and became public in July 2013, specifically noted that "a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Flori

als at the Department of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number o

eding.' (DE M-1 at 21-22); see Table at P-013227-013247). 4. Request No. 18—Documents Concerning Recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida Request number 18 seeks information about why the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was "'conflicted

ted from discovery by opinion work product privilege. S:13973-13976 Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege. The Government's Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1). 42 EFTA00210181 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 43 of 51 S:13977-13979 Prot

ing.' (DE 212-1 at 21-22); see Table at P-013227-013247). 4. Request No. 18—Documents Concerning Recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida Request number 18 seeks information about why the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was "'conflicted

ted from discovery by opinion work product privilege. S:13973-13976 Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege. The Government's Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1). 42 EFTA01657793 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 43 of 51 S:13977-13979 Prot

ng.' (DE 212-1 at 21-22); (see Table at P-013227-013247). 4. Request No. 18—Documents Concerning Recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida Request number 18 seeks information about why the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was "'conflicted

ted from discovery by opinion work product privilege. S:13973-13976 Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege. The Government's Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1). 42 EFTA_R1_01293477 EFTA02335939 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 43 of 51 S

h, FL 33401-5007 Re: Testimony of Dear Ms... This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of pro

ted from discovery by opinion work product privilege. S:13973-13976 Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege. The Government's Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1). 42 EFTA00086486 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 43 of 51 S:13977-13979 Prot