Epstein Secrets

supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Stan• to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with ha

arlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors but merely pointed out misconduct and over-

elephone logs, photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 22. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected

/2013 Page 5 of 12 connection with the specific representation." Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 383 (1981), "which explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within the

o appear and provide testimony and evidence in accordance with the issued subpoenas at the next meeting of the Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorne West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY

rand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

o appear and provide testimony and evidence in accordance with the issued subpoenas at the next meeting of the Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVI

rand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United St

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. I United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

ates respectfully requests that the Application and any Order related to the Application be sealed. Dated: April 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA ASSISTANT UNITED STA1 ES A ORNEY Florida Bar No. 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tel: Fax: Case No. 08-8073

rida West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attention: Asstetantlinited States Attorney Re: Grand Jury Investigpuion, terfrey Epstein, et al. Dcar Mr. Acosta: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6003(h) and 28 C.P.R., § 0.175(a), I hereby approve ycur request for authority to apply to °

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 14 EFTA00086458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

Ile...LeneA nein Black srcbmck. Kornsparl & Stumpf EFTA00179082 U.S. Department Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY VIA FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Fowler White Burnett 1395 Brickell Ave Fl 14 Miami Florida 33131-3300 Re: Jeffre

ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. AUGUST 3, 2007 PAGE 2 Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this ti

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records ... in the hands of an attorney—or p