Epstein Secrets

and placed in the public portion of the court file O Destroyed 0 Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above A`tancy for: United Stales of Vifierica EFTA00179092 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-64 AND

ry on September 18, 2007. However, 'Witness William Riley did not file an initial motion to quash the grand jury subpoenas, but did file a Reply to the United States' Response to the Intervenor's Motion to Quash. Accordingly, the United States has not previously had the opportunity to respond to the issue raised b

vestigation of these crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The Supreme Court has routinely recognized the grand jury's unique role in the United States' criminal justice system. The grand jury "belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Go

FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNDER SEAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the United States of America's Motion for Permission to File a supplemental Ex Parte Affidavit in support of its Response to the Motion to Quash. Upon review of the motion, it i

84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNITED STATES' SURREPLY TO REPLIES FILED BY WITNESS WILLIAM RILEY AND INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN RE: MOTION TO OUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS UNDER SEAL EFTA0017908

ain hidden in an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation," In re

ida 3340) Facsimile- FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG E_SQ. DATE: February 5, 2007 FAX NO. PHONE NO. # OP PAGES: FROM: ASSISTANT U. S . ATTORNEY PHONE NO. COMMENTS: 3(1/1_- &at- °L4191-fr\k' -61r ougar&cLau ' V IA P i t 'an t_ I t itifft attia 1 1'6 ffidgAgr. Case No. 08-80

T OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS / SEALED ORDER It is hereby ordered that the United States' Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court, except that a

new grand jury has been tided and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= MI. As 1 mentioned earlier, Ms is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/winless. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us

F AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

minal sentences" to reject mandamus under the Act where a defendant had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced more than two years earlier); see also United States v. Bedonie, 413 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 2005) (district court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedin

1 and Jane Doe 2 can have no legitimate particularized need for grand jury materials that they intend to use in violation of the rules of evidence. See United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711, 727 (1st Cir. 2007) (no right to grand jury transcripts established by defendant who sought them to substantiate an appea

litigation.' United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman v. Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawyer is bou

unications from disclosure to third parties outside the negotiation process. 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). EFTA00209671 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 16 of 75 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS In Septembe

tomary practices of the defense and prosecution function, entitled to assume would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties. See United States v. Deloitte UP, 610 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C.Cir. 2010)(court "examine[s] whether the disclosing party had a reasonable basis for believing that the reci

rials prepared by an attorney `acting for his client in anticipation of litigation,"' United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-38 (1975), quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508 (1947), which applies in both civil and criminal litigation: Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a

and finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. L DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.)

E 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 611' day July, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge 25 EFTA_R1_0 1293460 EFTA02335922 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 TABLE Det

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

nd finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. (See DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.)

DE 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6ih day July, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge 25 EFTA01657776 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 TABLE Detail of Privilege an

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

y had been in his home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the

n in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting • ni behalf of the court. poem) is issued upon application 'Med States of America DATE: March 2, 2007 Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney ssistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West

oenas violate the work-product doctrine, as well as Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the modern work- product doctrine, holding that: [lin performing his various duties, how

familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Edwards' clients had sought to discover correspondence b

Court is governed by the basic mantra that the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Even the seminal case establishing the work-product doctrine, Hickman v. Taylor, recognized the doctrine's limits: We do not mean to say that all written materials obtained or prepared by an adversary's counsel with an eye tow

y had been in his home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the

oenas violate the work-product doctrine, as well as Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor,. 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the modem work- product doctrine, holding that: (flu performing his various duties, how

nexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S. Ct. 1524, 84 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that "[n]othing in this chapter shall

"it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain r 161 degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a part