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

s in opposition to enforcement of the subpoena.' These are rights personal to Epstein, and the government would no doubt be the first 2 Lanebrd v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.3d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975), on which the government relies. Response at 37, concerned a motion to quash a trial subpoena duces tecum issued by th

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true

ensued between the United States and Epstein. Despite the investigation revealing that Epstein had molested more than 40 minor girls, in Late 2007, the United Stales entered into a non- prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein - esseNiatly egree:ng to immunize Epstein for al of the Federal Sex crimes he committed

copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. The-rietifieation4id-net

on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . . . and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. After reaping the benefits of the NPA, the

ed, for example, the work product argument: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversarywaives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

o power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Overby. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158, 162 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1955) (exercising interlocutory jurisdiction and citing Perlman in a civil action to recover damage

a privilege); Krane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States'. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

109, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (emphases The express language of Rule 410 also makes clear that "derivative evidence" is never excluded from a proceeding. See United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 1987). 8 EFTA00205735 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 9 of 2

ary of Enclosures" and justified the privilege by characterizing the documents as "attorney-client communication[s]" without explanation.") (citing United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996)).8 Once the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bea

"Disclosure to an adversary waives the work product protection as to items actually disclosed, even where disclosure occurs in settlement." In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, "[c]ourts will imply waiver when a party In Jane Doe v. Epstein,

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

ims intend to use the correspondence against the United States, not against Epstein. Rule 410 "create[s], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 115 S. Ct. 797, 803 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), but not a privilege of non-disclosure

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

ims intend to use the correspondence against the United States, not against Epstein. Rule 410 "create[s], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 115 S. Ct. 797, 803 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), but not a privilege of non-disclosure

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

rring admission of plea negotiations; the alleged victims intended to admit the evidence of the plea negotiations to prove violations of the CVRA by the United States, not to be used against the alleged perpetrator. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 410, 28 U.S.C.A. [12] Federal Civil Procedure 170A f=1604(2) 170A Federal Civ

s. United States I. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir.2006); Pickett I. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir.2000). And the issue of whether to r

voluntarily States during the plea negotiations is not work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir.1981). Even if it shared the com

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

s not 6 EFTA00805372 clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the c

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the common goal of reaching a quick settlement, the United States was undoubtedly adverse to Epstein during its investigation of him for federal offenses, and the intervenors' disclosure of their work product waive

use plea discussions are not confidential: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co