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

ing; instead, a witness' claims of attorney-client privilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis, 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 'In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane),

nsel have had access to the subpoenaed computers since at least October 2005, when they were removed from Epstein's home, and they have known about the United States' attempts to locate those computers for at least two months, when a subpoena for the same items was served upon Paul Lavery, another private investig

n had standing to assert these challenges, the subpoenas are not unreasonable and do not violate any act of production privilege. For these reasons, the United States asks the Court to deny the Motion to Quash and to order the prompt production of the requested items and the witnesses' appearances before the Grand

ing; instead, a witness' claims of attorney-client privilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis , 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp. , 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank , 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White , 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7t

Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of cert

Furthermore, blanket assertions are not proper, and the assertion must be made on a question-by-question and document-by- document basis. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat Bank 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Ci