Too late.... Went out. I don't think it's worth resending, do you? I will correct for future use. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monc March 21, 2011 5:54 PM To: ,M (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); MI USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT It just occurred to me that perhaps we should not refer to the Jane Does as plaintiffs since there is no independent civil action, just a motion in a miscellaneous proceeding. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monda March 21, 2011 5:53 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); USAFLS) Cc: r (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT Sure. I will add and send out. Ok with everyone? . (USAFLS); From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monc March 21, 2011 5:52 PM To: ,M (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein -- pleading is pubic -- PLEASE REVIEW URGENT Should there be a final sentence such as the following? Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide additional comment on the merits of the motion. Just a thought. EFTA00206415