Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Lee, Dexter (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:57 AM To: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS) Cc: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Jacobus, Wendy (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Doe Litigation Alex and Jeff, We have a status conference with Judge Marra today at 3:30 p.m. When Marie and I met with Brad Edwards last Thursday, we agreed there was no need for an evidentiary hearing. He did want the government to disclose the non- prosecution agreement with Epstein and any Report of Interview conducted with C.W. when the FBI agents met with her in October 2007. The government filed a response stating that it could not voluntarily disclose the non-prosecution agreement since it contained a confidentiality clause. As to the Report of Interview, we stated that no such document existed. Epstein's counsel has requested that, if the agreement is disclosed pursuant to a court order, that disclosure be accomplished pursuant to a protective order which would prevent further dissemination by Edwards. Marie spoke with Edwards yesterday, and he agreed that a protective order could be issued by the Court. I anticipate that the parties will advise Judge Marra that (1) no evidentiary hearing is desired by either party; (2) the government will provide petitioners with a copy of the non-prosecution agreement, subject to an agreed protective order entered by the Court; and (3) the parties will enter into a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. As to the non-prosecution agreement, I understand there is now a dispute over what constitutes the Agreement. I believe we should provide to Edwards the original agreement, the addendum, and the December 2007 letter, and advise him and the Court that there is currently a dispute over what constitutes the Agreement. I do not believe it to be appropriate for either the government or the victims to ask Judge Marra to resolve the dispute over what constitutes the Agreement, in the context of a lawsuit seeking enforcement of the Crime Victims Rights Act. The only dispute before the Court is whether rights under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a) were violated by the Government when it negotiated the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Epstein is not a party to this action, so it is unlikely Judge Marra would hear any dispute over the Agreement when one of the parties is absent from the litigation. The appropriate forum for litigating any dispute over the Agreement is when one of the parties acts in a fashion which the other believes is a breach of the Agreement, and takes action which the other party believes is improper. Dexter 255 EFTA00193245