From: (USANYS)" To: (USANYS)" czi Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:06:16 +0000 Attachments: on Relatmg_toieffrey_Epstem.docx We have received another informal Touhy inquiry from an Epstein victim. Please find attached a letter to victim's counsel, outlining the Touhy process. This is basically the same letter we sent to Roberta Kaplan at the outset of the prior Touhy process. We intend to proceed along the same lines with this request as with the prior request. Please let me know if you have any edits or concerns. Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 6:27 PM To: >) Cc: < M>) (USANYS)< >: Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests (USANYS) (USANYS) Thanks for the further info. With apologies, I now think was right in the first place: if plaintiffs ask us for the does and we don't have them then I guess it does make most sense for us to simply say, we don't have them, try SDFla and/or NDGA. SDFLa and NDGA may say, pound sand, and if plaintiffs subpoena one or the other of those districts, then we see if the subpoenaed district Touhy-refers the subpoena to Geoff as the "responsible" USA, and take it from there. So I am OK with plan for dealing with plaintiff's further requests as he outlines in his May 20 email. From: ) < Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 5:37 PM To: (USANYS) < Cc: ) < M>) (USANYS)< >: Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests (USANYS) (USANYS) We do possess the FBI investigative files from the SDFL investigation. What we do not have, and avoided obtaining for a variety of reasons (including conflict issues, discovery issues, and a desire not to create even an appearance that we were stepping into the shoes of a district that was unable to prosecute due to the prior non-prosecution agreement) are any files specifically from the U.S. Attorney's Office in SDFL. As relevant here, for example, we do not have any materials relating to the purported immunity discussions relating to we have not identified any such materials in the FBI files, and we assume that any discussions or correspondence on that issue likely would have been between defense counsel and the SDFL USAO. EFTA00077062