Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 19 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-011923 Thru P-011966 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE Counsel" containing: II 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to with handwritten attorney notes; • 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Lefcourt to a Sloman, Menchal , and with handwritten attorney I I notes ml 6/25/2007 email from to and entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" Handwritten and typed attorney ( ) notes regarding main themes raised by Epstein counsel Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Box #3 P-011967 Thru P-012016 Composition book entitled "Operation Leap Year" containing attorney handwritten notes regarding investigation and case strategy Work product Investigative privilege 6(e) Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012017 Thru P-012055 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Incorporated Memorandum of Law 6(e) Box #3 P-012056 Thru P-012088 Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 6(e) Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Box #3 P-012151 Thru PM 12167 Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 19 of 23 EFTA00185406

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 20 of 23 Bates Ran e Description Privil e s Asserted Box #3 P-012168 Thru P-012170 Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Box #3 P-012171 Thru P-012173 Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States' Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012174 Thru P-012176 Draft of September 2009 letter from Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process to Roy Black regarding breach of Non Prosecution Agreement with handwritten attorney notes Box #3 P-012177 Thru P-012178 Undated handwritten attorney notes regarding negotiations and allegations Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Box #3 P-012179 Thru P-012188 File Folder entitled "FBI G.J. Log" containing copy of FBI jury subpoena log with attorney handwritten notes 6(e) Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012362 Thru P-012451 File folder entitled "Key Documents" containing correspondence between AUSA and case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury material 6(e) Work Product Attorney-Client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012451 Thru P-012452 File folder entitled "Victim List" containing list of victims with dates of birth and age information Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 20 of 23 EFTA00185407

Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document M-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 21 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-012453 Thru P-012623 Complete indictment package marked "Originals 12/12/07" Work-product Deliberative process 6(e) Also contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012624 Thru P-012653 Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional 302's" containing reports of interviews conducted in June 2007, October 2007, and March 2008. Investigative Privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-012654 Thru P-012864 3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" with attorney (; ) handwritten notes Work-product Box #3 P-012865 Thru P-013226 Indictment preparation binder containing: witness/victim list with identifying information, sexual activity suragephone call summary chart, attorney handwritten notes, 3ak tions of state investigative file, attorney typed notes, relevant pieces of grand jury materials, telephone records/flight records analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 P-013227 April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter to OPR Privacy Act Box #3 P-013226 Thru P-013230 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting Privacy Act Box #3 P-013231 Thru P-013239 April 22, 2008 Letter from A. to Privacy Act Office of Professional Responsibility re Self- Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest Page 21 of 23 EFTA00185408

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document •1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 22 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-013240 Thru P-013247 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting with attachments Privacy Act Box #3 P-013248 Thru P-013251 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and Au l011 Box #3 P-013252 Thru P-013253 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, Au ust 3 and Au ust 24 2011 Box #3 P-013254 Thru P-013257 Emails between Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and August 29 2011 Box #3 P-013258 Thru P-013259 Emails between Ma Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and , First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated July 28 and August 3 2011 Attorney-Client Privilege Box #3 P-013260 Thru P-013262 Email from Assistant General Attorney-Client Privilege Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, to N.S. Attorney, SDFL Robert O'Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL (FAUSA, SDFL), and (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated Au st 24 2011. CC's ODAG), USAEO SAEO), USAEO (USAEO) Page 22 of 23 EFTA00185409

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 23 of 23 Bates Range Deal lion Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 Emails between _, Assistant Attorney-Client Privilege P-013263 General Counsel, Executive Office for United Deliberative Process Thru States Attorneys, and First Work Product P-013271 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated July 29 2011 with attached memorandum from to summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Invest". ation Box #3 Emails between Executive Office Attorney-Client Privilege P-013272 Thru for United States Attorneys, and , Southern District of Florida, seeking advice P-013278 regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010 with attached letter from to dated December 10, 2010 Page 23 of 23 EFTA00185410

EFTA00185411

, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarraMatthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: EFTA00185412

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 26, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 [email protected] 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185413

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 14 SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013279 Tluu P-013280 8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and and re proposed correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013281 Handwritten note re Epstein investigation Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not rties to this liti ation Suppl. Box #3 P-013282 Thru P-013283 7/9/08 Email from to A. Acosta, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013284 7/10/08 Emails between and A. and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013285 Thru P-013289 File folder entitled "8/5/08 AMCV e-mail re correct a t" containing 8/5/08 email from A. to A. Acosta, a re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement" discussing 6/24/08 email from to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013290 Thru P-013292 File folder entitled "8/14/08 E-mail from Lefk to AMCV" containing undated entails from A. to A. Acosta, re draft response to 8/14/08 email from J. Leflcowitz regarding "the December 2007 proposal" Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 1 of 14 EFTA00185414

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013293 Mil P-013299 File folder entitled "8/15/08 AMCV e-mail re A t" containing 8/15/08 e-mails from A. to A. Acosta, , re follow s oailment and from A. Acosta to Ann = on issue of Special Master with attached 8/15/08 emails from to A. Acosta, re A ei f i terit• 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to R. Black, M. Weinber 1 re lis nent; 8/14/08 emails from to J. Lefkowitz, R. Black re interpretation of A ment• email from J. Lefkowitz to re itSms re Agreement; email from to J. Lefkowitz, re production of Agreement to victims Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013300 Thru P-0133303 File folder entitled "8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr to AMCV" containing handwritten draft notes for proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e-mail from to M. re meeting with G. Lefcourt with attached email from G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013304 Thru P-013325 File folder entitled "6/25/07 Lefcourt to Sloman & containin 6/25/07 letter (with handwritten notes b from G. Lefcourt to M. addressing reasons for not prosecuting E stein; handwritten outline by of possible response to letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013326 Thru P-013329 File folder entitled "9/17/07 to Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Lefkowitz contai ' 9/17/07 e-mail from to and from to A. concerning status of plea negotiations Suppl. Box #3 P-013330 Thru P-013333 File folder entitled "11/8/07 Lefkowitz to Sloman" containing 11/8/07 letter from J. Lefkowitz re issues arising during pendency of matter with attorney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013334 Thru P-013337 File folder entitled "11/13/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz (was this sent?" containing draft 11/13/07 letter from responding to J. Lefkowitz's letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 2 of 14 EFTA00185415

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 3 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013338 Thru 013341 File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. Leflcowitz to A. Acosta (Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay] Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 Thru P-013350 File folder entitled "12/05/07 Starr to Acosta" containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from to J. Leflcowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-13351 Thru P-013361 File folder entitled "12/21/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta" containing handwritten notes by 12/21/07 letter from J. Lefkowitz to A. Acosta re performance of NPA and appeal to Washington with attorney handwritten notes Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013362 Thru P-013366 File folder labeled "12/26/07 Lefkowitz to Acosta" containing 2 copies of draft letter from A. Acosta to J. Lefkowitz (with 12/28/07 fax header) Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013367 Thru P-013372 File folder labeled "Draft Itr from Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination" containin: draft letter dated "April , 2008" from to J. Lefkowitz concerning the compliance with the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 PM 13373 Thru P-013503 File folder labeled "6/3/08 Sloman Submission to the DAG" containing 6/3/08 letter from to Office of the DAG cc'd to re Jeffrey Epstein, detailing events concerning the Agreement and thereafter and with relevant attachments Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Work Product Investigative privilege Suppl. Box #3 P-013504 Thru P-013507 File folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA_I_La S Drew" containing handwritten notes by A. = Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Suppl. Box #3 P-013508 Thru P-013514 File folder labeled "Internal Corr." cont i niii 11/28/07 e-mails from to re respondin: to 11/28/07 e-mail from J. Lefkowitz to regarding victim notification with attachments Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 3 of 14 EFTA00185416

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 4 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013515 Thru P-013525 Draft 11/30/07 letter from A. Acosta to K. Starr cc'd to and A. re compliance with Agreement and internal emails from A. Acosta, and re items to address in letter Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013526 Thru P-013527 5/23/07 e-mail from A. to Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process re draft proposed internal e-mail about handling of case and attached email correspondence between and G. Lefcourt Suppl. Box #3 P-013528 Thru P-013530 P-013532 Thru P-013537 Handwritten notes by dated Work Product 9/21 re telephone conference with possible victim representative, conflict check with names and email listed, list of names of potential victim representatives, payment discussion, and guideline calculation, email containing contact info for potential victim representative, draft Non Prosecution Agreement dated 9/10/07 4:17 pm Suppl. Box #3 P-013531 Typed note addressed to "Dear David" re response to grand jury subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Suppl. Box #3 P-013538 Thru P-013553 File folder labeled "Notes Re Post-Agreement Communications" containing handwritten notes by A. Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from to A. re non-prosecution agreement, wi attached correspondence• ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. to re negotiating strategy, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/18/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta, re negotiating strategy; ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta re negotiation• ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta, re ne otiations• ■ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Page 4 of 14 EFTA00185417

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 5 of 14 Bates Ranee Description strategy; • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. A. Acosta plea agreement and • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. A. Acosta re plea negotiations; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Privilege(s) Asserted re negotiation re proposed ormation. indictment package; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re trust agreement with attached correspondencea_. • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. =I to re trust aanent• • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re conference call with J. Lefkowitz; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re plea negotiations with attached correspondence• • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to re charging strategy with attached correspondence. • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to to re indictment package; • 9/13/07 e-mail from A. to A. Acosta re plea ne otiations; • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re meeting w/ G. Le court with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re revised Agreement with attached correspondencs_ • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from A. to re status of negotiations with attached correspondence; Page 5 of 14 EFTA00185418

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 6 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted • 9/10/07 e-mail from to re ne ofiations; 9 10 07 e-mail from to I re state gran, jury proceedin s• • 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Acosta to re draft Agreement wi attache correspondence. • 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Acos re nalizing documents; IN 9/14/07 e-mail from to A. re charging strategy with attached correspondence. IN 9/13/07 e-mail from to A. re settin u trust fund; l• 9/13/07 e-mail from to re final negotiations with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re scheduling a meeting regarding finalizing the agreement with attached correspondence. • 9/11/07 e-mail from to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; M 9/11/07 e-mail from to re non-prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; II 9/11/07 e-mail from to re negotiations with attached correspondence. • 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to re negotiation strategy Suppl. Box #3 File folder entitled "[] Target Letter" containing 6(e) P-013609 copy of signed letter and contact info for counsel Investigative Privilege Thru for target P-013615 Page 6 of 14 EFTA00185419

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 7 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box #3 P-013616 Thru P-013621 File folder entitled "Atty Notes re Revised Indictment" containing handwritten notes by A. Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013622 Thru P-013643 File folder entitled "Research Re Possible Misdemeanors" containing attorney research Work product Suppl. Box #3 P-013644 Thru P-013653 File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" tinin 9/17/07 e-mail from A. to re status update• undated and typed handwritten notes by A. re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, summary of evidence, guidelines calculations Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013654 Thm P-013745 File folder entitled "Plea Agreement Drafts" containing several draft plea asents some with handwritten notes by A. copies of draft non-prosecution iiiement some with handwritten notes by A. copy of a draft Information Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-0013747 Thru P-013810 File folder entitled "Draft Non-Prosecution Agreements" containing several draft non- prosecution a reements some with handwritten notes by plea sheet State Circuit Court; copies of draft Information; draft plea proffer; draft motion and order to seal; draft penalty sheet; draft plea agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box 3 P-013811 Thru P-013833 File folder entitled "Information Packet Drafts" containing several drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box 3 P-013834 Through P-013835 Two pages of filed document, D.E. 62, page 2 of 54 and page 6 of 54, containing handwritten attorney notes atty work-product Page 7 of 14 EFTA00185420

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 8 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013836 Thru P-013837 Palm Beach Daily News Article, "Attorneys want Jeffrey Epstein Agreement Thrown Out," with attorney's notes written on margin Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013838 Thru P-013841 Letter from to Atty work-product December 10, 2010, Subject: Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution, with underlines, written notes, and comments by DOJ Worm Suppl. Box 3 P-013842 Email from to Any work-product Atty-client privilege (OPR), February 25, 2011, 4:31 p.m., Re: Request for OPR Investigation — Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Alreement Suppl. Box 3 P-013843 Thru P-013844 E-mail to and September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Plea Agreement Atty work-product atty-client privilege Suppl. Box 3 P-013845 Thru P-013846 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 19, 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with internal U.S. Attorney's Office e-mails attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013847 Thru P-013849 E-mail to and September 18, 2007, 11:43 , RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mail from Jay Leflcowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09 M. attached Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013850 E-mail, to Alex Acosta and September 18, 2007, 9:31 RE: Epstein Ne otiations Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013851 Thru P-013853 E-mail to and September 17, 2007, 10:35 , Atty work-product RE: Epstein [providing update re plea negotiations Suppl. Box 3 P-013854 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 13, 2007 8:10 .m. RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September ;1 rat .nilached Suppl. Box 3 P-013855 E-mail to and Atty work-product Atty-client privilege September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Suppl. Box 3 P-013856 Thru P-013857 E-mail, to Any work-product Atty-client privilege September 6, 2007 5:47 .m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached Page 8 of 14 EFTA00185421

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 9 of 14 Bates Range Descri tion Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013858 Email, to atty work-product September 6, 2007, Friday 9:29 , Re: Meeting on Suppl. Box 3 P-013859 Through P-013860 Email, Gerald Lefcourt Ann Sanchez, Roy to Lilly [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay] Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein Suppl. Box 3 P-013861 Thru P-013865 E-mail, to Matthew Any work-product atty-client privilege July 13, 2007 3:14 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e- mail from (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), to Jul 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013866 E-mail to Matthew and Jul 3 2007 6:26 ., RE: E stein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013867 Thru P-013868 E-mail, to Matthew Any work-product June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Meetin Next Week, with e-mails from to June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and to June 21 2007 1:37 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013869 E-mail June 18 to Matthew and 2007, 5:(14_2O.RIS, stein Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013870 Thru P-013871 E-mail, to = May 24, 2007, 9:25 ., FW: Jeffrey Epstein with e- mail from Gerald Lefcourt to (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22 2007 6:32 p.m.), Gerald Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m. attached Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013872 E-mailil and p.m., FW: Lefcourt to Sanchez a 22, to Matthew ■ Any work-product May 22, 2007, 3:11 a Mi l with e-mail from , and Lilly Ann 2007 2:05 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013873 E-mail 2007, 10:52 . e-mail from (May 14 2007 10:38 to and May 14, Any work-product RE: Operation Leap Year with to and .), attached Page 9 of 14 EFTA00185422

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 10 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013874 Through P413875 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced Suppl. Box 3 P413876 Thru P413877 E-mail to = and Any work-product , September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Draft Plea J11 a- nent, with e-mail from Lefkowitz to (Se .tember 19, 2007, 3:44 p.m.), and Lefkowitz to (September 19, 2007, 3:35 m.) attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013878 Thru P-013879 E-mail, to September 19, 2007, Atty work-product 4:21 ..m., RE: Epstein with e-mails from to and Se tember 19 2007, 4:13 p.m.), to and Se tember 19 2007, 4:05 p.m.), and to and Se tember 19, 2007, 3:50 p.m.), to Se tember 19 2007, 2:36 p.m.), to (September 19, 2007 2:33 p.m.), and to and (Se• ?tember 19, 2007 2:31 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 E P-013880 Thru P-013882 -mail to and Any work-product September 18, 2007, 11:43 ., RE: DraltSreements?, with e-mails from to =I, and (September 18 2007, 11:18 ), Lefkowitz to (September 18, 2007, 11:09 .), and to Lefkowitz (September 18 2007, 9:14 .), ande Lefkowitz to (September 18, 2007, 8:59 attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013883 E-mail to Acosta, , Any work-product and McMillan, September 18, 2007, 9:31 ., RE: tein Ne otiations Suppl. Box 3 P-013884 Thru P413886 E-mail, to and l=, September 17, 2007 10:35 ., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 17, 2007, 10:26 attached Any work-product Suppl. Box 3 P413887 E-mail, to Atty work-product September 13, 2007 8:10 ..m. RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 13, 2007, 7:54 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013888 E-mail to and Atty work-product Atty-client privilege September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Page 10 of 14 EFTA00185423

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 11 of 14 Bates Range Besets' i tion Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013889 Thru P-013890 E-mail, to Atty work-product Atty-client privilege September 6, 2007 5:47 .m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from (September 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013891 Email, to atty work-product September 6, 2007, 9:29 ., Re: Meeting on Friday Suppl. Box 3 P-013892 Through P-013893 Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Lilly [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay) Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein Suppl. Box 3 P-013894 Thru P-013898 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product atty-client privilege July 13, 2007 3:14 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e- mail from (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), to Jul 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.) attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013899 E-mail Matthew , and Jul 3 2007 6:26 ., RE: E .stein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013900 Thru P-013901 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product June 21, 2007, 3:24 p.m., RE: Meetin 1 Next Week, with e-mails from to June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and to June 21 2007 1:37 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013902 E-mail to Matthew and June 18 2007, 5:04.2±a.RSistein Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013903 Thru P-013904 E-mail, to = May 24, 2007, 9:25 ., FW: Jeffrey Epstein with e- mail from Gerald Lefcourt to (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22 2007 6:32 .m.i.nd Gerald Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m. attached Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 P-013905 E-mail, to Matthew Atty work-product , and May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: ae , E.,Hi with e-mail from Lefcourt to and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached Page 11 of 14 EFTA00185424

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLED Docket 07/27/2013 Page 12 of 14 Bates Range Descri . tion I Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013906 E-mail to and May 14, Atty work-product 2007, 10:52 RE: Operation Leap Year with e-mail from to and (May 14, 2007, 10:38 ), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013907 Through P-013908 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced Suppl. Box 3 P-013909 Thru P-013911 Memorandum, Assistant Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Suliect: Recommendation Deliberative Process Privilege; atty work- product Suppl. Box 3 P-013912 Thru P-013914 Memorandum , Assistant Counsel, OPR, to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Recommendation, with handwritten note dated 5/4/11 Deliberative Process Privilege, atty work- product Suppl. Box 3 P-013915 Thru P-013918 Memorand Assistant Counsel, OPR, to Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Recommendation, with two post-it notes attached with handwritten attorney notations, and handwritten notations, underlines, and circled text throughout the body of the two page memorandum Deliberative Process Privilege; atty work- product Suppl. Box 3 P-013919 Thru P-013921 Draft letter marked "Confidential", from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product , Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility to United States Attorney, with handwritten corrections, strikethrou hs and added text Suppl. Box 3 P-013922 Thru P-013924 Draft Letter marked "Confidential" from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product to , with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P-013925 Thru P-013927 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten correction Suppl. Box 3 P-013928 Thru P-013930 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P-013931 Thru P-013933 Draft Letter, from to Professor Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections, circled text, strikethroughs, and additional text Page 12 of 14 EFTA00185425

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 13 of 14 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P413934 Thru P-013936 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential," to corrections from Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product with handwritten Suppl. Box 3 P-013937 Thru P-013939 Draft Letter, to Professor Paul Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P413940 Thru P-013942 Draft Letter, marked "Confidential: To O ned b Addressee Only," , with handwritten corrections Be to Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Suppl. Box 3 P-013943 E-mail, 2011, 11:19 ., RE: for our review with e-mail a to and to ) attached to May 5, to Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Re-write of Epstein letters from 5, 2011, 11:08 . and Ma 5, 2011, 11:10 M.), (May 5, 2011, 10:41 Suppl. Box 3 P-013944 E-mail to 11:17 , RE: Re-write our review, with e-mail a 5, to and to attached May 5, 2011, for to .), .), Deliberative Process Privilege of Epstein letters from 2011, 11:08 ay 5, 2011, 11:01 (May 5, 2011, 10:41), Suppl. Box 3 P-013945 E-mail, to . May 4, 2011, 5:01 e- Deliberative Process Privilege p.m., RE: draft letters mail from to 4:57 p.m. attached in Epstein matter, with (May 4, 2011, Suppl. Box 3 P-013946 E-mail, to May 4, Law Enforcement investigatory record, atty work product; deliberative process privilege 2011, 4:08 p.m., RE: FYI on the Florida matter Suppl. Box 3 P-013947 E-mail, to May 3, 2011, for atty work product; law enforcement investigatiory record 12:23 p.m., RE: OPR Inquiry — request information, with post-it note attached with handwritten attorney notes on tele 'hone call between and with and Suppl. Box 3 P-013948 Thru P-013951 E-mail to and atty work-product May 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m., FW: OPR Inquiry — request for information, with attached e-mails. Handwritten attorney notes on margin Page 13 of 14 EFTA00185426

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 14 of 14 Bates Range Description Prig ilege(s) Asserted Suppl. Box 3 P-013952 Thru P-013953 E-mail, to March atty work-product; any- client privilege 16, 2011, 10:52 ., RE: Referral of Cassell Wiest for Investi 1 ation, with e-mail from to and (March 15 2011 7:21 p.m. attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013954 Thru P-013955 E-mail, to OPR, December 16, 2010, 10:59 ., FW: OPR Referral — Allegation of Misconduct — U.S. Attome 's Office S.D.Fla., with e-mail from to (December 16, 2010, 10:22 .), attached. Handwritten attorney any work-product, any- client privilege notations. Suppl. Box 3 P-013956 Thru P-013846 Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys atty work-product Page 14 of 14 EFTA00185427

, Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Second Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-013970' thru P-014923. The documents referenced in the Second Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parse in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Please note that, while preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned discovered an error on the Supplemental Privilege Log, that is, the last entry states that the last document bears Bates Numbers P-013956 thru P-013846. The correct Bates range for that document is P-013956 thru P-013969 [14 pages]. 1 EFTA00185428

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 [email protected] 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185429

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 18 JANE DOE'. UNITED STATES COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #4 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-013970 thru P-013971 11/29/2006-12/1/2006 emails between and prison Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act employee regarding attempted contact with potential witness P-013972 5/18/2007 email from to informing him Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege of intent to subpoena Roy Black's private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization P-013973 thru P-013976 5/18/2007 emails between and expert witness regarding Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege securing pre-indictment consultation contract P-013977 thru P-013979 5/21/2007 email from to (CEOS) re Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 2423(b) charging question P-013980 5/21/2007 email from to and Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process regarding guidance on grand jury presentation P-013981 5/22/2007 email from Andy to and Work Product Deliberative Process (cc: ) re letter received from Gerald Lefcourt discussing a meetin to discuss E in invest' ation P-013982 5/23/2007 email from to re extradition Work Product A/C privilege Investigative Privilege research P-013983 thru P-013984 5/23/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding decision to meet with counsel for Epstein Page 1 of 18 EFTA00185430

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 2 of 18 Bates Range Descri t lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-013985 thru P-013989 6/14/2007-6/21/2007 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding addendum to Pros Memo, grand jury presentation and changes to indictment, and meetin with counsel for E stein P-013990 thru P-013991 6/26/2007 email from to , Work Product Deliberative Process and addressing arguments regarding interstate nexus for 2422 char es P-013992 thru P-013994 7/3/2007-7/4/2007 emails between and 6(e) Work Product Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process regarding extension of time to respond to subpoenas requested by Lilly Ann Sanchez and possible resolution of case P-013995 thru P-014010 6/12/2007-7/6/2007 series of emails between and Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act AUSAs and re an earlier unrelated investigation of Epstein P-014011 thru P-014025 7/3/2007-7/13/2007 email chain between and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding disagreement on plea negotiations and written request for meeting between USAO management and victims P414026 thru P-014027 7/16/2007 email from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding correspondence from Roy Black and Motion to Quash P-014028 thru P-014030 7/18/2007 emails from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding Motion to Quash grand jury subpoena and supporting affidavit filed by Roy Black P-014031 thru P414032 7/19/2007 email chain between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege S/A and S/A regarding potential service of target letters Page 2 of 18 EFTA00185431

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 3 of 18 Bates Range Desert • tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014033 7/19/2007 email from to and Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process regarding planned service of target letters P-014034 7/26/2007 email from to and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding proposed changes to the indictment P-014035 7/31'2007 email from to Work Product Deliberative Process and summarizing proposed plea terms as per recommendation P-014036 7/31/2007-8/2/2007 email chain between Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding plea negotiations P-014037 8/2/2007 email drom to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and with draft response to Epstein counsel regarding ement P-014038 thru P-014041 8/2/2007 emails between , Andy and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding letter received from Lilly Ann Sanchez P-014042 8/3/2007 Email from I to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding draft response to correspondence from Epstein counsel and planned investigative steps if a ment cannot be reached. P-014043 thru P-014044 Emails dated 8/6/2007 from to and regarding correspondencea to his arture. Work Product Deliberative Process P-014045 thru P-014046 8/7/2007 email chain between= , and Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Alex Acosta regarding meeting to discuss Epstein matter Page 3 of 18 EFTA00185432

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 4 of 18 Bates Range Desert . tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014047 8/7/2007 email from to Andy regarding deadline Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege set for Epstein plea and Epstein's plan to demand a meeting with CEOS. P-014048 8/7/2007 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Epstein meeting P-014049 thru P-014050 8/7/2007 email chain from to Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and Alex Acosta regarding Epstein meeting P-014051 8/8/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process Investi ative Privilege (CEOS) regarding case staffing and plea negotiations P-014052 8/8/2007 email chain between Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding "The meeting on Epstein" P-014053 8/8/2007 email from to regarding Work Product Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process plea negotiations, guideline calculations, and assistance in preparing case for trial P-014054 8/8/2007 email from I to Alex Acosta, Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding planning meeting with Epstein counsel and service of target letters P-014055 8/10/2007 Electronic correspondence from to expert witness regarc_ljgn: to . ics for expert testimon Work Product P-014056 8/10/2007 email from = to regarding Work Product target letters and sta in motion to com . 1 . roduction of com . uters P-014057 8/30/2007 email from to and regarding press covers • e of meetin with Ken Starr Work Product P-014058 9/4/2007-9/6/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding planned participation of FBI ASAIC at 9/7/2007 meeting with Epstein defense team Page 4 of 18 EFTA00185433

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 5 of 18 Bates Ran e Description Privil e s Asserted P-014059 thru P-014061 9/6/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding status of plea negotiations, draft agreements, and need to confer with victims P-014062 thru P-014068 9/10/2007-9/14/2007 emails between I and Alex Acosta regarding final plea negotiations, finalizing details with State Attorney's Office and final revisions to indictment pack: a Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege P-014069 9/10/2007 email from to and = Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege regarding Acosta inquiry about FBI investigation into State grand ' roceedin P-014070 thru P-014074 9/11/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege , and regarding changes to the draft indictment and status of plea negotiations P-014075 thru P-014089 9/10/2007-9/11/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding modifications to the proposed Non-Prosecution A eement P-014090 thru P-014102 9/13/2007 emails from I to Alex Acosta, and regarding plea to federal charges recommending 18 USC 403 or 1512(d), or 47 USC 223(aX1)(3); response that Epstein was only willing to plead to assault on the plane; and rejection of facts supporting assault on the plane charge Work Product Deliberative Process P-014103 thru P-014107 9/13/2007-9/14/2007 emails regarding research Work Product regarding victim trust fund set up in Alaska child exploitation case P-014108 thru P-014134 9/17/2007-9/19/2007 emails between I Alex Acosta, and regarding negotiations of a federal plea and a non-prosecution agreement Work Product Deliberative Process Page 5 of 18 EFTA00185434

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 6 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014135 thru P-014149 9/19/2007-9/20/2007 emails between , Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding plea negotiations with counsel for E stein P-014150 thru P-014156 9/20/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding plea agreement to federal charges and factual proffer P-014157 thru P-014160 9/21/2007 emails between I and Work Product Deliberative Process = and regarding revisions to the non- • rosecution agreement P-014161 9/21/2007 email from I to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding review of Epstein indictment c e P-014162 thru P-014170 9/24/2007 series of emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Production Deliberative Process regarding plea negotiations and revisions to non- prosecution agreement P-014171 thru P-014174 9/23/2007-9/24/2007 series of emails between Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process . and regarding proposed revisions to non-prosecution a reement P-014175 thru P-014203 9/20/2007-9/24/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, nd Work Product Deliberative Process regarding revisions to the non-prosecution agreement P-014204 thru P-014205 9/24/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding notifying Palm Beach Police Chief and victims about agreement P-014206 thru P-014216 9/24/2007-9/25/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, n --- and Rolando regarding Lefkowitz email about keeping agreement from becoming public and confidentiality provision in agreement Work Product Deliberative Process P-014217 thru P-014238 10/5/2007-10/16/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and Alex Acosta re selection of Special Master and negotiation of revision/addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement Page 6 of 18 EFTA00185435

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 7 of 18 Bates Range Descriris Privilege(s) Asserted P-014239 thru P-014242 10/18/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Epstein's request to delay his change of plea P-014243 thru P-014251 10/19/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Special Master's Selection of Attorney Representative P-014252 thru P-014275 10/22/2007-10/31/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding negotiation of Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement and drafting of correspondence regarding scope of Special Master's duties and selection criteria P-014276 10/31/2007 email from to Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding attempts to interview additional witnesses/victims P-014277 thru P-014282 11/2/2007-11/5/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding drafting 11/5/2007 letter from Siouan to Lefkowitz P-014283 thru P-014284 11/5/2007-11/7/2007 emails from to Work Product Deliberative Process inquiring about status of matter and contact by Epstein investigators with victims P-014285 thru P-014298 11/8/2007-11/14/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege and regarding response to objections raised by Epstein counsel and efforts to charigt date ea P-014299 thru P-014307 11/14/2007-11/19/2007 emails between MI Alex Acosta, and regarding communications with State Attorney's Office and Sheriff's Office in an attempt to insure that Epstein was ineligible for work release Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege Page 7 of 18 EFTA00185436

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 8 of 18 Bates Range Desui ,it Privilege(s) Asserted P-014308 thru P-014310 11/19/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process about efforts by Epstein's counsel to change date for change of plea P-014311 thru P-014329 11/19/2007-11/28/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding drafting victim notification letter of upcoming plea P-014330 thru P-014337 11/28/2007 correspondence between and regarding Lefkowitz 11/27/2007 email discussing presentation to DAAG Work Product Deliberative Process P414338 thru P414354 11/29/2007-12/1/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and regarding draft response to Jay Leflcowitz and victim notification letters Work Product Deliberative Process P414355 thru P-014361 12/3/2007 emails between Villafafia, Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding history of plea negotiations and drafting response to correspondence from Jay Lekowitz and Ken Starr P-014362 thru P414402 12/3/2007-12/5/2007 cones • • ndence between Alex Acosta, , and about drafting and sending the 12/4/2007 Acosta letter to Ken Starr Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege P-014403 thru P-014414 12/6/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process , Alex Acosta, and regarding correspondence from Ken Starr, request for a meeting from Epstein counsel, and need to notify victims of upcoming plea P-014415 thru P-014420 12/6/2007-12/7/2007 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process and Alex Acosta regarding draft victim notification letter Page 8 of 18 EFTA00185437

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 9 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014421 thru P-014428 12/6/2007-12/7/2007 emails between and regarding request from State Attorney's Office for draft plea proffer Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege P-014429 thru P-014439 12/9/2007-12/12/2007 emails between 4 and regarding drafting response to personal attacks and Work Product Deliberative Process upcoming meet.irt with Ken Starr P-014440 12/11/2007 email from to and Alex Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding call with lawyer for Jane Doe #2 (T.M.) P-014441 12/12/2007 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding planning indictment review P-014442 12/14/2007 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and regarding state cases mentioned by Epstein's counsel P-014443 12/14/2007 email from Villafafia to Alex Acosta, , and with draft letters to State Attome 's Office and victims Work Product Deliberative Process P-014444 12/17/2007 email from to inquiring about Work Product Deliberative Process case status and informing Sloman regarding agent concern about victim notifications P-014445 thru P-014447 12/19/2007 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) summarizing research into other cases where individuals were charged with violating 2422(b) based u m iShe use of a telephone P-014448 thru P-014454 12/19/2007 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding drafting response to concerns raised durin: December 14, 2007 meeting between Epstein counsel Alex Acosta, , the FBI SAIC, and Page 9 of 18 EFTA00185438

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 10 of 18 Bates Range Desert don Privilege(s) Asserted P-014455 thru P-014456 12/19/2007 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding challenge to state charge raised by Epstein counsel during 12/14/2007 meeting P-014457 thru P-014464 12/20/2007 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation inquiries from State Attorney's Office regarding Epstein plea to state charge and facts supporting state plea P-014465 thru P-014485 12/18/2007-12/21/2007 emails between and other Work Product 6(e) AUSAs regarding other instances of charging 2422(b) based on the use of a telephone as a "fa.ilf interstate commerce" P-014486 12/21/2007 email from to with thoughts on Work Product Deliberative Process recent correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz raising concerns about interpretation of the .1 folrosecution Agreement P-014487 12/27/2007 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding proposed approach to providing potential notice of breach of non- rosecution agreement P-014488 thru P-014499 12/27/2007 emails between Alex Acos regarding Jay Lefkowitz letter of 12/26/2007 Work Product Deliberative Process P-014500 1/2/2008 email from to Alex Acosta and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding telephone conversation with State Attorney's Office about delay in Epstein state plea. P-014501 thru P-014506 1/2/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding requests from Alex Acosta to for information related to the handling of the investigation by the State Attorney's Office Page 10 of 18 EFTA00185439

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 11 of 18 Bates Range lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014507 thru P-014508 1/2/2008 emails from to Alex Acosta and roil Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding renewed plea negotiations for federal plea agreement P-014509 thru P-014519 1/3/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding Alex Acosta telephone conference with Jay Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz admitted that he never intended to have Epstein plead guilty to an offense that required sex offender re istration. P-014520 1/ from to and ME Attorney client privilege Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege (Small regarding renewed plea negotiations and press coverage o E stein matter. P414521 thru P-014522 to Alex Acosta, , Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Privacy Act and regarding proposed additional investigative steps in Epstein case. P-014523 1/9/ to Alex Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding informing Jay Lefkowitz that a CEOS attorney would join the SDFL team regarding the Epstein case and would review the rosecution and defense materials. P-014524 thru P-014550 1/ /2 8-1/14/2008 emails between , and regarding assigning a CEOS attorney to the investigation, meeting with the CEOS attorney and victims in Florida, the results of the meetings and planned additional meetings, and revisions to the indictment in light of the meetin s. Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014551 1/17/2008 email from to regarding Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation 6(e) updated summary charts for indictment preparation, meetings with victims, and victim notification letters from FBI P-014552 1/23/2008 email from to and Alex Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding FBI involvement in meeting in DC Page 11 of 18 EFTA00185440

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 12 of 18 Bates Range Descri Lion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014553 thru P-014556 1/25/2008 emails between d Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Inveitigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this) litigation regarding press coverage of case and strategic decism i .sigegar g revisions to initial indictment P-014557 1/25/2008 email from to and 6(e Attorney-client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding research for purposes oli lluin.l i Jury subpoenas. P-014558 1/29/2008 email from to and regarding status o meeting in DC and concerns regarding la Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege P-014559 thru P414562 1/28/2008-1/29/2008 emails between 1 a MillRlird IF Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding scheduling victim interviews on 1 31/2008- 1 8 P-014563 thru P-014565 1/30/2008 emails between MI Alex Acosta, and . Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding Lefkowitz email about lawsuit filed against Epstem by one of the victims identified during the state investigation. Page 12 of 18 EFTA00185441

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 13 of 18 Bates Range Desert, Privilege(s) Asserted P-014566 thru P-014568 1/31/2008 emails between and Work Product Investigative Privilege Attorney-client privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not es to this litigation regarding interviews with victims. P-014569 thru P-014573 1/31/2008-2/1/2008 emails between Alex Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Investigative Privilege Acosta, and Alan Santiago regarding results of additional victim-witness interviews and requesting intervention with CEOS to move review process along P-014574 thru 2/20/2008-2/21/2008 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Si al Mandelker P-014583 Alex Acosta, and regarding status of CEOS plans to meet with counsel for Epstein and status of indictment review P-014584 that P-014622 2/12/2008-2/22/2008 emails between Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation , and analyzing facts gathered from grand jury investigation and discussing strategy for drafting revised indictment P-014623 thru P-014627 2/25/2008 emails between and Caroline Heck Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) regarding ethical issue about whether or not to present proposed revised indictment to new grand 'u P-014628 2/25/2008 email from Villafafta to Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) and regarding result lc .msult, with Caroline Heck about grand jury question Page 13 of 18 EFTA00185442

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 14 of 18 Bates Range Descri • tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014629 2/26/2008 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process CEOS review and draft indictment package P-014630 thru P-014631 2/26/2008 email from to regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6(e) 2/25/2008 correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz further extending the plea deadline for Epstein P-014632 thru P-014646 2/21/2008-2/27/2008 emails between Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege and regarding notifying DOJ's Civil Rights Division regarding the status of the case and the planned indictmen and the draft written notification P-014647 thru P-014649 2/28/2008 emails between and Susan Roe regarding Work Product Investigative Privilege 6(e) related investigation, potential investigatory leads, and CEOS review P-014650 thru P-014653 2/27/2008-2/28/2008 emails between Work Product Investigative Privilege Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation and regarding review of evidence received pursuant to subpoenas and planned interviews of additional potential victim-witnesses P-014654 thru P-014655 2/29/2008 emails between , a , Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6e and regarding continuing investigation and status of CEOS review P-014656 thru P-014665 3/4/2008-3/5/2008 emails between and Work Product Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation regarding search warrant and victim contact with attorneys Page 14 of 18 EFTA00185443

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 15 of 18 Bates Range - Descri ti Privilege(s) Asserted P-014666 thru P-014693 3/5/2 Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Investigative Privilege an regarding meeting in DC, additional information to prepare for meeting, and new information from ongoing investi • P-014694 thru P-014706 3/10/2 - / 008 emails be Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege , Krishna Patel, , E.J. Yera, and about Epstein attempts to contact victims and finding c m... sel f P-014707 thru P-014711 3/12/2 8 emails betwee o and n= il , regarding CEOS meeting with Epstein counsel Work Product P414712 thru P-014716 3/14/2008 emails between regarding complete indictment package for e Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) P-014717 thru P-014721 1St an -3/d17E1210.0Y8ereamreaigsarbedintwg search eent t application and execution of search warrant Work Product Attorney client privilege Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation P-014722 thru P-014727 I cli tilialiails , and regarding corrections Work Product Deliberative Process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation to indictment package and proposed grand jury presentation Page 15 of 18 EFTA00185444

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 16 of 18 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014728 thru P-014742 3/14/2008-3/19/2008 emails between Nesibtt S.mkendall , and about Epstein attempts to contact victims and finding counsel for victims Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-client privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation P-014743 thru P-014780 3/19/2008-3/21/2008 emails between (CEOS), Alexandra Gelber (CEOS), and about meeting between Esptein counsel and CEOS and follow-up uestions Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investi alive Privilege P-014781 thru P-014800 3/111- // 00 n , ails between and regarding waiting for DC's decision regarding Epstein's challenges to NPA; status of ongoing investigation; problems with Epstein's counsel contacting victims in the guise of deposing them for the state criminal action; and securing pro bono counsel for those victims to represent them in connection with the depositions Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014801 thru P-014810 3/28/2008 emails between , Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding status of DC review of case and preparing for grand jury presentation P-014811 thru P-014829 3/31/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding status of ongoing investigation, planned presentation to grand jury, continued delay in awaiting decision from Washington, DC, and • roblems with victims bein harassed P-014830 thru P-014837 4/2/2008 emails between Alex Acosta, and regarding efforts by Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Stan.. with Alex Acosta and instructions to direct • uestion to and Deliberative Process Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Page 16 of 18 EFTA00185445

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 17 of 18 Bates Range Descri tion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014838 thru P-014843 4/4/2008-4/7/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process and regarding status of CEOS review of Epstein matter P-014844 thru P-014851 4/10/2008-4/18/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and about continued delay in presenting case to grand jury due to failure to receive decision from a DC, status of grand jury presentation and on muesli tion P-014852 thru P-014864 4/11/20084/23/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process Privacy Act regarding self-reporting to OPR false allegations of ethics violations P-014865 4/29/2008 email from I to , Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investi alive Privilege on re grand jury presentation P-014866 thru P-014883 4/21/2008-5/1/2008 emails between and about continued delay in presenting case to grand jury due to failure to receive decision from DC, status of grand jury presentation and ongoing investigation, staffing of case for purposes of trial, and meeting to prepare for 9 . • d • resentation 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege P-014884 thru PM 14886 5/2/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process and regarding developments in Epstein investigation and impact on grand jury presentation P-014887 thru P-014894 4/29/2008-5/2/2008 emails between and 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege regarding contact by Epstein counsel and victims and draft letter to counsel for Epstein Page 17 of 18 EFTA00185446

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 18 of 18 Bates Ran e Description Privil s Asserted P-014895 thru P-014900 5/7/2008-5/9/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege , and regarding awaiting approval from DC and status of ongoing investigation P-014901 thru P-014906 5115/2008-5/16/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding receiving final approval from DC P-014907 thru P414911 5/19/2008-5/22/2008 emails between 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege and regarding preparation for grand jury presentation; communication with S/A Kuyrkendall regarding plea negotiations; and status of on oin investigation P414912 thru P-014919 5/23/2008-5/27/2008 emails between Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege (FBI), and Jason Richards (FBI) re status of investigation, indictment review, grand jury preparation, and E . stein's attem •t to revisit plea negotiations P-014920 thru P-014923 8/15/2008 email from to Alex Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process and containing draft response to 8/15/2008 email from Jay Lefkowitz regarding implementation of the NPA. (Redacted version produced to opposing counsel) Page 18 of 18 EFTA00185447

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Third Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-014924 thru P-015267. The documents referenced in the Third Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered tomorrow to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: 1 EFTA00185448

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 3, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. According to the Court's website, counsel for all parties are able to receive notice via the CM/ECF system. Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Ave Ste 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 [email protected] 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 2 EFTA00185449

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 1 of 7 JANE DOE'. UNITED STATES COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #5 Bates Range Deseir.ion Privilege(s) Asserted P-014924 5/27/2008 emails between IM. and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process report of new state. lea deal for J. Epstein P-014925 thru P-014927 5/27/2008 emails between and .-- Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege 6e regarding potential renewed plea negotiations for J. Epstein and plans to review and revise updated indictment package P-014928 5/23/2008-5/27/2008 emails between , Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding plans to meet to prepare for indictment presentation, service of grand jury subpoenas, interviews of additional witnesses, and plea negotiation issue P-014929 thru P-014933 5/27/2008-5/28/2008 emails between E. Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding request for legal analysis of statute of limitations issues under state and federal law P-014934 thru P-014935 5/27/2008-5/28/2008 emails between all Work Product Deliberative Process = and regarding report of new state plea deal for J. Epstein P-014936 thru P-014940 5/29/2008-5/30/2008 emails between = E. and regarding planned grand jury presentation, status of investigation, possible grant of immunity to victim/witness for grand jury testimony Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process Privacy Act/IVPA/CVRA Page 1 of 7 EFTA00185450

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 2 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-014941 thru P-014954 6/2/2008 draft letter to Deputy Attorney General regarding Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege reasons to approve continued prosecution of J. Epstein (NB: The Court has already determined that final version of this letter is protected by Work Product/Deliberative Process/Attorney-Client Privileges) P-014955 thru P-014971 6/3/2008 draft letter to Deputy Attorney General regarding Work Product 6(e) Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege reasons to approve continued prosecution of J. Epstein (NB: The Court has already determined that final version of this letter is protected by Work Product/Deliberative Process/Attorney-Client Pria P-014972 thru P-014975 6/6/2008 emails between . li and E. Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege 6(e) Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA regarding victim/witness subpoenaed to the grand jury and need for additional grand jury subpoenas P-014976 6/18/2008 emails between A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process M and regarding telephone conference with R. Black about allowing J. Epstein to accept state plea to 60 days' imprisonment. P-014977 thru P-014978 6/19/2008 email forwardin: 6/19/2008 email from to E. and (NB: Asserting privilege only for email. Attorney Edwards presumably has cop of his email to Attorney-Client Privilege Investigative Privilege P-014979 thru P-014980 6/23/2008 emails between . and (USAO staff) regarding scheduling of grand jury time for indictment presentation and witness testimony (Information regardin unrelated d ' case redacted Work Product Investigative Privilege 6(e) P-014981 6/23/2008 emails between . E. , Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product 6(e) Investigative Privilege Deliberative Process Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA and regarding grand jury subpoena to victim/witness, revisions to indictment, planned grand jury presentation, and plans to supersede indictment Page 2 of 7 EFTA00185451

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 3 of 7 Bates Range Resell Privilege(s) Asserted P-014982 thru P-014990 .) Work Product Deliberative Process 6/25/2008 emails between . , and A. Acosta regarding draft of notification of victim list for J. Epstein counsel with attached drafts (NB: Final list, with victim names redacted, has been produced to counsel for Petitioners P-014991 thru P-015004 6/23/2008-6/26/2008 emails between-. and counsel for 6(e) Investigative privilege Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA grand jury witness/victim regarding immunity and travel for grand jury ap ear e, P-015005 thru P-015006 6/28/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege regarding correspondence with J. Goldberger and proposed chang agreement P-015007 7/3/2008 emails between_and A. Acosta Work Product Deliberative Process regarding telephone cod. nd regarding meeting with Sheriff's Office about work release program P-015008 thru P-015024 7/8/2008 emails between A Attorney Advisory, Victim Witness Staff, EOUSA), and regarding filing of Petitioners' suit, with attached Draft of Declaration and initial Petition (DE1) (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for second attachment (DEI). Attachment was prepared by petitioners and is not being produced because it is within their custodiiii,control.) Work Product Deliberative Process P-015025 thru P-015028 7/8/2008 email from . to A. Acosta, and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding victim notification letter provided to counsel for J. Epstein on 11/28/2007 with attachment (NB: The 11/28/2007 email to J. Leflcowitz with attachment will be produced to petitioners' counsel contemporaneously with the filing of this lo P-015029 thru P-015034 7/7/2008-7/8/2008 emails between and regarding Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege background of J. Epstein investigation, negotiations, and victim notifications, and forwarding earlier emails related to Lee questions Page 3 of 7 EFTA00185452

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 4 of 7 Bates Ran e Description Privile e s Asserted P-015035 thru P-015062 7/8/2008-7/9/2008 emails between , A. Acosta, , , and regarding response to Jane Doe suit, procedure for filing, and internal office policies Work Product Deliberative Process P-015063 thru P-015069 7/11/2008-7/14/2008 emails between • nr A. Acosta, and re outcome of hearing in Jane Doe I. U.S. suit and contact from counsel for J. E stein Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process P-015070 thru P-015071 7/14/2008-7/15/2008 emails between E. Attorney-Client Privilege and T. Smith regarding FBI victim notifications and guidance regarding language to use and information to rovide P-015072 thru P-015074 7/17/2008 email from to A. Acosta, . Work Product Deliberative Process and with attached draft of letter to M. Tein regarding misrepresentations in filings on behalf of J. Epstein in civil suits P-015075 thru P-015081 7/18/2008-7/21/2008 emails between U E. , and regarding preparation of victim notification letters, victim contact list, filigg.of victim notification letter in a civil proceeding, and contact by . with one victim o uun that sentence im sed was insufficient Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative Privilege P4115082 thru P-015084 7/21/2008 emails between I , Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process 6(e) E. and regarding ongoing victim notification process and Epstein filings in state court litigation related to federal grand * investigation P-015085 thru P-015090 7/22/2008 emails between A. AS , E. , and regarding 7/21/2008 letter from M. Tein announcing plan to stay the civil suits against J. Epstein and notification that B. Reinhart is counsel of record for S. in civil suits (NB: Tein letter is being produced to petitioners' counsel concurrently with production of this privilege log) Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Page 4 of 7 EFTA00185453

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 5 of 7 Bates Range Desii Privilege(s) Asserted P-015091 thru .ion 7/22/2008 emails between . r and E. Attorney-Client Privilege 6(e) regarding ongoing victim notification process P-015092 Investigative Privilege Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA P-015093 7/22/2008 emails between , E. Attorney-Client Privilege thru , and regarding correspondence M inn Work Product P-015097 J. Epstein counsel with attached draft response 6(e) : A final version of the letter has been .roduced.) Deliberative Process P-015098 . 7/23/2008 ernails between and regarding Work Product correspondence with counsel for J. Epstein and notice of breach Deliberative Process 6(e) P-015099 7/25/2008 emails between and regarding 6(e) extension of grand jury to allow for continued presentation of J. Epstein Work Product case Deliberative Process P-015100 8/2/2008 email from to A. Acosta, and Work Product thru P-015116 Mg summarizing status of Jane Doe United States litigation and requesting views on making certain disclosures to counsel for petitioners with attached pleading filed by petitioners (DE19) 6(e) Deliberative Process (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for attachment. Attachment was prepared by petitioners and is not being produced because it is within theirsiSoyd and control.) P-015117 8/5/2008 email from . IM to A. Acosta, . Work Product thru and regarding analysis of JeffiSstem agreement, with Deliberative Process P-015135 attached 6/24/2008 email from . I II to R. Black and J. Goldberger and attached Epstein agreement. (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for the two attachments. The 6/24/2008 email will be produced to petitioners' counsel contemporaneously with the filing of this log, and the Agreement has previously been produced to petitioners pursuant to an earlier Court order.) Page 5 of 7 EFTA00185454

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on PLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 6 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-015136 thru P-015172 8/13/2008-8/15/2008 emails between A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege and . regarding scope of Epstein agreement and correspondence and telephone conference with J. Lefkowitz (NB: Emails to and from J. Lefkowitz and R. Black have been produced to Petitioners' counsel) P-015173 thru P-015186 8/25/2008 emails between A A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege = and regarding letter received from J. Lefkowitz (NB: Lefkowitz letter has been produced to Petitioners' counsel P-015187 thru P-015194 O8-8/26/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process S and re draft response to J. Lefkowitz and draft amended victim notification letter (NB: Final version of letter to Lefkotiz and Black has been produced to Petitioners' counsels P-015195 thru P-015198 9/2/2008 emails between . , and Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege regarding revised victim notification P-015199 thru P-015206 9/17/2008 emails between . A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Attorney-Client Privilege I= , and regarding efforts by Palm Beach Daily News to unseal NonProsecution Agreement that had been filed in state court (NB: Emails from Counsel for Daily News and from State Attorney's Office have been 'roduced to Petitioners' counsel P-015207 thru P415213 9/17/2008 email from I to A. Acosta, Work Product Deliberative Process Privacy Act/TVPA/CVRA = and regarding attached letters from J. Herman alleging that victim notifications violated Bar ethics rules (NB: Redacted versions of the letters have been produced to Petitioners' counsel) P-015214 thru P-015226 9/29/2008 correspondence to Florida Bar Ethics Counsel regarding victim notification letters and allegation of ethics violation for distribution of letters with attached proposed victim notification letters Work Product Relevance Florida Bar Privacy Rules Page 6 of 7 EFTA00185455

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 338-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2015 Page 7 of 7 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted P-015227 thru P-015233 10/18/2008-10/20/2008 emails between A. A Work Product Deliberative Process and.. regarding correspondence with discussing changes to understanding of portions of Non-Prosecution agreement and victim notifications P-015234 thru P-015238 11/4/2008 correspondence from Florida Bar Ethics Counsel regarding Florida Ethics Rules involved in distributing victim notification letters. Work Product Relevance Florida Bar Privacy Rules P-015239 thru P-015263 11/26/2008 emails between and Work Product Deliberative Process regarding email from R Black about work release (NB: Email from R. Black has been roduced to Petitioners' cou e P-015264 thru P-015267 12/4/2008 emails between E. and Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative Privilege Privacy Act/TVPAJCVRA regarding attempts to send victim notification letters overseas via Legal Attaches and unrelated Epstein financial issue Page 7 of 7 EFTA00185456

L EFTA00185457

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56.1, move for summary judgment on the issue of the United States Government's violation of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), where no genuine issue of material fact exists.' In support, they state: INTRODUCTION In 2004, Congress enacted the CVRA because it found that in case after case "victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have place for them." 150 CONG. REC. 7296 (2004) (statement of The Court previously granted the victims leave to file a 60-page motion for partial summary judgment. DE 327. EFTA00185458

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 57 Sen. Feinstein). In passing the CVRA, Congress mandated a series of rights for crime victims. Sadly, several years later, when the Government began handling this case, it did precisely what Congress thought it had forbidden. The Government deliberately kept crime victims "in the dark" so that it could enter into a plea arrangement designed to prevent the victims from raising any objection. In doing so, the Government refused to afford victims the rights they had been promised by Congress—particularly "the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding," "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case," and "the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy."2 The undisputed evidence begins in 2005, when the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") had identified numerous girls as victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual crimes. In 2006, the PBPD turned the case over to federal authorities for further investigation. As early as March 15, 2007 and throughout the rest of the investigation, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") specifically identified several dozen girls whom it classified as "victims" under the CVRA. Once that identification was made, the Government was obligated to afford these victims certain rights under the CVRA—a fact of which the Government itself was well aware? Indeed, the Government provided notification to the girls that they were classified as "victims" under the CVRA. But what the Government did not tell the victims lies at the heart of the case. It is undisputed that the Government did not tell the victims that, by May 2007, the Office had 2 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX2), (4)-(5), (8); RFP MIA 000001-000006 (Exhibit 1). 3 000966-000967 (Exhibit 2); 000589-000591 (Exhibit 3); US_Atty_Cor 00135 (Exhibit 4); RFP MIA 000222 (Exhibit 5). 2 EFTA00185459

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 3 of 57 prepared an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a 53-page indictment against Epstein and his co-conspirators! At that time, rather than confer with the victims about how to proceed, the Government began conferring about this issue exclusively with Epstein's counsel. Epstein's counsel contended that, despite abundant connection to interstate commerce, Epstein's sex trafficking was purely of local concern. By August 2007, federal prosecutors had disproven or rejected these defense arguments and notified the defense that all of the identified victims retained federal rights. For example, during August 2007, Jane Doe I, and other similarly situated victims, provided details to federal agents of the abuse that they endured at the hands of Epstein and his co-conspirators. In September 2007, without conferring with any of the victims, the Government and Epstein shifted gears and began working together to concoct a criminal charge for Epstein to plea to other than his sexual abuse of minors. As alternative charges, they discussed charging Epstein with: (I) various misdemeanors, (2) assaulting his co-conspirators and girlfriend, (3) using private investigators to chase and harass victims' families, (4) obstructions of grand jury subpoenas, or (5) his obstruction of the federal investigation when he instructed another co- conspirator to lie to federal agents.5 Ultimately, however, none of those would work. Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") (the "line prosecutor") informed Epstein's counsel that she was getting pushback for creating a charge using one of the main co-conspirators as the RFP WPB 000286 (Exhibit 6). 5 US_Atty_Cor 00030-00032 (Exhibit 7); RFP MIA 000129 (Exhibit 8); RFP MIA 000133 (Exhibit 9); RFP MIA 000095 (Exhibit 10); RFP MIA 000075-000076 (Exhibit 11); RFP WPB 000220 (Exhibit 12); RFP MIA 000077- 000087 (Exhibit 13); RFP MIA 000088 (Exhibit 14); RFP WPB 000235.000244 (Exhibit 15); RFP WPB 000107- 000112 (Exhibit 16); RFP WPB 002188 (Exhibit 17); RFP WPB 000266-000277 (Exhibit 18); RFP MIA 000113 (Exhibit 19); RFP MIA 000151-000160 (Exhibit 20); RFP MIA 000098-000105 (Exhibit 21). 3 EFTA00185460

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 57 victim .° Consequently, the Government and Epstein searched for another crime for Epstein to plead to, which could accompany a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Incredibly, the offense to which Epstein and the Government ultimately agreed, labeled the minor victims "prostitutes." The undisputed evidence clearly shows that by September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor had informed Palm Beach State Attorney that a federal resolution had been reached by way of a NPA, yet the victims remained uninformed? On September 24, 2007, the NPA was signed, preventing prosecution of all federal crimes committed by Epstein and his co- conspirators against the victims. After the signing of the NPA, the Government and Epstein's attorneys worked together to choose a lawyer to be paid by Epstein to represent Epstein's victims for the purpose of settling civil restitution claims. This too was all being done without the victims having any knowledge whatsoever. The correspondence between the Government and a candidate for that representative position as well as between the Government and Epstein's counsel reflects that the Government still had not yet disclosed the NPA to the victims, and was following the guidance of Epstein's counsel in making decisions with respect to the timing and substance of any communication to the victims.8 For the next nine months, from the time the NPA was signed through the date of Epstein's state court plea in June of 2008, the Office—doing Epstein's bidding—assiduously concealed the NPA's existence from the victims. While this indulgent deal was incredible in its own right, even more extraordinary was how the victims were treated during the process. Rather 6 Exhibit 15. RFP WPB 002125 (Exhibit 22). 3 See e.g., USAttyCor 00166 (Exhibit 23). 4 EFTA00185461

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of 57 than confer with the victims about the fact that resolution by NPA was ever being considered— or even tell them that it was already a signed deal—the Office and Epstein inserted a "confidentiality" provision into the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone, including the victims. There is no dispute that the Government did not inform the victims of the NPA or of the possibility of any such type of resolution. Consequently, there is no dispute that the Government did not afford the victims any rights before the signing of the NPA. In October 2007, after the NPA was signed, federal agents spoke with three of the more than 30 identified victims, including Jane Doe 19 The Government does not dispute that this contact only occurred after the signing of the NPA. Even more important, it is not disputed that this contact was: 1) made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and not a "prosecutor for the Government," 2) that the FBI did not inform the victims of the NPA and certainly did not confer with the victims about the details of the NPA, and 3) that this contact only occurred with three of the more than 30 victims. Lastly, while the content of that conversation is contested, any stretched argument that the conversation satisfied CVRA requirements for Jane Doe 1 are belied by the timing of the conversation as well as the uncontested documentary evidence of the communications with the victims (including with Jane Doe 1) that followed that conversation. Subsequent to the FBI's contact with three of Epstein's victims, the Government informed Epstein's attorneys that victim notification letters needed to be sent to all the victims pursuant to the CVRA. Rather than comply with this acknowledged requirement, Epstein's counsel convinced the Government that (contrary to standard Government practice) Epstein 9 RIP MIA 000464-000468 (Exhibit 24). 5 EFTA00185462

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of 57 should be permitted to provide input into any message being delivered, and ultimately that the victims should not be told anything "until after Epstein pleas."10 In January 2008, FBI agents again met with Jane Doe I and gathered additional details about Epstein's abuse as well as the direct sexual abuse by one of his co-conspirators, who participated in the abuse of other victims as well. The Government then sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe 1 informing her of her rights under the CVRA, that "this will be a long investigation," and to "be patient."" Jane Doe I was sent a similar letter on June 7, 2008.12 Other victims were also sent these letters communicating that the Epstein case was an on-going active criminal investigation—not that the Government had already immunized Epstein for all federal crimes committed against each of the victims, through a NPA. These misleading letters were sent almost up until the date of Epstein's state court plea in late June 2008.13 On June 30, 2008, Epstein pled guilty to state court charges. It is uncontested that the victims were not reasonably and accurately informed about that hearing—specifically, they were never told the hearing was part of a process that would extinguish any possibility of Epstein being prosecuted for the crimes he had committed against them in Florida. Even after the plea, the Government once again conferred with Epstein's attorneys to decide what to tell the victims. As the Court is aware, this CVRA action was filed in July 2008 at a time when the victims mistakenly believed that the federal case remained open, and wanted to ensure that their rights under the CVRA were afforded before any possible federal disposition. At the emergency RFP WPB 001978-001979 (Exhibit 25). H Declaration of Jane Doe I (Exhibit 26); Declaration of Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 27). 12 000978-000989 (Exhibit 28). o [DE 48) Exhibit I (Exhibit 29). 6 EFTA00185463

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 57 hearing on the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 were in the courtroom to learn for the first time that the federal case had been resolved. The undisputed facts show that for nine months, the Government and Epstein conspired to conceal the NPA from the victims to prevent them from voicing any objection, and to avoid the firestorm of controversy that would have arisen if it had become known that the Government was immunizing a politically-connected billionaire and all of his co-conspirators from prosecution of hundreds of federal sex crimes against minor girls. Such facts demonstrate clear violations of the CVRA's requirements that the Government afford victims the reasonable right to confer, the right to be treated with fairness, and the right to reasonable and accurate notice about court hearings. No genuine issue of material fact or law can exist on these points. The Court should accordingly grant summary judgment for the victims on the issue of the CVRA violations and then, in subsequent proceedings, turn to the issue of the proper remedy for those violations. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the victims submit this statement of undisputed material facts in support of their motion for partial summary judgment:14 I' In an effort to streamline their case and bring it to a more rapid resolution, in this summary judgment motion the victims present only some of the evidence that they are prepared to produce at any evidentiary hearing in this matter. For instance, the victims have concentrated on the emails and other documents establishing violations of their rights, largely avoiding issues of the Government's "motive" for the violations and other related issues. Because of the possibility that the Court may not grant summary judgment on this narrower approach, the victims are continuing to pursue discovery with regard to motive and several other important issues that would come into play at a broader evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., [DE 344] (victims' motion for deposition of government witnesses). The victims reserve the right to supplement this motion if additional discovery is received through these discovery efforts and to present these broader issues at any evidentiary hearing or remedy phase of these proceedings. 7 EFTA00185464

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 8 of 57 EPSTEIN'S CRIMES I. Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, located in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas.15 2. Because Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly situated victims, they committed violations of not only Florida law (see, e,g., Fla. Stat. §§ 794.05, 796.04, 796.045, 39.201 & 777.04), but also federal law, including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2421, 2422, 2423, & 371).16 EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS 3. In addition to personally abusing his victims, Epstein also directed other persons to sexually abuse the girls. For example, sexually abused Jane Doe 1 and other victims at the direction of Epstein.I7 IS See, e.g., Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Jane Doe 102 Epstein Complaint (Exhibit 30); Response to Request for Admission #1 (Exhibit 31) (admitting federal investigation); FBI 302 of Interview with Jane Doe 1 on August 14, 2007 (Exhibit 32); FBI 302 of Interview with Jane Doe 1 on January 31, 2008 (Exhibit 33); Palm Beach Police Report (Exhibit 34) (discussing investigation of numerous Epstein victims); Exhibit 6 (nagt 82-page prosecution memo and 52-page prepared indictment); [DE 304] Declaration of FBI Special Agent NM (Exhibit 35) (notin that the FBI identified many potential victims of sexual abuse by Epstein); The People of the State of New York I. Jeffrey Epstein (Exhibit 36); RFP WPB 000550.000554 (Exhibit 37) (listing 31 victims the that U.S. Attorney's Office was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated federal offense); Sora Hearing Transcript (Exhibit 38); RFP MIA 000361-000365 (Exhibit 39) (Chief of Child Exploitation Section of the Justice Department concluding after review of the facts that U.S. Attorney's would not abuse its discretion in prosecuting; noting "multiple mutually-corroborating witnesses," the Epstein case "consistent in principle with other federal prosecutions nationwide"). 16 See note 14, supra. " See Exhibit 32; Exhibit 33; Exhibit 34. 8 EFTA00185465

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 9 of 57 THE INVESTIGATION OF EPSTEIN'S CRIMES 4. In 2005, the Town of Palm Beach Police Department received a complaint from the parents of a 14-year-old girl about her sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The PBPD then capably conducted a thorough investigation and ultimately identified approximately 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were sexually abused by Epstein." 5. In 2006, at the request of the PBPD, the FBI opened a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate commerce to induce girls between the ages of 14 and 17 to engage in illegal sexual activities. 6. The FBI ultimately determined that both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were victims of sexual abuse by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe 1, for example, provided detailed information about her abuse—and the abuse of Jane Doe 2—to the FBI on August 7, 2007.19 7. On about August II, 2006, Jane Doe 2 received a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe 2's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving ... plea." The notification further explained that "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." 20 That notification meant that Jane Doe 2 had been identified as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. 1s Exhibit 34; see also RFP WPB 001940.001941 (Exhibit 40) (later description of investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office). 19 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 32. 10 August II, 2006 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 41). 9 EFTA00185466

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 10 of 57 8. More generally, the FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others?' EPSTEIN'S FEDERAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS 9. From January 5, 2007 through September 2007, plea discussions took place between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein, who was represented by numerous attorneys?? 10. On February I, 2007, the Epstein defense team sent a 24-page letter to the Office going over what they intended to present during a meeting at the Office the same day. The letter falsely stated: "Epstein did not know or believe any women were under 18 years of age." It also contained other deceptive factual and legal arguments about Epstein's culpability.23 1. By March 15, 2007, the Office was sending letters to victims informing them of their rights pursuant to the CVRA.24 12. By May 2007, the Office had drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum and 53- page indictment outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein 25 13. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand delivered to Jane Doe I a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding 21 See note 14, supra. 22 RFP WPB 001744 (Exhibit 42). 23 RFP WPB 000730.000754 (Exhibit 43) (asserting Epstein thought the girls were 18 or older). 24 Exhibit I. 22 US_Atty_Cor. 00004 (Exhibit 44); Exhibit 6. I 0 EFTA00185467

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of 57 in the district court involving [a]...plea." The notification further stated that, "[a]t this time, your case is under investigation."26 14. The notification described in the previous paragraph meant that Jane Doe 1 had been identified as a victim of a federal offense and as someone protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe I relied on these representations and believed that the Government would protect these rights and keep her informed about the progress of her case 29 15. On July 6, 2007, Epstein's lawyers sent a 23-page letter lodging numerous, technical legal arguments to persuade the Office that no federal crimes had been committed by Epstein, and that consequently there were no federal crime victims. The letter also falsely claimed that "Mr. Epstein never targeted minors," and urged the Government against a federal prosecution on the basis that Epstein was an upstanding citizen who had made tremendous philanthropic and personal contributions that warranted a declination to prosecutes 16. On August 2, 2007, another attorney for Epstein sent a similar letter expressing the same sentiments.29 17. However, by August 3, 2007, the Government had disproven or rejected Epstein's various arguments against federal charges, as AUSA sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating, tie would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis of an 26 June 7, 2007 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 45). 17 Exhibit 26. 2$ MIA_CEOS_00077-00099 (Exhibit 46); RFP MIA 000189 (Exhibit 47). 29 RFP MIA 000053.000055 (Exhibit 48). II EFTA00185468

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 12 of 57 initial planned charging instrument."30 This was a clear indication from the federal prosecutors that all of the minor girls identified through the investigation were classified as victims with federal rights pursuant to the CVFtA. 18. By September 10, 2007, multiple drafts of the NPA had been exchanged between Epstein's counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office; however, no one from the Office and no Government representative had notified a single victim about the existence of the plea negotiations, much less conferred with them about their views on those negotiations 3t 19. On September 12, 2007, while attempting to create alternative charges against Epstein, the U.S. Attorney's Office expressed concern about 'e effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" because the Government had "no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his residence."32 20. On September 13, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel indicating that in an effort to come up with a solution to the September 12 concern, she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors." The line prosecutor further indicated, "I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane, I just want to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm." Epstein's counsel responded, lailready thinking about the same statutes."33 70 RFP WPB 001479-001480 (Exhibit 49); Exhibit 48 (earlier correspondence attached for reference). 31 RFP MIA 000058-000063 (Exhibit 50). 32 Exhibit 12; RFP MM 000072-000073 (Exhibit 51). " Exhibit 11 (emphasis added). 12 EFTA00185469

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 13 of 57 21. On September 14, 2007, after having spoken on the telephone about the subject matter of the September 13 emails, Epstein's counsel and the line prosecutor exchanged emails including a proposed plea agreement for Epstein to plea to assaulting one of his co- conspirators?' 22. On September 15, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to the Epstein defense team raising concerns about a resolution that would not involve one of Epstein's minor victims and stating: I have gotten some negative reaction to the assault charge with [a co-conspirator] as the victim, since she is considered one of the main perpetrators of the offenses that we planned to charge in the indictment. Can you talk to Mr. Epstein about a young woman named [Jane Doe]? We have hearsay evidence that she traveled on Mr. Epstein's airplane when she was under 18, in around the 2000 or 2001 time frame." 23. On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor corresponded with Epstein's counsel about having Epstein plead to obstruction of justice for pressuring one of his co-conspirators to prevent her from turning over evidence or complying with a previously-served grand jury subpoena.36 24. In the same correspondence, the Office discussed with defense counsel how they could contrive to establish jurisdiction away from the location where the crimes actually occurred— and away from where the victims actually lived—so as to avoid the public finding out about anything: "On an `avoid the press' note, I believe that Mr. Epstein's airplane was in Miami on the day of the [co-conspirator] telephone call. If he was in Miami-Dade County at the time, then 34 Exhibit 13. 33 Exhibit 15; RFP WPB 000066-000074 (Exhibit 52). 36 RFP WPB 000124.000I26 (Exhibit 53). 13 EFTA00185470

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of 57 I cart file the charge in the District Court in Miami, which will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." They also discussed having Epstein plea to a second charge of assaulting a different co-conspirator." 25. On September 16, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to Epstein's counsel indicating that the Office did not like the factual basis for the proposed charges as the Office was "not investigating Mr. Epstein abusing his girlfriend."38 26. The correspondence further discussed a possible plea disposition that would make it hard for a judge to see what was happening: Andy [i.e., AUSA Andrew Laurie] recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes. I will include our standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. Also, we do not have the power to bind Immigration . . . there is no plan to try to proceed on any immigration charges against either Ms. [co-conspirator] or Ms. [co- conspirator]." 27. In the same email, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel about a meeting outside the U.S. Attorney's Office: "Maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine.s10 28. On about September 16, 2007, Epstein's counsel provided a proposed NPA to the Government that extended immunity from federal prosecution not only for Epstein, but also to 77 US_Atty_Cor. at 29 (Exhibit 54); RD urn 000122 (Exhibit 55); RFP WPB 000125.000126 (Exhibit 56); RFP MIA 000281 (Exhibit 57). 37 Exhibit 7. 39 i d. 10 Exhibit 7; US_Atty_Cor. 00196 (Exhibit 58) (indicating that at least one additional meeting was held off campus between the Government and counsel for Epstein). 14 EFTA00185471

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of 57 certain co-conspirators: "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against Lesley Groff, and or any employee of N.E.S. for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation as described above."41 29. On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow."°Z In discovery in this case, the U.S. Attorney's Office has not produced any emails sent to or from any home e-mail addresses of its prosecutors. 30. On September 17, 2007, defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred prosecution agreement public?"4J 31. On September 18, 2007, the Office responded: "A non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.'" 32. On September 20, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote: "On the issue about 18 USC 2255 [a civil restitution provision], we seem to be miles apart. Your most recent version 41 Exhibit 16. 42 RFP WPB 001709 (Exhibit 59). 43 Exhibit 17. 44 Exhibit 10. 15 EFTA00185472

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 16 of 57 not only had me binding the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also promising that they will give up their 2255 rights.... In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the office may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others.i15 33. On September 21, 2007, state prosecutor wrote the line prosecutor about the proposed deal and added: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation:" 6 Such statement is further evidence of the fact that Epstein's counsel, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the State of Florida were conferring daily in an effort to resolve the case in a way that would compensate the victims through restitution, yet no one made any effort to notify the victims of the true status of the case. 34. On September 21, 2007, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel stating, "I think that the attached addresses the concerns about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls whom I do not represent.i47 Despite knowledge that such agreement would be binding on the victims, the Office never attempted to notify or confer with the victims about the existence of the NPA. 35. On September 23, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stating: "It is factually accurate that the list we are going to give you are persons we have identified as victims. If we did not think they were victims, they would have no right to bring suit."48 45 RFP AIM 000173 (Exhibit 60). 46 Exhibit 21. 47 US_Atty_Cor 0081-0087 (Exhibit 61) (emphasis added). a Exhibit 4. 16 EFTA00185473

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 17 of 57 36. On September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to a prospective representative for the Epstein victims named Humberto "Bert" Ocariz, entitled "Conflict Check" confirming the girls' status as victims, stating: "Please keep this confidential because these are minor victims. This is a preliminary list." 49 Later on September 24, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz stating, "I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors."50 37. As correspondence continued on September 24, 2007, and the NPA was being executed, Lefkowitz sent an email to line prosecutor stating: 'M — Please do whatever you can to keep this [i.e., the NPA] from becoming public.sS1 SIGNING THE SECRET NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 38. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the Office accordingly entered into a NPA reflecting such agreement. Most significantly, the NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida for a series of federal felony offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 known minor girls and countless other unknown minors. The NPA instead allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution.52 39. The NPA also set up a procedure whereby a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to proceed with a civil settlement with Epstein, provided that the victim 49 Exhibit 2. S0 Exhibit 4. st Exhibit 57. 32 Executed Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit 62). 17 EFTA00185474

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 18 of 57 agreed to limit damages sought from Epstein.53 Such provision was devised by Epstein's counsel and the Office without the knowledge or consent of the victims, and without any opportunity for them to reasonably confer on the provision. 40. Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any "potential co- conspirator" of Epstein's: "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Lesley Groff, or "54 41. The NPA also provided that it was confidential: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure."55 LACK OF VICTIM NOTIFICATION BEFORE THE NPA WAS SIGNED 42. From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the NPA was concluded—the U.S. Attorney's Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA.56 43. From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the NPA was concluded—the U.S. Attorney's Office never even told the victims that such an $3 Exhibit 62. Mats. 55 a See Tr. of July 11, 2008 Hearing (Exhibit 63) at 9-12; [DE 141 at 4 (Exhibit 64). 18 EFTA00185475

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 57 agreement was under consideration.57 FAILURE TO NOTIFY OTHER SIMILARLY-SITUATED VICTIMS ABOUT THE NPA 44. Many, if not all, other similarly-situated victims received standard CVRA victim notification letters substantively identical to those sent to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 and the Government reasonably expected them to rely on those representations.° 45. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not consult or confer with any of the victims about the NPA before it was signed." 46. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell any of the victims about the NPA before it was signed.° 47. Because none of the victims knew about the NPA or any other possible resolution of the case, they could not have conferred with prosecutors about the NPA before it was signed.° 48. Epstein's counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately keeping the NPA secret from the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect.62 NEGOTIATIONS ABOUT CONCEALING THE NPA FROM THE VICTIMS 49. After the NPA was signed, Epstein's counsel and the Office began negotiations about whether the victims would be told about the NPA.63 " See Exhibit 63 at 9-12; Exhibit 64 at 4; [DE 225-1] at 51 (Exhibit 65). " Id. " Id. 60 Id 61 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 62 Exhibit 63 at 9; US_ Atty_Cor. 0153 (Exhibit 66) (emphases added); RFP MIA 000489-000491 (Exhibit 67). 44 Exhibit 66 (emphases added). 19 EFTA00185476

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 20 of 57 50. It was a deviation from the Government's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications." 51. To pressure the Office to agree to positions they wanted, Epstein's counsel began "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This assault was more aggressive than any U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, or any of his prosecutors, had ever seen in their extensive experience e5 52. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz, stating that the Government and Epstein's counsel would negotiate privately about what information would be disclosed to the victims about the agreement: Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney] Alex [Acosta], Andy, and Roland. 1 don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept confidential since it also contains identifying information about the girls. When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved.... Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. Rolando also is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.66 53. On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz stating: "And can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to . . . the girls regarding the agreement."67 64 Exhibit 65 at 50. " 001795-001797 (Exhibit 68); see, e.g., Exhibit 24. b6 Exhibit 66 (emphases added). US_Atty_Cor. at 156 (Exhibit 69). 20 EFTA00185477

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 21 of 57 54. On September 25, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to Lefkowitz, (I) expressing what she called "bias" against plaintiffs' attorneys, (2) trying to set up an arrangement whereby Epstein's victims would not be represented by various private attorneys, and (3) arguing instead for an attorney in Miami who could help keep things concealed: "They [Ted Babbitt, Stuart Grossman, Chris Searcy, Jake Lytal] are all very good personal injury lawyers, but I have concerns about whether there would be an inherent tension because they may feel that THEY might make more money (and get a lot more press coverage) if they proceed outside the Terms of the plea agreement. (Sorry — I just have a bias against plaintiffs' attorneys.) One nice thing about Bert is that he is in Miami where there has been almost no coverage of this case."68 55. On September 26, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated: "Hi Jay — Can you give me a call at ■-Ixxx-xxxx] this morning? I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls.s69 56. On September 27, 2007, the attorney appointed by the Office to represent the victims—without the knowledge of the victims—emailed the Office asking questions about the assignment, including whether he could see a copy the indictment or plea agreement "so that we understand exactly what Epstein concedes to in the civil case.i70 57. On September 27, 2007, upon inquiry from the Office, Lefkowitz responded by stating that the attorney representative "certainly [] should not get a copy of any indictment.s71 68 RFP WPB 000384 (Exhibit 70). 69 Exhibit 26; US_Atly_Cor. at 359 (Exhibit 71). J° 000574-000575 (Exhibit 72). RFP WPB 001687 (Exhibit 73). 21 EFTA00185478

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 22 of 57 58. On September 27, 2007, the line prosecutor informed Epstein's counsel of concerns raised by the attorney representative for the girls selected by the Government and paid for by Epstein. Specifically, "[t]he concern is, if all 40 girls decide they want to sue, they don't want to be in a situation where Mr. Epstein says this is getting too expensive, we won't pay anymore attorneys' fees. "72 59. On September 27, 2007, the line prosecutor sent an email to state prosecutors and : "Can you let me know when Mr. Epstein is going to enter his guilty plea and what judge that will be in front of? I know the agents and I would really like to be there, `incognito."' The fact that they intended to be at the plea proceeding "incognito" is evidence that they did not intend to notify the victims of the proceeding.73 60. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a proposed letter that would have gone to a special master for selecting an attorney representative for the victims under NPA's compensation procedure. The letter described the facts of the Epstein case as follows: "Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has identified 40 young women who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went there as many as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct was limited to performing a 72 Exhibit 23. RFP WPB 002046 (Exhibit 74). 22 EFTA00185479

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 23 of 57 topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse."' 61. On October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta stating, in pertinent part: "Neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only would that violate the confidentiality of the agreement, but Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential that we participate in crafting mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals." The letter further proposed that the attorney representative for the victims be instructed that "[Otte details regarding the United States's investigation of this matter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter."" 62. On October 18, 2007, the U.S. Attorney met with Lefkowitz in person for breakfast. Meanwhile, the victims had still not been notified of the NPA.76 63. On October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta, which stated: "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you . . . assured me that your Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matten RIP WPB 000411-000412 (Exhibit 75). RFP MIA 000015.000016 (Exhibit 76). 76 RFP WPB 002020402021 (Exhibit 77). 77 Exhibit 67 (emphasis added). 23 EFTA00185480

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 24 of 57 64. On October 24, 2007, AUSA sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, proposing an Addendum to the NPA clarifying the procedures for the third-party representative for the victims under the NPA's compensation procedures.78 65. On October 25, 2007, AUSA sent a letter to Ret. Judge Davis about selecting an attorney to represent the victims under the NPA's compensation procedure.79 LACK OF VICTIM NOTIFICATION AFTER THE NPA WAS SIGNED 66. After the NPA was signed, the Office regarded the agreement as having "an express confidentiality provision.s80 67. By entering into the confidentiality provision, the Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims—including Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly- situated victims—about the co-conspirator immunity provision and the NPA's non-prosecution provisions would have violated the confidentiality provision of the agreement.81 68. The confidentiality provision was a contractual prohibition, binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office, against disclosing the terms of the NPA 82 69. Epstein was well aware of this failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for this failure to notify the victims?" 70. On about October 26 or 27, 2007, after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe I. Special Agents E. US_Atty_Cor. 00220-00226 (Exhibit 78). " 000551-000554 (Exhibit 79). " Exhibit 64 at 4. 61 Exhibit 62. 82 Id " Id.; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 4-5; Exhibit 69. 24 and met in EFTA00185481

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 25 of 57 person with Jane Doe I. During this litigation, the Special Agents have said that they explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages? 71. During this meeting, the Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges for crimes committed against Jane Doe I or the many other victims cooperating with the federal investigation.BS 72. The Special Agents also did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators, including Marcinkova who had personally sexually abused Jane Doe I at the direction of Epstein. Because the plea arrangement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe I 's view on the proposed resolution of the case or to confer with her about it.86 73. Jane Doe I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the attorney for the Government in the case about any potential federal deal that related to her or the crimes Epstein committed against her.87 74. The agents could not have revealed the immunity features of the NPA without violating its terms, which required that the Government "provide notice to Epstein before making ... disclosure" of the NPA.88 84 Exhibit 26. " Exhibit 62; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18.19, 22-23. u Id. 87 Id. u Id. 25 EFTA00185482

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 26 of 57 75. Jane Doe l's understanding of the Special Agent's explanation was that only the state portion of the Epstein investigation was being resolved, and that the federal investigation in which she was participating would continue. This understanding is consistent with the future communication she received." 76. In addition to Jane Doe 1, FBI agents talked to only two other victims out of the 34 identified victims about the "general terms" of the NPA, including the provision providing a federal civil remedy to the victims." 77. After these meetings with three victims, Epstein's defense team complained. At that point, the U.S. Attorney's Office decided not to make any notifications about the NM to any victim 91 78. Other than the three victims mentioned above, the United States did not inform any of the victims of anything about the status of the case or any plea discussions with Epstein, including even the existence of the NPA.92 79. On about November 27, 2007, AUSA sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz, (with a cc to U.S. Attorney Acosta) stating that the Office had a statutory obligation to notify the victims about Epstein's plea to state charges that was part of the NPA: The United States has a statutory obligation (Justice for All Act of 2004) to notes the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end. Therefore, unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Davis's selection [as special 89 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; [DE 58] (Exhibit 80) at I I. " RFP MM 000408 (Exhibit 81); Exhibit 64 at 4. 91 Exhibit 64 at 5. 92 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 65 at 57; Exhibit 64 at 4-5. 26 EFTA00185483

Case 9:08•cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 27 of 57 master for selecting legal counsel for victims pursuing claims against Epstein] by COB tomorrow, November 28, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-head on [victim representative] . selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send you a draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 20.93 80. On November 28, 2007, the Government sent an email to Lefkowitz attaching a letter dated November 29, 2007 (the apparent date upon which it was intended to be mailed) and explained that "I am writing to inform you that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed, and Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office have reached an agreement containing the following terms." The proposed letter then spelled out a number of the provisions in the NM, including that because Epstein's plea to state charges was "part of the resolution of the federal investigation," the victims were "entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath at the state sentencing.s44 81. On November 28, 2007, Lefkowitz sent an email to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with a copy to AUSA Sloman) objecting to victim notifications: We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims. Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004.... Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims.... fljt it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea." 82. The Government complied with such direction and failed to inform the victims of the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea. On November 29, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta objecting to the proposed victim notification letter, stating that it is 93 US_Atty_Cor. at 00255-00262 (Exhibit 82) (emphasis rearranged). " RFP WPB 000429 (Exhibit 83); RFP MIA 000011-000014 (Exhibit 84). " Exhibit 26 (emphasis added). 27 EFTA00185484

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 28 of 57 inappropriate for any letter to be sent to the victims before Epstein entered his plea or had been sentenced. Lefkowitz also told the Government that the victims should not be invited to the state sentencing, that they should not be encouraged to contact law enforcement officials, and that encouraging the attorney representative to do anything other than get paid by Epstein to settle the cases was to encourage an ethical conflict.96 83. On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein's defense attorneys, Ken Starr, stating: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed Acosta "that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter" despite the fact that the tittle of law . . . now requires this District to consider the victims' rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement."97 84. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letters discussed in previous paragraphs to the victims or anything discussing any of the NPA provisions.98 85. On December 5, 2007, Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA Sloman) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: "While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it."99 96 REP MIA 000007-000010 (Exhibit 85). " RFP MIA 000501-507 (Exhibit 86). " Exhibit 26; RFP MIA 000025.000037 (Exhibit 87). 99 Exhibit 76. 28 EFTA00185485

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 29 of 57 86. On about December 6, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz again recognizing the rights of the victims, and also recognizing that the victims had not yet been afforded any rights, despite the fact that the NPA was signed months earlier. The letter stated: [E]ach of the listed individuals are persons whom the Office identified as victims. [T]he Office is prepared to indict Mr. Epstein based upon Mr. Epstein's 'interactions' with these individuals. This conclusion is based upon a thorough and proper investigation - one in which none of the victims was informed of any right to receive damages of any amount prior to the investigation of her claim. [T]he Office can say, without hesitation, that the evidence demonstrates that each person on the list was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal behavior. Finally, let me address your objections to the draft Victim Notification Letter. You write that you don't understand the basis for the Office's belief that it is appropriate to notify the victims. Pursuant to the 'Justice for All Act of 2004,' crime victims are entitled to: 'The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the crime' and the 'right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding....' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) & (3). Section 3771 also commands that 'employees of the Department of Justice .. . engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).' 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).... With respect to notification of the other information that we propose to disclose, the statute requires that we provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of: the status of the investigation, the filing of charges against a suspected offender, and the acceptance of a plea. 42 U.S.C. 10607(c)(3). Just as in 18 U.S.C. 3771, these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non- Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego its legal obligations. [T]he Office believes that it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that each listed individual was a victim of Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct while the victim was a minor. The law requires us to treat all victims "with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(8).1° 10° US_Atty_Cor. 190-193 (Exhibit 88) (emphasis added). 29 EFTA00185486

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 30 of 57 The letter included a footnote stating: "Unlike the State's investigation, the federal investigation shows criminal conduct by Mr. Epstein at least as early as 2001, so all of the victims were minors at the time of the offense."1°I 87. On December 7, 2007, defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez sent a letter to AUSA Sloman, requesting "that the Office hold off on sending any victim notification letters." The Government complied.102 88. While discussing with defense counsel changes in the October 2007 Addendum and in a December 19, 2007 letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifications to the NPA. 89. On December 13, 2007, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Lefkowitz confirming that the Government had earlier stopped making victim notifications because of objections from Epstein's criminal defense counsel: "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."103 The December 13, 2007 letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with victims about the NPA. The U.S. Attorney's Office was able to confer constantly with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the NPA, but intentionally declined to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement.101 90. On December 19, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez stating, "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. We intend to provide victims with notice of the 01 RFP WPB 000620 (Exhibit 89). 102 RFP WPB 001557 (Exhibit 90). 100 Exhibit 24; Exhibit 69; RFP MM 00469 (Exhibit 91). KA Id. 30 EFTA00185487

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 31 of 57 federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notices of the state proceedings.105 91. In about early January 2008, as the result of pressure from Epstein's attorneys, Acosta agreed with Epstein's attorneys "that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement" and "called a time-out." At that time, Acosta asked the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, located in Washington, D.C., to look at the case.l°6 CONCEALING THE NPA WHILE EPSTEIN SOUGHT REVIEW 92. Following the entry of the "time out," any requirement that Epstein carry out his obligations under the NPA was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Justice Department. During this review, the victims were not told about the existence of the NPA.107 93. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 received victim notification letters from the FBI advising them that `Tiflis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.' 94. The January 10, 2008, notification letter did not disclose that the federal cases in the Southern District of Florida involving Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 were the subject of the NPA US_Atty_Cor. 00272-00273 (Exhibit 92); RFP MIA 000038.000040 (Exhibit 93); RFP MIA 00041-00047 (Exhibit 94); RFP MIA 000048-000052 (Exhibit 95). 106 Exhibit 91 (email from Lefkowitz to Acosta, dated February 29, 2008, and noting that it had been nearly two months since the "time out" agreement). 107 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; RFP WPB 001616-001623 (Exhibit 96); Exhibit 63 at 4-5, 18-19, 22-29. 108 January 10, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 97) (emphasis added); January 10, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe 2 (Exhibit 98). 31 EFTA00185488

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 32 of 57 entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution.109 95. On about January 10, 2008, other victims similarly-situated to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 received letters identical in substance to those described in the immediately preceding paragraphs.' 10 96. In early 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 believed that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important. They also desired to be consulted by the FBI or other representatives of the Federal Government about the prosecution of Epstein. In light of the letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, they reasonably believed, as was obviously intended by the letters, that a federal criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going— including investigation into Epstein's crimes against them. They also reasonably believed that they would be contacted by and have an opportunity to confer with federal prosecutors before the Federal Government reached any final resolution of that investigation." 97. On January 31, 2008, Jane Doe I met with FBI Agents and AUSA's from the U.S. Attorney's Office. She provided additional details of Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The AUSA's did not disclose to Jane Doe I at this meeting that they had already negotiated a NPA with Epstein.' 12 98. On March 19, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a lengthy email to a prospective pro bono attorney for one of Epstein's victims who had been subpoenaed to appear at a deposition. The 109 Id. II° Exhibit 63 at 4.5, 18.19, 22-29. III Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. " 2 Exhibit 33. 32 EFTA00185489

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 33 of 57 email listed the attorneys representing Epstein, the targets of the investigation, and recounted in detail the investigation that had been conducted to that point. The email did not reveal the fact that Epstein had signed the NPA in September 2007.113 99. On May 30, 2008, Jane Doe 5 (another client of the undersigned), who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "[Ibis case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation."11" The statement in the notification letter was misleading. The letter did not disclose the NPA already entered into by Epstein and the Office, and instead implied that the Office was still investigating Epstein and had not decided how to proceed with the case, neither of which was accurate.115 100. The May 30, 2008, victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA at the same time as the Office was not disclosing the NPA's existence to Jane Doe 5 and the other victiim."6 101. In mid-June 2008, Mr. Edwards contacted the line AUSA handling the case to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Mr. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein, consistent with his clients' desires. The line prosecutor and Mr. Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the I" Exhibit 40. " 4 Exhibit 29. 1" Id. 116 Exhibit 28; Exhibit 62. 33 EFTA00185490

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 34 of 57 future. Mr. Edwards was lead to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the NPA or any other possible resolution to the case. 117 102. At the end of the call, the line prosecutor asked Mr. Edwards to send any information that he wanted considered by the Office in determining whether to file federal charges. Because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the plea agreement, the line prosecutor did not inform Mr. Edwards that months earlier, in September 2007, the Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. The line prosecutor also did not inform Mr. Edwards that resolution of the criminal matter was imminent."8 103. On June 19, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent an email to the line prosecutor requesting to meet in person to confer with the Government regarding the status of his clients' case.119 104. Because the line prosecutor did not tell Mr. Edwards about the NPA, Mr. Edwards was not able to confer with the prosecutor about the NM on behalf of his clients. Mr. Edwards, however, made it perfectly clear that his clients wanted to confer with the prosecutor before any resolution was reached. Epstein was aware of this continued concealment of the NPA from the victims and, indeed, sought this concealment.120 105. On June 23, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to Leflcowitz stating that the Deputy Attorney General had completed his review of the Epstein matter and "determined that federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein's case twais appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein ha[d] until Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6. u° Id; US_Atty_Cor. 0321 (Exhibit 99). 119 RFP WPB 001894 (Exhibit 100). 110 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 64 at 5-6; Exhibit 99. 34 EFTA00185491

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 35 of 57 the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein."I21 EPSTEIN'S ENTRY OF HIS GUILTY PLEA 106. On and before June 30, 2008, the Government and Epstein's attorneys corresponded extensively (often multiple times on any given day) regarding Epstein's entry of his guilty plea. Throughout the course of these communications, the Government and Epstein operated on the agreement that the victims would not be told about the NPA, much less about the fact that Epstein's plea was a triggering event for the federal case being resolved.'22 107. On about June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office called Mr. Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the impending Monday morning hearing. The notice, however, was only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edwards' clients nor any of the federally-identified victims. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not tell Mr. Edwards that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement.123 108. In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose to Edwards the fact that the guilty pleas in state court had any bearing on the cases of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. As a result, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 did not attend the plea hearing.124 121 Exhibit 40. In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 000512-000513 (Exhibit 101). 123 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 44, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101. 124 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Declaration of Brad Edwards (Exhibit 102). 35 EFTA00185492

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 36 of 57 109. Had they known that the plea agreement in state court made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution and would have certainly attended the hearing.'" 110. On or before June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of deferral of federal prosecution in favor of state charges. The notification letter began by describing Epstein's guilty plea in the past tense: "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein ... entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida statutes forbidding the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution." Later, a substantively identical letter was prepared for Epstein's and Guy Lewis' review. 126 111. On June 30, 2008, the Office sent an e-mail to Goldberger reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NPA secret: "Jack: The FBI has received several calls regarding the Non- Prosecution Agreement. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the Agreement was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked."1" 112. On June 30, 2008, Epstein plead guilty to state law solicitation of prostitution charges. Because the Federal Government failed to notify the victims about the NPA or its arrangements with Epstein, neither Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 5, nor any of the identified victims in the in Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102. 136 us_Atty_cor. 00323 (Exhibit 103); RFP WPB 000515.000520 (Exhibit 104). 127 Exhibit 99. 36 EFTA00185493

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 37 of 57 federal case were aware of the ramifications of the state proceeding (either in person or through counsel)."8 113. Immediately following the June 30, 2008 hearing, the line prosecutor told one of the victims' attorneys that Epstein had "plead guilty today in state coutt."129 114. On June 30, 2008, based on what she had been told by the Government, Jane Doe I thought that the Office was still investigating and pursuing her case. She did not receive notice that Epstein's state guilty plea affected her rights in any way. If she had been told that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have attended and tried to object to the judge to prevent that plea from going forward.'" 115. On June 30, 2008, based on what she and her attorneys had been told by the Government, Jane Doe 2 thought that the Government was still investigating her case. If she had been told that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of her case, she would have tried to confer with the prosecutors about it and tried to get charges filed. She wanted to be treated fairly in the process."' 116. From September 24, 2007, the date that the NPA was signed, through at least the state court plea on June 30, 2008—a period of more than nine months—the Office did not notify any of Epstein's victims about the existence of the NPA.132 In Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 64 at 6; 000001-000002 (Exhibit 105). 19 Ft.FP WPB 001861 (Exhibit 106). 170 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. lal Exhibit 27; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 105. 173 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28.29; Exhibit 64 at 4; USAtty_Cor. 00267-00271 (Exhibit 107). 37 EFTA00185494

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 38 of 57 117. On July 1, 2008, the day following Epstein's plea, the line prosecutor emailed the Assistant State Attorney a copy of the NPA for "filing with the Court under seal" demonstrating that the agreement continued to be withheld from the victims.133 118. On July 3, 2008, as specifically directed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Edwards sent a letter to the Office communicating the wishes of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 5 that federal charges be filed against Epstein: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this very dangerous sexual predator."134 119. When Mr. Edwards wrote his July 3, 2008 letter, he was still unaware that a NPA had been reached with Epstein and that there was any federal resolution of the case-facts that the Office continued to conceal, at the request of Epstein, not only from Edwards but also as his clients and other victims.133 120. On July 7, 2008, the line prosecutor again conferred with Epstein's counsel seeking permission to begin distributing the notification letters to the victims, acknowledging her failure to include one victim who was still a minor in 2008.136 121. Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was 13 RFP WPB 001857 (Exhibit 108). " 4 Exhibit 105. "5 Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; RFP WPB 001855 (Exhibit 109); [DE 48] (Exhibit 110) at 18-19. 136 RFP WPB 001854 (Exhibit III). 38 EFTA00185495

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 39 of 57 the first public mention of the NPA and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards—and thus to Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doc 5—of the possible existence of a NPA.137 122. Mr. Edwards detrimentally relied on the misleading representations made by the Office that the case was still under investigation when he was writing his July 3, 2008 letter. He would not have wasted his time undertaking a pointless exercise had he known that the U.S. Attorney's Office had previously negotiated a NPA, and he would have informed his clients about the agreement.' 38 A MOTIVE TO CONCEAL THE NPA FROM THE VICTIMS 123. e U.S. Attorney's Office—pushed by Epstein—wanted the NPA kept from public view because of the strong objection it would have faced from victims of Epstein's abuse, and because of the public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution wi a county court jail sentence.139 hen deciding whether to notify the victims before Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Office was aware that a state court judge would have to review the plea and determine whether it was in the public interest, and accordingly chose not to "highlight" certain potentially objectionable features.'4° 11 Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4.6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 110 at 18.19. 138 See Exhibit 28; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 105. I" Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 57 (urging Government to try and keep agreement from becoming public); Exhibit 7 (explaining Government's desire not to "highlight" possible charges or defendants bcing immunized). 39 EFTA00185496

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 40 of 57 oncealing the NPA from the victims prevented them from using their right to confer with the Government about why the NPA was not desirable or appearing at Epstein's plea and sentencing hearing to raise their concerns with the Court.14' THE VICTIMS' UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS 126. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe I filed an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. At the time, Jane Doe I was not aware of the NPA, so she sought a court order directing the Government to confer with her before reaching any such agreement. Epstein quickly became aware of this petition.142 127. On July 8, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel. stating that victims would be informed about the civil compensation provision of the NPA the next day: In accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, on June 30, 2008, the United States Attorney's Office provided you with a list of thirty-one individuals "whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein." . . In deference to your vacation, we allowed you a week to provide us with any objections or requested modifications of the list and/or the Notification language. Yesterday, I contacted you via telephone and e-mail, but received no response. Accordingly, the United States hereby notifies you that it will distribute the victim notifications tomorrow, July 9, 2008, to each of the thirty-two identified victims, either directly or via their counsel.143 128. On July 9, 2008, Jack Goldberger sent a letter to the line prosecutor raising concerns about the notifications, and suggesting modifications to the notification letter. Epstein's counsel also objected to the victim notification letters containing certain information about the NPA.144 141 18 U.S.C. § 3771; Exhibit 26; see also Exhibit 62. 1°2 [DE I] (Exhibit 112) at 1-2. 1d3 Exhibit 101. 144 RFP WPB 000524-000525 (Exhibit 113). 40 EFTA00185497

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 41 of 57 129. Later on July 9, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a response back to Goldberger, explaining how she intended to keep the victims from having access to the terms of the NPA: Without such an express Acknowledgment by Mr. Epstein that the notice contains the substance of that Agreement, I believe that the victims will have justification to petition for the entire agreement, which is contrary to the confidentiality clause that the parties have signed."4s 130. On July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent victim notification letters to Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 5, via their attorney, Mr. Edwards, and to other identified victims of Epstein. That notification contained a written explanation of some of the civil compensation provisions of the NPA. The notification did not provide the full terms of the NPA. For example, the notification did not disclose the NPA or the immunity for "other potential co-conspirators" of Epstein.'46 131. On July 10, 2008, Epstein's counsel continued to protest victim notification as evidenced by Goldberger's email to the line prosecutor stating, "we respectfully request a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the modified notification letter you intend to mail before you send it.s147 132. On July I 1, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Jane Doe I's petition and, with the stipulation of the Government, added Jane Doe 2 as a petitioner because she was a recognized crime "victim." The Court unsealed a declaration that the line prosecutor had filed in response to the petition, and because the declaration contained one paragraph of the NPA, that paragraph RFP WPB 000526-000527 (Exhibit 114). 1" 000777-000779 (Exhibit 115); 000774-000776 (Exhibit 116). RFP WPB 000535-000537 (Exhibit 117). 41 EFTA00185498

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 42 of 57 became unsealed. The line prosecutor sent an email to Goldberger informing him of the unsealing of that one paragraph.'" 133. During the July 11, 2008 hearing, the Government conceded that the NPA had been concluded months before the victims were notified about it.149 134. Throughout July 2008, Epstein's attorneys and the Government continued to correspond about issues such as subpoenas related to his computers and returning of his property.' 5o 135. On August 7, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed one of Epstein's defense attorneys, Roy Black, notice of the motion to disclose the NPA to the victims and assured him that the Government intended "to oppose the motion based upon the confidentiality provision."151 136. On August 10, 2008, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 filed a motion seeking release of the NPA.' 52 137. linmediately after the motion was filed, the Office coordinated with another Epstein attorney about how to best object to the motion.153 138. On August II, 2008, Roy Black wrote back to the line prosecutor, thanking the Government for "agreeing to oppose any disclosure of the 9/24/07 agreement."1M RFP WPB 001845 (Exhibit 118). 19 See Exhibit 63 at 12 (". . . the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007."); see also Exhibit 62. 150 RFP WPB 000470-000471 (Exhibit 119); REP WPB 000481-000489 (Exhibit 120); RFP WPB 000547 (Exhibit 121). Is' [DE 19] (Exhibit 122); RFP WPB 001825 (Exhibit 123). 152 Exhibit 122. 153 RFP WPB 001820-001838 (Exhibit 124). 1$4 RFP WPB 001819 (Exhibit 125). 42 EFTA00185499

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 43 of 57 139. Between August 11 and 14, 2008, the line prosecutor attempted to obtain a copy of the NPA that Epstein's counsel had filed in state court.155 After receiving a copy, on August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor wrote to Lefkowitz: "I can no longer argue that the Court shouldn't force us to produce the agreement because we have already provided the victims with the relevant portion when I now understand from you that I have NOT provided them with the relevant portion."' 56 140. Further communications ensued between the line prosecutor and Epstein's counsel about what exactly was contained in the NPA—specifically, whether a December modification to the agreement was part of the NPA. The notification to the victims about the civil restitution provisions had quoted from the December language.157 141. On August 14, 2008, the line prosecutor emailed Epstein's counsel stating that the court has "ordered us to make the Agreement available to the plaintiffs."' 142. On August 15, 2008, the line prosecutor sent a letter to Epstein's counsel confirming that recent correspondence was intended "solely to determine what Mr. Epstein considered to be the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement" so that the Government would know exactly what needed to be produced to the victims in this CVRA case.'59 143. On August 18, 2008, Lefkowitz wrote the line prosecutor that Epstein objected to disclosure of the terms of the NPA, but that Epstein would "cooperate with the government to reach an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of ISS RFP WPB 001809-001818 (Exhibit 126). 156 RFP WPB 001804 (Exhibit 127). 131 RFP WPB 001805.001808 (Exhibit 128). 158 RFP WPB 001798 (Exhibit 129). Exhibit 68; RFP WPB 000575-000576 (Exhibit 130). 43 EFTA00185500

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 44 of 57 individuals. Based on the Agreement, the information contained in the notification should be limited to (1) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10 and the identity of other identified individuals." 160 144. On August 21, 2008, the Government sent a letter to Epstein's counsel stating that, "[c]opies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein." The letter further requested substantive objections to the draft notification letters, which were being re-sent "[b]ecause I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly."'" 145. On August 26, 2008, the Government sent another letter to Epstein's counsel stating, "Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim notification letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19, 2007 letter was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims with the approval of Mr. Epstein's attorneys."162 ( 146. Jane Doe I and Jane Doc 2 were not informed of the contents of the NPA until August 28, 2008, when the line prosecutor provided a copy to Mr. Edwards.163 147. On September 2, 2008, nearly a year after the NPA was signed, the line prosecutor sent an email to Epstein's counsel stating, "I will start sending out the victim notifications today. 160 RFP W113 000581-000583 (Exhibit 131). RFP WPB 000587-000588 (Exhibit 132). 162 RFP WPB 000603.000604 (Exhibit 133) (emphasis in original). 16) RFP WPB 001776 (Exhibit 134). 44 EFTA00185501

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 45 of 57 In accordance with your request, I have changed the language regarding the victims' right to receive a copy of the Agreement.' 148. On September 2 and 3, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent to Jane Doe I and other identified victims amended notification letters correcting the earlier inaccurate information about the civil compensation provisions contained in the earlier notifications.165 149. The victim notification letters that the victims received were confusing. They did not directly state that Epstein's crimes against them were not going to be prosecuted, but instead said that "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state prosecution." The letter did not inform the victims of how this applied to them. '66 150. The victim notification letters also state that there was "litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." The letters did not explain that the remedy being sought in the litigation was not just to get "disclosure" of the agreement, but instead to uphold the rights of Epstein's v ictims.I67 151. On September 16, 2008, the Palm Beach Daily News wrote the State Attorney's Office that it had "recently discovered" the NPA and wanted to know what was in it. The State Attorney's Office wrote the line prosecutor inquiring how to respond.'68 152. On September 16, 2008, attorney Jeffrey Herman, who represented several Epstein victims, wrote to the line prosecutor to strenuously object to the restitution procedures 161 REP WPB 001775 (Exhibit 135). 165 September 3, 2008 Victim Notification Letter to Jane Doe I (Exhibit 136); Exhibit 2; Exhibit 94 at 2-3. Iba Id.; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. 167 ki 168 002343.002344 (Exhibit 137). 45 EFTA00185502

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 46 of 57 established in the NPA after learning that another attorney established through the NPA would be making unsolicited contacts to the victims. Mr. Herman explained that the notification letters were "misleading" because they referred generally to a waiver of "any other claim for damages" without informing them that this waiver might include a valuable punitive damages claim against an alleged billionaire.169 153. On September 17, 2008, the line prosecutor sent an email to State Attorney , explaining that the NPA "contain[ed] a confidentiality provision that require[ed] us to inform Mr. Epstein's counsel before making any disclosure.s170 154. On September 18, 2008, attorney Katherine Ezell representing some of Epstein's victims emailed the line prosecutor, asking whether the NPA was "blessed" by Judge Marra. The line prosecutor emailed back: "As far as I know, Judge Man has not ever seen the agreement or these notification letters.... 1 don't know if the sentencing judge ever reviewed it. The letters were reviewed by my office and Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black before they went out."" 155. In 2010, Jane Doe I met with the new U.S. Attorney, Wilfredo Ferrer. She explained to him how the NPA had been concealed from her. Nothing ever came of the meeting, and Mr. Ferrer has continued to fight efforts by Jane Doe I and other victims to have the court declare that their rights were violated while the NPA was drafted and implemented.' 169 id Im REP WPB 001773 (Exhibit 138). In RFP WPB 001763 (Exhibit 139). In Exhibit 26; Tr. Nov. 23, 2015 (Exhibit 140) at 3-5 (U.S. Attorney's Office argues that the victims are "complicit" in their own sexual abuse and therefore cannot receive any remedy under the CVRA). 46 EFTA00185503

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 47 of 57 ( 156. At all times material to this statement of facts, it would have been practical and feasible for the federal government to inform Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Ms. , Jane Doc 5, and all other similarly-situated victims of the details of the proposed NPA with Epstein, including in particular the fact that the agreement barred any federal criminal prosecution of crimes that Epstein committed against thcm.'" 157. At no time while it negotiated and executed the NPA did the Government notify the victims that Epstein's guilty plea would prevent his prosecutions for crimes against them. Nor did the Government ever allow the identified victims to "confer with the prosecutor on the case," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), or "treat them with fairness, respect and dignity" by making them aware of the NPA, § 3771(a)(8). In fact, to the contrary, the Government went to great lengths to conceal the fact that there was a federal resolution at all and mislead the victims into believing that the federal case was proceeding so that the NPA could be secretly put in place before the victims knew what was going on.170 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW In light of the foregoing undisputed material facts, summary judgment for the victims on the issue of whether their CVRA rights were violated is appropriate. The Court is well aware of the applicable summary judgment standard, which requires that there be no disputed issues that are genuine or material for the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Joseph'. Napolilano, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The undisputed facts "3 See Exhibit 88. "4 Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 62; Exhibit 63 at 4-6, 18.19, 22-23; Exhibit 99; Exhibit 101; Exhibit 102; Exhibit 57; Exhibit 7. 47 EFTA00185504

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 48 of 57 here plainly establish that the Government—with the knowledge of, and at the urging of Epstein—violated the CVRA rights of Jane Doe I, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly-situated victims, by deliberately concealing from them the NPA barring the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators for the federal offenses they committed against them. In particular, the Government violated the victims' right to confer with prosecutors, right to accurate notice of court hearings, and right to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), (2), & (8). A. The Government Violated the Victims' Right to Confer. There can be no real debate that the Government violated the victims' right to confer. Indeed, it is worth recalling that in earlier proceedings, the victims filed a similar (although less detailed) motion for summary judgment. DE 48. The Government responded not by claiming that it had in fact conferred with the victims, but rather by advancing the legal argument that the CVRA does not extend any rights to victims before the filing of an indictment. DE 62. This argument was flatly contradicted by the Government's own earlier decision to provide notification to victims after the NPA was signed — and even during the investigation treating them as victims. See, e.g., ¶¶ 10-16, 34-35, 69-73, 91-94, 98, 125, supra. In any event, this Court has now firmly rejected the Government's contrived legal position. DE 99 (the court has determined "that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed").175 I 73 Not only has this Court rejected the Government's position, but Congress and the President have specifically decided to end any debate and to codify this Court's ruling into federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX9) (victims have the "right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement") (added as part of Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § I13(a), (eX1) (May 29, 2015)). This codification builds on the fact that Senator Kyl, the Senate co-sponsor of the CVRA, took to the Senate floor to directly express his approval of this Court's ruling. 157 Cong. Rec. S7060.0I (statement of Senator Kyl) (Nov. 2, 201 I) (applauding this Court's decision and 48 EFTA00185505