l Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum (DE 421) and Defendant, EPSTEIN'S, Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum as to Jane Doe no. 4, and state: I. On December 2, 2009, Epstein filed a Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duce

AL WOMEN'S CENTER TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (DE 431) AND DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRESIDENTIAL WOMEN'S CENTER TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS TO JANE FOE NO.4 (DE 443) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice

l Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum (DE 421) and Defendant, EPSTEIN'S, Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum as to Jane Doe no. 4, and state: I. On December 2, 2009, Epstein filed a Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duce

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

its Act must be justified by "'compelling necessity . . . shown with particularity." Howell Opinion, 2017 WL 3278929 at *3 (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 797 F.2d 676, 681 (8th Cir. 1986)). 8. This application sets forth facts showing that there is a compelling necessity for a non- disclosure order

e of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 July 18, 2007 Subpoena Duces Tecum dated June 18, 2007, to Custodian of Records, NES, LLC Dear Ms. Villafafia: I write concerning the grand jury subpoena duces tecum dated June 18, 2

tionships" and that "[t]his principle has been applied to fiduciary relationships beyond the traditional trust context"); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 919-21 (8th Cir. 1997) (government attorneys have duty to report wrongdoing). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

by himself.") (quoting Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409-10 (1976); and citing United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984)); In ?V Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) ("While we have previously left undecided the question of whether the Fifth Amendment protects the contents of priva

ited States I Feldman , 83 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1996) (defendant's letters of apology not protected because voluntarily prepared); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (defendant's personal calendar not protected because voluntarily prepared); Barrett I Acevedo , 169 F.3d 1155, 1168 (

Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 July 18, 2007 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE Subpoena Duces Tecum dated June 18, 2007, to Custodian of Records, NES, LLC Dear Ms. I write concerning the grand jury subpoena duces tecum dated June 18, 2007, directe

ally, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, and L.M., individually. 5. On or about April 17, 2010, counsel for EPSTEIN in the state court had served a Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition - Documents Only, on STETTIN in his capacity as Trustee, in an attempt to obtain documents relevant to issues in the state court case

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

Exhibit A)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 12/21/2009) 443 RESPONSE/REPLY to 442 Response to Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Incorporated Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum Regarding Jane Doe 4 by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachm

ry Subpoena dated April 9, 1996, 87 F.3d 1198, 1200 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gecas, 50 F.3d 1549, 1566 (11th Cir. 1995); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 754 F.2d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1985) ("the act of production alone can constitute self-incriminating testimony); In re Grand Jury 83-8, 611 F. Supp.

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jut), Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government