rly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions. . . . Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. Gov't Resp., Ex. A, p 2 (emphasis added). The article concludes: Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no va

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

2). Epstein's lawyers, To be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining or that p

arding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier order of the magistrate judge. In response, the Government "takes no position" on the motion. Gov't Resp. at 1. Accordingly, this part of the victims' motion should be granted. II. NONE OF THE MATERIALS IN THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE BARRED FROM DISCLOSUR

gainst Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

ernment also cites several cases in which district courts have declined to turn over to crime victims their own confidential pre-sentencing reports. Gov't Resp. at 3-4. These cases about judicial obligations say nothing about prosecutorial obligations under the CVRA "best efforts" provision. It is unsurpri

ed by evidence in the record." The Government has briefly recounted a few facts in opposition to a small sliver of the victims' proposed facts. See Gov't Resp. to Victims' Motion to Have Facts Accepted at 11-13. But none of these facts are supported by any evidence at all. The Government should have at le

nt on this point, the Government has contested those requests — even arguing that its FBI agents properly and fully informed the victims. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. to 2d RFA 14(a) (The Government "denies that, during the period from September 24, 2007,through June 2008, the USAO-SDFL did not inform Jane Doe 1

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

rnment deny that it sent "victim" notification letters to Jane Doe 2, both before it negotiated the NPA and after. See, e.g., DE 407 at 12,11 93-95 (Gov't Resp. to Victims' Statement of Undisputed Facts) (conceding a victim notification letter was sent to Jane Doe 2 in Jan. 2008). As the Court is well awar

ims' S.J. Mot."), DE 361 at 7-47 (listing 157 proposed undisputed facts). The Government has responded by contesting some facts, but not others. See Gov't Resp. to 2 EFTA00597319 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 3 of 33 Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Mater