FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, No. 13-73267 INC., Crime Victim. D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00089- STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC., JCM-GWF-1 Petitioner, V. OPINION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, Respondent, DEBORAH A. DIFRANCESCO, Defendant-Real Party in Interest, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding EFTA00179613

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

2 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. sSNA ING Submitted September 20, 2013* Filed September 26, 2013 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Milan D, Smith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion TT SUMMARY™ oH Criminal Law A motions panel issued a per curiam opinion denying a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking reversal of the district court’s denial of the victim’s motion for forfeiture under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The panel explained that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act give victims a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The panel also explained that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act expressly does not impair the government’s broad discretion to seek forfeiture of assets implicated in an offender’s wire fraud. oo * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2). “ This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court, It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. EFTA00179614

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. 3 COUNSEL Kenneth P. Childs, Stake Center Locating, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Olson White, Appellate Chief and Assistant United States Attorney, District of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest. Mark B. Bailus, Bailus Cook & Kelesis, Ltd., Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendant-Real Party in Interest. OPINION PER CURIAM: Petitioner Stake Center Locating, Inc. (“Stake Center’’) petitions for a writ of mandamus reversing the district court’s denial of its motion for forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”).! In the underlying criminal action, Deborah DiFrancesco, a former employee of Stake Center, was charged with crimes stemming from her embezzlement of funds from Stake Center and other victims, and pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Pursuant to her plea agreement, DiFrancesco agreed to make restitution to Stake ' Stake Center previously petitioned this court for mandamus, and we denied this petition as premature. See Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court (In re Stake Ctr. Locating, Inc.), 717 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), The district court has now completed sentencing DiFrancesco, and Stake Center’s renewed petition is properly before us. EFTA00179615

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

4 IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. Center in the amount of $763,846. Stake Center moved the district court to compel the government to institute criminal forfeiture proceedings and to obtain property allegedly traceable to DiFrancesco’s crimes and thus subject to forfeiture from third parties. The district court denied this motion. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). In reviewing a CVRA mandamus petition, we need not balance the usual factors under Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977), but rather “must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court’s order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error.” Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit a legal error in denying Stake Center’s motion for forfeiture. First, the CVRA and Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”) give victims a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture. The CVRA provides that a crime victim has the “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (““MVRA”) requires that a “defendant make restitution to the victim” of certain offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Criminal forfeiture is not, as petitioner contends, a type of restitution; “[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose.” United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011), Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restitution, not third parties. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (b)(1) (requiring that “defendant make restitution” and “defendant” return property). EFTA00179616

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN RE: STAKE CENTER LOCATING, INC. 5 Nor did the district court err in declining to order the U.S. Attorneys’ Office to commence criminal forfeiture proceedings against the Internal Revenue Service and other non-parties alleged to possess assets implicated in DiFrancesco’s criminal activities. Contrary to Stake Center’s argument, forfeiture is mandatory for wire fraud only if the government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). “[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S, 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6) (“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.”’),? Accordingly, Stake Center’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. DENIED. ? Because we decide this issue on these grounds, we do not reach the other arguments advanced by the government why forfeiture proceedings cannot be commenced in this case. EFTA00179617

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EFTA00179618

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES / JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2’S NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO PRIVLEGE LOG COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, to give notice of their filing of objections to the Government's two privilege logs (DE 212 and DE 216). The objections are attached hereto. The victims are filing these objections concurrently with a motion to compel production of the materials at issue, DATED: August 16, 20 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G, Cassell Pro Hac Vice EFTA00179619

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 3 S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00179620

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following using the Court’s CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perezek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading@royblack.com (305) 37106421 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw@att.net (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 3 EFTA00179621

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG — WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS EFTA00179622

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 ictims’ Motion to Com: Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government’s Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents Investigative Privilege - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents Work Product Doctrine No Work Product Doctrine in the Context of a Claim Against Public Prosecutors Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents Work Production Privilege Does No Apply When the Attorney’s Conduct is at Issue Rule 6(e) Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule 6(e)(3)(E) The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury Materials Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Grand Jury The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Materials Page 1 of 69 PRIVILEGE LOG — WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS i IP. cti f ments Abbreviation Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings Waiver Fiduciary Duty Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Factual Materials Not in Anticipation of Litigation Ordinary Government Communication No Attorney-Client Relationship Improper Invocation Final Decision Overriding Need Improper Invocation Overriding Need Claims Against Public Prosecutor Overriding Need Attorney Conduct at Issue Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E) Court Inherent Power to Release Proper Victim's Petition CVRA-authorized release EFTA00179623

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

vase Y-U0-CV-80/36-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 70 Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials Material Severable The Privacy Rights of Other Victims Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns Redaction No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims No Assertion by Victims Privacy Act The Privacy Act Does Not Apply to Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery Court-Compelled Disclosure Victims’ Objections File folder entitled “CORR RE GJ 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; SUBPOENAS” containing correspondence Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Overriding Need Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log 6(e) containing subpoenas OLY-01 through Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in OLY-81, correspondence and_ research Contains documents Anticipation of _Litigation; Improper related to enforcement of same, documents subject to investigative | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against produced in response to some subpoenas; privilege Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes | Also contains documents | Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under subject to privacy rights of 6(€)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; victims who are not Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized parties to this litigation | release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims; Overriding Need Page 2 of 69 EFTA00179624

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted _| Victims’ Objections Box #1 File folder entitled “Ritz Compact Flash 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-000550 SW” containing copies of a sealed search Contains information Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in thru warrant application, | warrant, and | subject to investigative Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-000621 supporting documents privilege Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Also contains information | Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); subject to privacy rights of Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper victims who are not Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; parties to this litigation Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; —_ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Conduct at Issue; Overriding Need Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable File folder entitled “PNY Technologies Compact Flash SW” containing copies ofa sealed search warrant application, warrant, and supporting documents 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Work Product Contains information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-000694 thru P-000781 File folder entitled “JE Corporations” containing attorney research on Epstein- owned corporations and prior litigation File. folder entitled “Capital One” containing subpoena and correspondence Page 3 of 69 EFTA00179625

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 70 6(e) Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents and information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litiga 6(e Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Description File folder entitled “DTG Operations/Dollar Rent-a-Car” containing subpoena and responsive documents Box #1 P-000804 thru P-000854 Box #1 P-000855 thru P-000937 File folder entitled “JP Morgan Chase” containing subpoena, correspondence, and responsive documents Box #1 P-000938 thru P-000947 File folder entitled “Washington Mutual” containing subpoena, correspondence, and responsive documents 6(e) Contains documents and information subject to investigative privilege Work Product Attorney-Client Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this liti gation Box #1 P-000948 thru P-000982 File folder entitled “Computer Search &” containing legal research on computer search and handwritten notes on indictment preparation Page 4 of 69 EFTA00179626

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 70 Description File folder entitled “Attorney Notes from Document Review” containing typed and handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes, target letters, correspondence re grand jury subpoena Work product 6(e) Contains information subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 File folder entitled “Notes from Fed Ex Work Product P-001008 | Records” containing handwritten and typed 6(e) thru attorney (Villafafia) notes and screen shots Contains information P-001056 | of FedEx subpoena response electronic file | subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 File folder entitled “Colonial Bank 6(e) P-001057 | Records” containing records received in Contains information thru response to grand jury subpoena subject to investigative P-001959 privilege Page 5 of 69 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable EFTA00179627

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EEE ILLIANCM £24-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 70 Box #1 File folder entitled “OLY Grand J ury Log Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-001960 Vol 2: OLY-51 THROUGH” containing Contains information Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru subpoenas numbered OLY-S1 through subject to investigative Anticipation — of Litigation; Improper P-002089 | OLY-81 with related correspondence privilege. Also contains Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log: No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Mate ials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled “Epstein Corporate Records: OLY-S1, OLY-52, OLY-53, OLY-54” containing subpoenas, records received in response to subpoenas, and related correspondence 6(c) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege File folder entitled “Colonial Bank” containing subpoenas, correspondence related to subpoenas, records received in response to subpoenas 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 File folder entitled “JEGE & Hyperion 6(e) P-002247 | from Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47” | Contains information and | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru containing documents received in response documents subject to Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-002265 to subpoenas investigative privilege | Need: Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- Material Severable authorized release: Page 6 of 69 EFTA00179628

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Box #1 P-002266 Thru P-002386 Box #1 P-002387 Thru P-002769 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Description Indictment preparation binder containing: Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity summary chart, witness/victim names and contact list, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney (Villafafia) typed notes, of individuals listed as “Additional victims” Indictment preparation binder containing: Grand jury subpoena log, evidence/activity summary chart, witness/victim names and contact list, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney (Villafafia) 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 #15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Past Employees, Misc. Witnesses Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 70 Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 7 of 69 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims EFTA00179629

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

TEES SERIAL OSINANM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Indictment preparation binder containing: witness/victim list with identifying information, sexual activity summary, telephone call summary chart, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney (Villafafia) 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 #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 Indictment preparation binder containing P-002770 Thru P-003211 Box #1 Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-003212 meta-analysis charts of 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru telephone/flight/grand jury information for | Contains information and Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-003545 i documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against a number of yicti Nadia Marcinkova, is Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue: Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 8 of 69 EFTA00179630

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Description Box #1 FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-003546 | additional witness/victim located in New 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru York Contains information and | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-003552 documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; investigative privilege. Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 Printout of filenames from Federal Express P-003553 | subpoena response with Attorney notations Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-003555B Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 Document entitled “Identified Numbers” Work product P-003556 | with accompanying handwritten attorney 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru list compiled from grand jury materials and Contains information Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-003562 | attorney analysis of records subject to investigative Need: Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E): Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable privilege Page 9 of 69 EFTA00179631

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

waSe Y-US-CV-GU/36-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of 70 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-003563 Thru P-003629 Folder entitled “Flight — Manifests” containing manifests received pursuant to grand jury subpoena Box #1 P-003630 Thru P-003633 Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Deliberative process File folder entitled “Recent Attorney Notes” containing handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes regarding document review and case strategy Work product Attomey-client privilege 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder bearing victim name containing FBI interview report from May 2008, telephone activity report with attorney (Villafanafia) handwritten notes, related grand jury material Page 10 of 69 EFTA00179632

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of 7 Description Box #1 File folder entitled “Summary of Sexual P-003647 | Activity” —_ containing chart _ bearing Thru handwritten title “Sexual Activity — Investigative privilege P-003651 Summary” — with meta-analysis of Deliberative process Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation information, sorted by name of each victim/witness, including name and identifying information of each victim/witness File folder entitled “Victim Civil Suits” Not privileged. Produced to counsel for Petitioners File folder entitled “Research re JE Websites” containing attorney research Work product Box #1 P-003679 Thru P-003680 File folder entitled “Serene Cano (NY. AUSA)” containing attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes Work product Box #1 File folder entitled “Dr. Anna Salter” Work product P-003681 containing attorney (Villafafia) memo to Investigative privilege Thru expert witness and handwritten attorney P-003687 notes Page 11 of 69 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorne: Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue EFTA00179633

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

OS SEE EEL SOSNIAM VOCuMent 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 70 Description Victims’ Objections Box #1 File folder entitled “If]) G[]} Interview” Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-003688 containing attorney handwritten notes of} Investigative privilege Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru interview, and attorney handwritten notes | Also contains information Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-003693 regarding potential charges subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against victims who are not arties to this litigation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to Privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Redaction; No Assertion b: Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials: Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims File folder entitled “Research re Travel for Prostitution” containing attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes regarding grand jury presentation, chart entitled “Brought to Epstein’s House” with handwritten notes, Message Pad meta- analysis chart, summary of evidence related to one Victim/witness, and relevant grand jury information Box #1 P-003712 Empty file folder bearing name of victim/witness Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victim who is not a party to this litigation 6(e) Documents under seal pursuant to court order Box #1 P-003713 Thru P-003746 File folder entitled “T[] M[]” containing grand jury subpoenas, motion and order to compel testimony, and correspondence regarding same Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release: Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #1 P-003747 Thru P-003751 File folder entitled containing subpoena and regarding same correspondence Page 12 of 69 EFTA00179634

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of 7 Victims’ Objections Description Box #1 File folder entitled “PBPD Investigative 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-003752 _ | File” obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru Also contains information | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-004295 and documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorne Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis chart showing telephone calls, travel, and grand jury materials relevant to possible charges File folder entitled “Daniel Gonzalez Documents 53909-004” containing attorney research related to bias issue File Folder entitled “FEDEX” containing documents obtained via subpoena 6(e) Investigative privilege Page 13 of 69 EFTA00179635

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

TESS SL ALINONLSS-KAN Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of 70 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need: Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Privilege(s) Asserted 6(e) Investigative privilege Work product File Folder entitled “State of Delaware Records” containing documents obtained in preparation for indictment Box #1 P-004552 Thru P-004555 File folder entitled “Jet Blue Records” containing documents obtained via subpoena 6(e) Work product Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-004556 Thru P-004560 File folder entitled “FL EMPLOYMENT RECORDS” containing FDLE records on targets and witnesses obtained at attomey request Investigative privilege Work product Box #1 P-004561 Thru P-004565 Filed folder entitled “JANUSZ BANASIAK” containing attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes of interview Work product Investigative privilege Page 14 of 69 EFTA00179636

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of 70 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue: Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; 6(e) Work product Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder entitled “JANUSZ BANASIAK RECORDS 23-0001 THROUGH 23-" containing documents obtained via subpoena File folder entitled “IGOR ZINOVIEV” containing attorney research regarding witness Work product Investigative privilege Work Product Investigative privilege File folder entitled “BEAR STEARNS RESEARCH” containing attorney research regarding potential witness and subpoena recipient Work Product Investigative privilege File folder entitled “LAWSUITS INVOLVING EPSTEIN CORP'S” containing attomey research regarding Epstein’s past personal and business litigative practices Filed folder entitled Box #1 “SEC RECORDS” Work Product P-004820 | containing attorney research regarding Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Epstein financial relationships Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-004959 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 15 of 69 EFTA00179637

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 0 Description Box #1 File folder entitled “Message Pads” Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-004960 | containing selected items from evidence 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru obtained via subpoena Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-005059 Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release: Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; _ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005083 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-005084 thru P-005107 are non N/A responsive documents and have been removed Work Product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing correspondence with counsel for victim/witness, attorney witness outline with attorney handwritten notes, attorney handwritten notes regarding witness reports and case preparation Box #1 P-005082 File folder entitled “New York Trip” Work product containing attorney notes re witness Investigative privilege interview Page 16 of 69 EFTA00179638

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 70 Deserip Privilege(s) Asserted Box #1 File folder entitled “ANNA SALTER” Work product Inadequate Log; Fiduciary Duty; Factual P-005108 | containing attorney research on select Investigative privilege | Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Thru expert, use of experts at trials in child Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims P-005193 exploitation cases, and additional research Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; materials on offenders and victims File folder entitled “Extra Copies” containing meta-analysis chart and 302’s of victim/witnesses used in preparing indictment package Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 File folder entitled “JUAN ALESSI 6(e) P-005301 STATEMENT” containing transcript | _ Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru obtained via subpoena Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005331 Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #1 File folder entitled “KEN LANNING” Work product P-005332 | containing attorney research on select Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru expert, including attorney handwritten Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005341 notes Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Page 17 of 69 EFTA00179639

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of 70 s) Asserted 6(c) Investigative privilege Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release: Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Privileg Box #1 P-005342 Thru P-005387 File folder entitled “Info re Planes” containing correspondence _regarding subpoenas and documents received in response to subpoenas Box #1 P-005388 Thru P-005442 Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder entitled “Police Reports & PC Affidavit” containing portions of police reports with attorney notes, related phone records, a list entitled “Victims” with identifying information and attorney handwritten notes, photographs and DAVID information, and additional attorney research regarding Epstein sexual activity Box #1 File folder entitled “[Victim name] 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005443 Transcript of Interview & GJ Transcript” Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru Also contains information Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-005496 and documents subject to | Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation 6(e) Investigative privilege File folder entitled “Bear Stearns Subpoena Resp.” containing material received in response to subpoena Page 18 of 69 EFTA00179640

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #1 P-005578 Thru P-005583 U.S. Attorney’s Office Asset Forfeiture Case File Jacket containing file opening and file closing documents Work product Deliberative process Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #1 P-005584 Thru P-005606 6(e) Work product and deliberative process (as to internal memoranda) File folder entitled “6001 Immunity Request” containing internal memoranda seeking witness immunity and correspondence with counsel for witness File folder entitled “MASTER PHONE Work product RECORDS” containing meta-analysis of 6(e) all phone, travel, and grand jury data for all Investigative privilege victim/witnesses for indictment preparation | Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-005607 Thru P-005914 Assertion by Victims Page 19 of 69 Box #1 U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Case File Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-005557 | Jacket containing file opening documents, Deliberative process Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru expert witness payment documents Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-005576 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; regarding same Investigative privilege | Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Also contains information | Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court and documents subject to | Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s privacy rights of victims | Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material who are not parties to this | Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by litigation Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Improper EFTA00179641

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of 70 Box #2 File folder bearing name of victim/witness P-005915 containing meta-analysis of all phone, Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that P-005977 victim/witness for indictment preparation Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _ Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release: Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need: Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 P-005978 Thru P-006050 File folder bearing name of victim/witness containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation File folder bearing name of victim/witness Work product containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release: Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 20 of 69 EFTA00179642

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Description Box #2 File folder entitled “JANE DOE #4” Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-006066 | containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-006220 _| victim/witness for indictment preparation | Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims | Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this | 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled ““JANE DOE #12” Work product P-006221 containing meta-analysis of all phone, 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru travel, and grand jury data related to that Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; + Improper P-006222 | victim/witness for indictment preparation Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims | Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this | 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim's Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled “CORRECTED Work product P-006223 PHONE RECORDS 5/31/07” containing 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; = Improper P-006522 | grand jury data related to all | Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims | Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this | 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims victims/witnesses for indictment preparation Page 21 of 69 EFTA00179643

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of 70 Description Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim Name] Phone Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-006523 Records” containing telephone records 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru received in response to subpoena Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-006802 Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Public Prosecutor; Attomey Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction: No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _ Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; File folder entitled “Lists of Identified Phone Numbers” containing charts of information culled from grand jury materials, interviews, and other investigation, with attorney handwritten notes, and information to issue follow-up grand jury subpoena Box #2 P-006803 Thru P-006860 Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #2 File folder entitled “EPSTEIN/KELLEN Work product P-006861 CELL PHONE RECORDS” containing 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru documents received via subpoena with Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-007785 attorney handwritten notes and | Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against highlighting and documents subject to | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; privacy rights of victims | Factual Materials: Court Authorized Under who are not parties to this 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; litigation Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 22 of 69 EFTA00179644

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of 70 tion Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Box #2 Folder entitled “OLY GRAND JURY Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-007786 |LOG: OLY-01 THROUGH OLY-50” 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru containing subpoenas, correspondence Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-008120 | regarding same, 6(e) letters, attorney | Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation handwritten notes regarding records received in response to subpoenas Box #2 Handwritten flight in 6(e) logs received P-008121 response to subpoena Investigative privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-008139 Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 Grand jury presentation folder containing Work product P-008140 attorney handwritten notes, typed outline 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru with additional handwritten notes, | Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; + Improper P-008298 | complete indictment package dated | Also contains information | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against 2/19/2008, victim list with identifying information, photographs, and summary of activity Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims and documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Page 23 of 69 EFTA00179645

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of 70 Description File folder entitled “FINAL AGREEMENTS” containing subfolder entitled “Agrmts Filed in State Court” (P- 008300-P-008327 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); signed ~— Non- Prosecution Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of 12/19/2007 Sanchez- Acosta letter (P-008328-P-008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder entitled “12/19/07 Acosta-Sanchez Ltr” containing unredacted copies of that letter (P-008344-P-008363 [pursuant to Court’s Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11" Circuit File folder entitled “Lacerda Immunity Privilege(s) Asserted N/A Box #2 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008364 Request” containing internal memoranda, Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Justice Department documentation, and Deliberative Process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-008382 | subpoena regarding immunity request Investigative privilege | Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 24 of 69 EFTA00179646

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of Description Privilege(s) Asserted | Victims’ Objections Box #2 File folder containing March 18, 2008 Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008383 grand jury presentation materials, including 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru “Operation Leap Year Revised Indictment Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-008516 Summary Chart (by victim),” grand jury Deliberative process Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against materials, draft indictments, victim | Also contains information | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; reference list, grand jury subpoena log and documents subject to | Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under privacy rights of victims 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; who are not parties to this | Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims litigation Box #2 P-008517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant to Court’s Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes to prepare for Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008536 interview of Jane Doe #2 Investigative Privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru Contains information Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-008542 subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against victims who are not Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; parties to this suit Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 Handwritten attorney notes regarding May Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008543 8, 2007 grand jury presentation 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-008549 Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims victims who are not parties to this suit Page 25 of 69 EFTA00179647

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of 70 Victims’ Objections Privilege(s) Asserted File folder entitled “Most Recent Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008550 Indictment & Good Cases” containing draft 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru indictment and legal research Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-008615 Deliberative process Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(¢)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 File folder entitled “FBI Summary Charts” Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008616 containing chart prepared at direction of Attorney-Client Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru AUSA, containing victim _ names, 6(e) Anticipation of _Litigation; Ordinary P-008686 identifying information, summary of| Investigative privilege | Government Communication; No Attorney- activity, and other information relevant to Contains information Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; indictment subject to privacy rights of Overriding Need; Claims Against Public victims who are not Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual parties to this suit Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable ; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim name}/Jane Work product No Factual Underpinnings; P-008687 | Doe #4” containing phone records and 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-008776 | grand jury data related to that | Contains information and Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against victim/witness for indictment preparation documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 26 of 69 EFTA00179648

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of 70 Description Victims’ Objections Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-008777 Doe #5” containing handwritten notes and 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-008808 | grand jury data related to that Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit victim/witness for indictment preparation Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product P-008809 Doe #6” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to | Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-008847 that victim/witness for indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CWRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit preparation Box #2 P-008848 Thru P-008862 File folder entitled “[Victim name}/Jane Doe #7” containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for —_ indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Page 27 of 69 EFTA00179649

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Description File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Doe #8” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege Anticipation of Litigation; Improper that victim/witness for _indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit preparation File folder entitled “Certified Copy of State Case” containing certified copy of Epstein State criminal cases and change of plea transcript [not being withheld as privileged — copy provided to opposing counsel File folder entitled “Meeting Timeline” containing _Villafafia typed _ notes summarizing meetings with opposing counsel prepared at request of R. Alexander Acosta, with handwritten correction and typed guideline estimate 11/26/2008 Email from Roy Black to A. Marie Villafafia and Karen Atkinson re Jeffrey Epstein (work release) [pursuant to Court’s Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11" Circuit Box #2 P-009104 Thru P-009111 Work product Deliberative process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 P-009112 Thru P-009113 Page 28 of 69 EFTA00179650

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of 70 Box #2 7/3/2008 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to P-009114 | Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work Thru release with attachment [not being p-009115 | withheld as privileged — produced to opposing counsel 12/6/2007 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) [pursuant to Court’s Order, not being withheld as privileged — will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11" Circuit File folder entitled Box #2 P-009116 Thru P-009125 Box #2 “[Victim name]/Jane Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-009126 | Doe #9” containing meta-analysis of all Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to | Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-009134 | that victim/witness for indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product P-009135 | Doe #13” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-009141 that victim/witness for —_ indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Page 29 of 69 EFTA00179651

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Description Box #2 File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-009141A | Doe #12” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; — Improper P-009141C | that victim/witness for _ indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release: Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit preparation Box #2 older entitled Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-009142 containing meta iy a 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru phone, travel, and grand jury data related to Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-009152 that individual for indictment preparation Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need: Claims Against subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _ Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #2 P-009153 Thru P-009156 File folder entitled containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that individual for indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Investigative privilege Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit Page 30 of 69 EFTA00179652

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

| Bates Range | Descrip Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of 70 Victims’ Objections File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Doe #1” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in phone, travel, and grand jury data related to | Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Improper that victim/witness for indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; parties to this suit File folder entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Work product Doe #2” containing meta-analysis of all 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in phone, travel, and grand jury data related to | Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; — Improper that victim/witness for indictment Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against preparation subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Investigative privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; = Improper Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under parties to this suit 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims victims who are not parties to this suit File folder entitled “[{Victim name]/Jane Doe #3” containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for _indictment preparation Work product 6(e) Page 31 of 69 EFTA00179653

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of 70 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; File folder entitled “Purpose of Travel Work product Cases” containing attorney research and handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled “Interstate Commerce Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Cases” containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled “Attorney Conflict Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Research” containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled “Mann Act/Travel to Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Have Sex w/Minor” containing attomey Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes File folder entitled “Florida Work Product Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes” containing attorney research and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Booklet entitled “Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness N/A Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Assistance” [not being withheld as Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Page 32 of 69 Box #2 P-009404 Thru P-009536 Box #2 P-009537 Thru P-009574 Box #2 P-009575 Thru P-009603 File folder entitled “Travel Act” containing attorney research and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Box #2 P-009712 Thru P-009819 Box #2 P-009820 Thru P-009965 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of File folder entitled “Corporate Liability Rsrch” containing attorney research and handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; privileged — produced to opposing counsel Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue : EFTA00179654

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 34 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted subpoena release; Material Severable Box #2 P-010097 Thru P-010276 File folder entitled “Money Laundering” containing attorney research = and handwritten notes Work Product Work Product Work Product Page 33 of 69 File folder entitled “1960 & Aiding/Abetting” containing —_ attorney research and handwritten notes Box #2 P-010395 Thru P-010488 Box #2 P-010489 Thru P-010509 Box #2 P-010510 Thru P-010525 File folder entitled “18 USC § 2255 Cases” containing attomey research = and handwritten notes Overriding Need: Inadequate Log; File folder entitled “Research re Overt Acts & Witness Testimony” containing attorney research and handwritten notes File folder entitled © “Extradition” containing attomey research = and handwritten notes Overriding Box #2 File folder entitled “Research re Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-009966 Knowledge of Age Unnecessary” 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru containing attorney _—research and Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-010096 | handwritten notes and copy of grand jury Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need: Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log: No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; iding ; Attorney Conduct at Issue No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; iding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue EFTA00179655

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Box #2 P-010526 Thru P-010641 Box #2 P-010642 Thru P-01650 Box #2 P-010651 Thru P-010659 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of 70 File folder entitled “Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights” containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher; and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P- 010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the Court’s Order, these will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11" Circuit File folder entitled “Immunity” containing attorney research on granting immunity to witnesses File folder entitled “Research re G.J. Transcript” containing attorney research and draft pleadings re compelling production of grand jury transcript with subpoena Privilege(s) Asserted Work Product Deliberative Process Work Product Work Product 6(e) Deliberative process Page 34 of 69 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable EFTA00179656

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections release; Material Severable Box #2 File folder entitled “Original Proposed Work Product Severable Box #2 Work Product P-010794 Thru P-010829 Box #2 P-010830 Thru P-010853 Box #2 P-010854 Thru P-010876 File folder entitled “Epstein” containing sample indictments and attorney research re potential charges with attorney notes File folder entitled “1591 & Money Work Product Laundering” containing attorney research and handwritten notes File folder entitled “18 USC 2425” Work Product containing attorney research = and handwritten notes Page 35 of 69 Box #2 File folder entitled “Research re GJ Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010660 | Transcript” containing grand jury 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru subpoena, 6(e) letters, attorney research Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-010757 | and correspondence related to subpoena Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010758 Ind.” containing draft indictment 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Deliberative process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-010793 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue EFTA00179657

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of 70 P-011237 Box #2 P-011238 Thru P-011319 Box #2 P-011320 Thru P-011361 Box #2 P-011362 Thru P-011374 Privilege(s) Asserted Box #2 File folder entitled “Knowledge of Age” Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-010877 containing attorney research and Thru handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-010920 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-010921 Constitutionality and Purpose of Travel” Thru containing attorney research and Box #2 File folder entitled “Mistake not a Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-011050 | Defense” containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of P-011212 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 File folder entitled “Research re Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; ‘Pandering’” containing attorney research Thru and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled “Telephone = Facility Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; of Commerce” containing attorney Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue File folder entitled “Def of Prostitution” Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Box #2 File folder entitled “2423(b) Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-011049 handwritten notes Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Thru handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-011213 Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of File folder entitled “Research re Grand Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Jury Instructions” containing attorney 6(e) Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of research and handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable containing attomey research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Page 36 of 69 EFTA00179658

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Box #2 File folder entitled “Relevant Florida Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-011375 Statutes” containing attorney research and Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru handwritten notes Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; P-011456 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #2 P-011457 Thru P-011626 Box #3 P-011627 Thru P-011662 File folder entitled “Unit of Prosecution Research” containing attorney research and handwritten notes Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings: File folder entitled “Attorney Notes” containing attorney handwritten and typed notes Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Box #3 File folder entitled “Drafts” containing 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-011663 draft indictments with attorney handwritten Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru notes, draft intemal memoranda, relevant Deliberative Process Anticipation of Litigation; —_ Improper P-011698 and | witness interview reports and grand jury | Investigative Privilege | Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P-012189 thru | material and attorney handwritten notes Contains information Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; P-012361 subject to privacy rights of Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under (gap was victims who are not 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; scanning parties to this Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized error) release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Box #3 File folder entitled “6/9/09 Signed 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-011699 Indictment” containing signed indictment Work product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru package dated 6/9/2009 with corrections Deliberative process Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-011777 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Page 37 of 69 EFTA00179659

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 39 of 70 Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections Box #3 File folder entitled “6/12/09 Victim Notif. Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-011778 Log” containing chart with victim contact Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru information and attorney notes regarding Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of P-011788 | dates and type of contacts Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 P-011789 Thru P-011879 File folder entitled “Breach Memo” containing memorandum analyzing breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement with attachments Work product Deliberative process Box #3 P-011880 Thru P-011922 File folder entitled “Overt Act Lists” containing handwritten notes cross- checking all overt acts alleged in draft indictment by victim and typed overt act summary charts for indictment preparation Work product Attorney-client privilege Deliberative process 6(e) Page 38 of 69 EFTA00179660

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

P-011923 Thru Box #3 Thru Description P-011966 P-011967 P-012016 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of 70 Victims’ Objections Folder entitled “Responses to Arguments Work product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; from JE Counsel” containing: Deliberative process Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- m@ 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann 6(e) Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Sanchez to Andrew Lourie with handwritten attorney (Lourie) notes; m@ 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and Marie Villafafia with handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes; m 6/25/2007 email from Andrew Lourie to Matt Menchel and Marie Villafafia entitled “Thoughts on Lefcourt’s letter” Handwritten and typed attorney (Villafafia) notes regarding main themes raised by pstein counsel Composition book entitled “Operation Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Leap Year” containing —attorney Investigative privilege Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in handwritten notes regarding investigation 6(e) Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper and case strategy Contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; victims who are not Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims parties to this litigation Page 39 of 69 EFTA00179661

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of 70 Victims’ Objections Box #3 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012017 | to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Thru Incorporated Memorandum of Law Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent P-012055 Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq. in Support of 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012056 Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Thru to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent P-012088 Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 United States’ Response to Motion of 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012089 Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Court Thru Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent P-012129 | to Compel Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Box #3 P-012151 Thru P-012167 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Investigative Privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Also contains information Anticipation of _Litigation; Improper subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual victims who are not Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); parties to this litigation | Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States’ Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Page 40 of 69 EFTA00179662

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 42 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted | Victims’ Objections Box #3 Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Support of United States’ Response to Investigative Privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Motion to Quash Subpoenas P-012170 Box #3 Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration 6(e) P-012171 | Number One in Support of United States’ Investigative Privilege | Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Also contains information | Anticipation of Litigation; | Improper P-012173 subject to privacy rights of Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual victims who are not Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); parties to this litigation | Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Box #3 P-012174 Thru P-012176 Draft of September 2009 letter from Marie Villafafia to Roy Black regarding breach of Non Prosecution Agreement — with handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Box #3 P-012177 Thru P-012178 Undated handwritten attorney (Villafafia) notes regarding _—negotiations ~—_ and allegations Page 41 of 69 EFTA00179663

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of 70 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Box #3 File Folder entitled “FBI GJ. Log” 6(e) P-012179 | containing copy of FBI grand jury Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru subpoena log with attorney (Villafafia) | Investigative Privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; — Improper P-012188 | handwritten notes Also contains information Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against subject to privacy rights of | Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable: Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Victims who are not parties to this litigation Box #3 File folder entitled “Key Documents” 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012362 containing correspondence between AUSA Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru and case agent regarding indictment Prep | Attorney-Client privilege | Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary P-012451 Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims questions, victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury material Box #3 P-012451 Thru P-012452 Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this litigation File folder entitled “Victim List” containing list of victims with dates of birth and age information Page 42 of 69 EFTA00179664

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted | Victims’ Objections Box #3 Complete indictment package marked Work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-012453 Thru P-012623 “Originals 12/12/07” Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; —_ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; —_ Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E): Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Deliberative process 6(e) Also contains documents subject to investigative privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this litigation Investigative Privilege Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this litigation Work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; — Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Overriding Need 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. Box #3 P-012654 Thru P-012864 Box #3 P-012865 Thru P-013226 3-ring binder entitled “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis” with attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes 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 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; —_ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA-authorized release; Material Severable; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Indictment preparation binder containing: witness/victim list with identifying information, sexual activity summary, telephone call summary chart, attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes, 302s, portions of state investigative file, attorney (Villafafia) typed notes, relevant pieces of grand “jury _—s 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 Page 43 of 69 EFTA00179665

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of 70 Victims’ Objections Box #3 April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Sloman Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013227 | to Office of Professional Responsibility re Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the Factual Materials; Court Compelled previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter Disclosure; Waiver to OPR Box #3 April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013226 to Office of Professional Responsibility re Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure; Thru Self Reporting Factual Materials; Waiver P-013230 Box #3 P-013231 Thru P-013239 Box #3 P-013240 Thru P-013247 Box #3 P-013248 Thru P-01325] April 22, 2008 Letter from A. Marie Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Villafafia to Office of Professional Factual Materials; Fiduciary Duty; Court Responsibility re Self-Report of Allegation Compelled Disclosure; Waiver of Conflict of Interest April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings: to Office of Professional Responsibility re Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure; Attorney-Client Privilege Self Reporting with attachments Factual Materials; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southem District of Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24 and August 29, 2011 Emails between Richard Sudder, Box #3 Assistant | Attorney-Client Privilege | No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013252 General Counsel, Executive Office for Ordinary Government Communication; No Thru United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Attomey-Client Relationship; Waiver P-013253 | Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, August 3, and August 24, 2011 Page 44 of 69 EFTA00179666

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of 70 Description Box #3 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant p-013254 General Counsel, Executive Office for Thru United States Attorneys, and Benjamin P-013257 | Greenberg, 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 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Greenberg, 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 Email from Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, to Wifredo Ferrer (U.S. Attorney, SDFL), Robert O’Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), Benjamin Greenberg, (FAUSA, SDFL), and Lee Bentley (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24, 2011. CC’s David Margolis (ODAG), Jay Macklin (USAEO), Thomas Anderson (USAEO), Michelle Tapken (USAEO), US. Box #3 P-013258 Thru P-013259 Attorney: Box #3 P-013260 Thru P-013262 Page 45 of 69 Privilege(s) Asserted Attorney-Client Privilege -Client Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege Victims’ Objections No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver EFTA00179667

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 47 of 70 Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Work Product Box #3 P-013263 Thru P-013271 Emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, regarding recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated July 29, 2011, with attached memorandum from A. Marie Villafafia to Benjamin Greenberg summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Emails between Peter Mason, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Dexter Lee, Southern District of Florida, seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Box #3 P-013272 Thru P-013278 Attorney-Client Privilege |No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Factual Materials; Waiver Suppl. Box #3 | 8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and | Attorney-Client Privilege | Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013279 A. Marie Villafafia, R. Senior, D. Lee Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru and K. Atkinson re proposed Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation P-013280 of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; — Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need: Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of _Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz Suppl. Box #3 | Handwritten note re Epstein investigation Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Investigative privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not Page 46 of 69 EFTA00179668

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of 70 Victims’ Objections Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Redaction; No Assertion by Victims Privilege(s) Asserted - Oo — Suppl. Box #3 | 7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to | Attorney-Client Privilege | No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013282 A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and Work product Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- Thru FBI re proposed response to Goldberger Deliberative Process Misconduct; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attomey-Client Relationship; _ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attomney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver P-013283 letter re victim notification 7/10/08 Emails between J. Sloman and A. Marie Villafafia, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger’s letter e victim notification Suppl. Box #3 P-013284 Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process File folder entitled “8/5/08 AMCV e- No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Suppl. Box #3 Attorney-Client Privilege P-013285 mail re correct agrmt” containing 8/5/08 Work Product Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- Thru email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Deliberative Process Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; P-013289 Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; —_ Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Atkinson re “Jeffrey Epstein Agreement” discussing 6/24/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Page 47 of 69 EFTA00179669

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of 70 Victims’ Objections Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Attorney-Client Privilege Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “8/14/08 E-mail from P-013290 Lefk to AMCV” containing (undated) Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thru emails from A. Marie Villafafia to R. in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary P-013292 Senior, J. Sloman, A. Acosta, K. Government Communication; No Attorney- Atkinson, D. Lee re draft response to 8/14/08 email from J. Lefkowitz ardii proposal” File folder entitled “8/15/08 AMCV e- mail re Agrmt” containing 8/15/08 e- Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Suppl. Box #3 P-013293 Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Thru mails from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Deliberative Process Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of P-013299 Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Litigation; Ordinary Government Atkinson, D. Lee re follow up on Communication; No Attorney-Client Agreement and from A. Acosta to Ann Marie Villafana on issue of Special Master with attached 8/15/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K. Atkinson, R. Black, M. Weinberg re Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson, R. Black re interpretation of Agreement; email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafafia, K. Atkinson re questions re Agreement; email from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson re production of Agreement to victims Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “8/18/08 Lefkowitz Ltr P-013300 to AMCV” containing A. Marie Thru Villafafia’s handwritten draft notes for Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticip: ation; Ordin ation of Litig Attorney-Client Privilege Page 48 of 69 EFTA00179670

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of 70 proposed letter to J. Lefkowitz; 5/22/07 e- Government Communication; No Attorney- mail from A. Lourie to M. Menchel, J. Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Sloman, A. Marie Villafafia re meeting Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney with G. Lefcourt with attached email from Conduct at Issue; Waiver G. Lefcourt re solicitation for meetings P-0133303 File folder entitled “6/25/07 Lefcourt to Suppl. Box #3 Attorney-Client Privilege | Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013304 Sloman & Lourie containing 6/25/07 letter Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thru (with handwritten notes by A. Marie in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary P-013325 Villafafia) from G. Lefcourt to J. Sloman, Government Communication; No Attorney- M. Menchel, A. Lourie, A. Marie Villafafia addressing reasons for not prosecuting Epstein; handwritten outline by A. Marie Villafafia of possible response to letter File folder entitled “9/17/07 Villafafia Client Relationship Suppl. Box #3 Attomey-Client Privilege | Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013326 | Lefkowitz containing 9/17/07 e-mail from Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, A. Lourie Litigation; Ordinary Government P-013329 and from R. Garcia to A. Marie Villafafia Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor: Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government concerning status of plea negotiations Suppl. Box #3 P-013330 Thru P-013333 File folder entitled “11/8/07 Lefkowitz Sloman” containing 11/8/07 letter from J. Lefkowitz re issues arising during pendency of matter with attomey handwritten notes Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “11/13/07 Sloman to P-013334 | Lefkowitz (was this sent?)” containing Thru draft 11/13/07 letter from J. Sloman Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Attorney-Client Privilege Page 49 of 69 EFTA00179671

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of 70 P-013337 Privilege(s) Asserted responding to J. Lefkowitz’s letter Work Product Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need: Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “12/6/07 Sloman to [Not considered N/A P-013338 Lefkowitz” containing 12/5/07 faxed letter privileged. Will be Thru w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. produced to opposing 013341 Lefkowitz to A. Acosta counsel upon lifting of File folder entitled “12/05/07 Starr to Acosta” containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafia Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 Thru P-013350 Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attommey Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “12/21/07 Lefkowitz Attomey-Client Privilege P-13351 Acosta” containing handwritten notes by Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not Thru A. Marie Villafajia, 12/21/07 letter in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary P-013361 from J. Lefkowitz to A. Acosta re Government Communication; No Attorney- performance of NPA and appeal to Washington with attorney handwritten notes 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) Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-F; raud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Und pinnings; Suppl. Box #3 P-013362 Thru P-013366 Attomey-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process File folder labeled Suppl. Box #3 “Draft _Itr_from | Attorney-Client Privileg Page 50 of 69 EFTA00179672

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736- Description P-013367 Thru P-013372 Agreement Suppl. Box #3 Suppl. Box #3 | File folder labeled Suppl. Box #3 P-013508 Suppl. Box #3 P-013515 Thru Villafafia re comp Sloman to Lefkowitz re termination” containing draft letter dated “April , 2008” from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz concerning the compliance with the File folder labeled “6/3/08 Sloman Senior, A. Marie Villafafia, K. Atkinson, re Jeffrey Epstein, detailing events concerning the Agreement and thereafter and with relevant attachments File folder labeled “Internal Corr.” containing 11/28/07 e-mails from J. notification with attachments Draft 11/30/07 letter from A. Acosta to K. Starr co’d to J. Sloman and A. Marie liance with A: KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of 70 Victims’ Objections Fiduciary Duty; Not Litigation; Ordinary Communication; No Relationship: Claims Privilege(s) Asserted Work Product Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; Attorney-Client Privilege P-013373 Submission to the DAG” containing Deliberative Process Thru 6/3/08 letter from J. Sloman to Mark Work Product Litigation; Ordinary P-013503 Filip, Office of the DAG, cc’d to R. Investigative privilege Communication; No Waiver “Mtg w/ Ken Starr, Attorney-Client Privilege P-013504 RAA, JS, Drew” containing handwritten Work Product Thru notes by A. Marie Villafafia Litigation; Ordinary P-013507 Communication; No Relationship; | Claims Conduct at Issue; Waiver Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Thru Sloman to A. Marie Villafafia re P-013514 responding to 11/28/07 e-mail from J. Litigation; Ordinary Lefkowitz to J. Sloman regarding victim Communication; No Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Page 51 of 69 greement in Antici in Anticipation of Against — Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Waiver Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not pation of Litigation; Ordina Government Attorney-Client Government Attorney-Client Government Attorney-Client Government Attorney-Client EFTA00179673

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“aS 9:06-Cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of 70 Victims’ Objections Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Factual Materials Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Inadequate Log: No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Description and internal emails from J. Sloman, A. Acosta, and A. Lourie re items to address in letter Privilege(s) Asserted Deliberative Process P-013525 5/23/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to K. Atkinson re draft proposed internal e-mail about handling of case and attached email correspondence between Andrew Lourie and G. Lefcourt Suppl. Box #3 P-013526 Thru P-013527 Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 Work Product P-013528 Thru P-013530 Handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafana dated 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 Suppl. Box #3 | Typed note addressed to P-013531 response to grand jury subpoena P-013532 Thru P-013537 6(e) Investigative privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation: Overriding File folder labeled “Notes Re Post- Agreement Communications” containing Suppl. Box #3 P-013538 Thru Page 52 of 69 EFTA00179674

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia Deliberative Process Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Attorney-Client Privilege P-013553 Suppl. Box #3 | File folder labeled “E-mails Re Plea No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013554 | Negotiations” containing: Work Product Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Not in Anticipation Thru Deliberative Process of Litigation; | Ordinary | Government @ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final Decision A. Marie Villafafia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; m 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, R. Garcia, K. Atkinson re negotiating strategy, with attached correspondence; m 9/18/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, A. Lourie, R.Ga m 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta re negotiation; m 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, A. Acosta, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re negotiations; m 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, A. Lourie re negotiation strategy; m 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman, A. Acosta, R. Garcia, A Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball re proposed plea agreement and Information Page 53 of 69 EFTA00179675

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 _ Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of 70 M™ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman, A. Acosta, A Lourie, R Garcia, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan, S. Ball re plea negotiations M@ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Atkinson, S. Ball, J. McMillan re indictment package; @ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust agreement with attached correspondence @ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re trust agreement M@ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia, J. Sloman re conference call with J. Lefkowitz; @ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re plea negotiations with attached correspondence; @ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie a | Villafafia to A. Lourie re charging strategy with attached correspondence; 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to K. Atkinson, S. Ball, J. McMillan re indictment package; 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Garcia, K. Atkinson, A. Lourie re plea negotiations; Page 54 of 69 EFTA00179676

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of 7 a 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re meeting w/ G. Lefcourt with attached correspondence; w 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie re revised Agreement with attached correspondence; m@ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman re non- prosecution agreement edits with attached correspondence; m@ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Oosterbaan re status of negotiations with attached correspondence; m 9/10/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman re negotiations; 9/10/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Sloman, J. McMillan re state grand jury proceedings; @ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Acosta to A. Marie Villafafia, R. Garcia, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, J. McMillan re draft Agreement with attached correspondence; @ 9/14/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. Marie Villafafia, A. Acosta, R. Garcia, A. Lourie, K. Atkinson, S. Ball, re finalizing documents; @ 9/14/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafia re chargi Page 55 of 69 EFTA00179677

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“ase 9:08-Cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of 70 |Description SS™S™~S |Description SS™S™~S tion with attached correspondence; ™@ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to A. Marie Villafafia re setting up trust fund; @ 9/13/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafia re final negotiations with attached correspondence; ™@ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafia re scheduling a meeting regarding finalizing the agreement with attached correspondence; ™@ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. MarieVillafafia re non-prosecution agree @ 9/11/07 e-mail from J. Sloman to A. MarieVillafafia re non-prosecution agree: ™@ 9/11/07 e-mail from A. Oosterbaan to A. Marie Villafafia re negotiations with attached correspondence; @ 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Garcia A. Lourie re negotiation Strategy Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “{] Target Letter” 6(e) Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013609 | containing copy of signed letter and Investigative Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru contact info for counsel for target Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-013615 Need; Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Proper Victim’s Petition; CVRA- authorized release; Material Severable Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “Atty Notes re | Attorney-Client Privilege | Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013616 Revised Indictment” containing Deliberative Process Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Page 56 of 69 EFTA00179678

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of 70 Work Product Investigative Privilege Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not arties to this litigation Work product Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney- Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Thru P-013621 Description handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia File folder entitled “Research Re Possible Misdemeanors” containing attorney research Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 P-013622 Thru P-013643 Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “Notes Re Plea| Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013644 Negotiations” containing 9/17/07 e-mail Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Factual Materials; Not in Thru from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Richards, N. Deliberative Process Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary P-013653 Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and| Investigative privilege | Government Communication; No Attorney- typed handwritten notes by A. Marie | Also contains information | Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Villafafia re items to be completed on | subject to privacy rights of | Overriding Need; Claims Against Public case, strength of case, victim interviews, victims who are not Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver summary of evidence, guidelines parties to this litigation calculations File folder entitled “Plea Agreement Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box #3 Attorney-Client Privilege P-013654 Drafts” containing several draft plea Work Product Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru agreements some with handwritten notes Deliberative Process Litigation; Ordinary Government P-013745 by A. Marie Villafafia; copies of draft Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; non-prosecution agreement some with handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia; copy of a draft Information Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 | File folder entitled “Draft Non-!| Attorney-Client Privilege Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-0013747 Prosecution Agreements” containing Work Product Fiducia: Duty; Not in Anticipation of Page 57 of 69 EFTA00179679

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of 70 Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attomey Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials Thru P-013810 Suppl. Box 3 P-013811 Thru P-013833 several draft non- prosecution agreements Deliberative Process some with handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia; plea sheet State Circuit Court; copies of draft Information; draft plea proffer; draft motion and order to seal; draft penalty sheet; draft plea agreement File folder entitled “Information Packet Attomey-Client Privilege Drafts” containing several drafts of Work Product Informations, and complete draft Deliberative Process Information packet Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Two pages of filed document, D.E. 62, page 2 of 54 and page 6 of 54, containing handwritten attorney notes Suppl. Box3 | Palm Beach Daily News Article, Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013836 “Attorneys want Jeffrey —_ Epstein Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Thru Agreement Thrown Out,” with Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney P-013837 attorney’s notes written on margi Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 | Letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013838 | Ferrer, December 10, 2010, Subject: Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Thru Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney P-013841 Prosecution, with underlines, written notes, Conduct at Issue and comments by DOJ attorne Suppl. Box 3 from Dexterr Lee to Ruth Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013842 | Plagenhoef (OPR), February 25, 2011, 4:31 pm., Re: request for OPR Investigation - Jeffrey Epstein Non- Prosecution Agreement Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; — Attorne Atty-client privilege Page 58 of 69 EFTA00179680

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of 70 Bates Range | Deseription Cond at sue ________ Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie, Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013843 Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson, atty-client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Thru P-013844 September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., RE: Plea Agreement Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box 3 P-013845 Thru P-013846 Suppl. Box 3 P-013847 Thru P-013849 Conduct at Issue E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Villafana, September 19, 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with internal U.S. Attorney’s Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Office e-mails attached Conduct at Issue E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Lourie, Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson, Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public September 18, 2007, 11:43 a.m., RE: Draft Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Agreements?, with e-mail from Jay Conduct at Issue Waiver Lefkowitz (September 18, 2007, 11:09 a.m.) attached E-mail, Marie Villafana to Alex Acosta, Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Andrew Lourie, Rolando Garcia, Karen Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Crime-Fraud- Atkinson, and John McMillan, Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public September 18, 2007, 9:31 am., RE: Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Epstein Negotiations Conduct at Issue E-mail, Marie Villafana to Rolando Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Garcia and Andrew Lourie, September Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public 17, 2007, 10:35 a.m., RE: Epstein Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Suppl. Box 3 P-013850 Suppl. Box 3 P-013851 Thru P-013853 Suppl. Box 3 P-013854 providing update re plea negotiations Conduct at Issue Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007, E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue 7:54 p.m.), attached Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman Atty work-product equate Log; No Factual Und Page 59 of 69 EFTA00179681

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-Ccv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of 70 Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government ; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue P-013855 Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, P-013856 September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein, Thru with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September P-013857 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 | Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, P-013858 September 6, 2007, 9:29 a.m., Re: Meeting on Frida and Andrew Lourie, September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Atty-client privilege Atty work-product Atty-client privilege atty work-product Suppl. Box | Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Marie [Not considered 3 Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy privileged. Will be N/A P-013859 | Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein produced to opposing Through counsel upon lifting of P-013860 sta Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013861 Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p-m., RE: atty-client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (uly Ordinary Government Communication; No P-013865 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013866 p.m.), attached No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Atty work-product Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3, 2007, 6:26 a.m., RE: Epstein Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013867 Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p-m., RE: Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Page 60 of 69 EFTA00179682

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 62 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted P-013868 Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58 Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21, Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product 2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached P-013869 Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m., RE: Epstein E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Villafana, May 24, 2007, 9:25 a.m., FW: Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32 p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Menchel, Jeff Sloman, and Marie Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie, Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; May 14, 2007, 10:52 a.m., RE: Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue 14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached Suppl. Box | Inadvertently marked as privileged, will 3 P- be produced 013874 Page 61 of 69 Suppl. Box 3 P-013870 Thru P-013871 Suppl. Box 3 P-013872 Suppl. Box 3 P-013873 EFTA00179683

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

vase 9-UG-CV-80/36-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of 70 Description Through P-013875 Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia, and Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013876 Atkinson, September 19, 2007, 4:33 p.m., Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against Thru RE: Draft Plea Agreement, with e-mail Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney P-013877 from Lefkowitz to Villafana (September Conduct at Issue 19, 2007, 3:44 p.m.), and Lefkowitz to Villafana (September 19, 2007, 3:35 p.m.) attached E-mail, Lourie to Villafana, September 19, Atty work-product 2007, 4:21 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mails from Villafana to Lourie and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 4:13 p-m.), Villafana to Lourie and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 4:05 p-m.), and Lourie to Villafana and Garcia (September 19, 2007, 3:50 p.m.), Villafana to Lourie (September 19 2007, 2:36 p.m.), Lourie to Villafana (September 19, 2007, 2:33 p.m.), and Villafana to Lourie and Garcia ptember 19, 2007, 2:31 p.m.), attached E-mail, Villafana to Lourie,Garcia, and Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Atkinson, September 18, 2007, 11:43 Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; a.m., RE: Draft Agreements?, with e-mails Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue from Villafana to Lourie, Garcia and Atkinson (September 18, 2007, 11:18a.m.), Page 62 of 69 Suppl. Box 3 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013878 Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Thru Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney P-013879 Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013880 Thru P-013882 EFTA00179684

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 64 of 70 No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Privilege(s) Asserted Atty work-product Suppl. Box 3 E-mail, Villafana to Acosta, Lourie, P-013883 Garcia, Atkinson, and McMillan, September 18, 2007, 9:31 am., RE: Epstein Negotiations E-mail, Villafana to Garcia and Lourie, Atty work-product September 17, 2007 10:35 a.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from Garcia (September 17, 2007, 10:26 a.m.), E-mail, Marie Villafana to Andrew Atty work-product Oosterbaan, September 13, 2007, 8:10 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from Andrew Oosterbaan (September 13, 2007, 7:54 p.m.), attached E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman and Andrew Lourie, September 10, 2007, 5:24 p.m., RE: FBI Suppl. Box 3 P-013884 Thru P-013886 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013887 Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against —_ Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Email, Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ro privileged. Will be Page 63 of 69 Atty work-product Atty-client privilege Suppl. Box 3 P-013888 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, September 6, 2007, 5:47 p.m., RE: Epstein, with e-mail from Jeff Sloman (September 6, 2007, 5:35 p.m.), attached Atty work-product Atty-client privilege Suppl. Box 3 P-013889 P. Email, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, atty work-product September 6, 2007, 9:29 a.m., Re: Meeting on Friday Suppl. Box 3 P-013891 Suppl. Box 3 EFTA00179685

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 65 of 70 Victims’ Objections Privilege(s) Asserted P-013892 | Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein produced to opposing Through counsel upon lifting of P-013893 sta Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013894 Menchel, July 13, 2007, 3:14 p-m., RE: atty-client privilege Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July Ordinary Government Communication; No P-013898 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached E-mail, Marie Villafana to Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, Karen Atkinson, and Shawn Ball, July 3, 2007, 6:26 a.m., RE: Epstein E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Menchel, June 21, 2007, 3:24 p-m., RE: Meeting Next Week, with e-mails from Menchel to Villafana (June 21, 2007, 2:58 p.m.), and Villafana to Menchel (June 21, 2007, 1:37 p.m.), attached E-mail, Marie Villafana to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, and Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Karen Atkinson, June 18, 2007, 5:04 p.m., Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; RE: Epstein Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Marie Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Villafana, May 24, 2007, 9:25 a.m., FW: Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie (May 23, 2007, 5:00 p.m.), Andrew Lourie to Gerald Lefcourt (May 22, 2007, 6:32 p.m.), and Gerald Lefcourt to Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana, and Lilly Ann Page 64 of 69 Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013899 Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013900 Thru P-013901 Suppl. Box 3 P-013902 Suppl. Box 3 P-013903 Fiduciary Duty; Waiver; Claims Against Thru Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney P-013904 Conduct at Issue EFTA00179686

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 66 of 70 Privilege(s) Asserted attached Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Andrew Lourie to Matthew Atty work-product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Menchel, Jeff Sloman, and Marie Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Villafana, May 22, 2007, 3:11 p.m., FW: Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Jeffrey Epstein, with e-mail from Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Lefcourt to Lourie, Villafana, and Lilly Ann Sanchez (May 22, 2007, 2:05 p.m.), attached P-013905 E-mail Menchel to Villafana and Lourie, Atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; May 14, 2007, 10:52 am., RE: Operation Leap Year, with e-mail from Villafana to Lourie and Menchel (May 14, 2007, 10:38 a.m.), attached Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Claims Against Inadvertently marked as privileged, will Suppl. Box 3 P-013906 Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P- be produced 013907 Through P-013908 Suppl. Box 3 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013909 Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Privilege; atty work- Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Office of Professional Responsibility product Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; Final P-013911 (OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting Decision; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings: Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Subject: Recommendation Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: Recommendation, with handwritten note dated 5/4/11 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Deliberative Process Page 65 of 69 Deliberative Process Privilege, atty work- product Suppl. Box 3 P-013912 Thru P-013914 EFTA00179687

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 67 of 70 Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims’ Objections P-013915 Counsel, OPR, to Ruth Plagenhoef, Privilege; atty work- Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Thru Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, Subject: product Factual Materials; Improper Invocation; P-013918 Recommendation, with two post-it notes Waiver; Final Decision; Claims Against Public attached with handwritten attorney notations, and handwritten notations, underlines, and circled text throughout the body of the two page memorandum Draft letter, marked “Confidential”, from Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 Deliberative Process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; P-013919 Robin C. Ashton, Counsel, Office of Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru Professional Responsibility to Wifredo A. Attomey Work Product | Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-01392] Ferrer, United States Attorney, with Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; handwritten corrections, strikethroughs, and added text Draft Letter, marked Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final Decision Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 “Confidential”, from Deliberative Process P-013922 Robin C. Ashton, to Wifredo A. Ferrer, Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru with handwritten corrections Attorney Work Product Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-013924 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 | Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Deliberative Process Inadequate Log: No Factual Underpinnings; P-013925 Professor Paul G. Cassell, with Privilege Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Thru handwritten correction Attorney Work Product Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding P-013927 Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Suppl. Box 3 P-013928 Thru P-013930 Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections, circled text, Suppl. Box 3 P-01393] Thru P-013933 Page 66 of 69 EFTA00179688

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 68 of 70 Suppl. Box 3 P-013934 Thru P-013936 Suppl. Box 3 P-013937 Thru P-013939 Suppl. Box 3 P-013940 Thru P-013942 Suppl. Box 3 P-013943 Suppl. Box 3 P-013944 trike Draft Letter, marked “Confidential,” from Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections Draft Letter, Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten corrections Draft Letter, marked “Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,” Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections E-mail, Ruth Plagenhoef to Lisa Howard, May 5, 2011, 11:19 a.m., RE: Re-write of Epstein letters for your review, with e-mail from Lisa Howard to Ruth Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 11:08 a.m.), and Plagenhoef to Howard (May 5, 2011, 11:10 am.), and Howard to Plagenhoef (May 5, 2011, 10:41 a.m.), attached E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 5, 2011, 11:17 a.m., RE: Re-write of Epstein lett your review, with e-mail from Howard to ag 5, 2011, 11:08 Privilege(s) Asserted Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Deliberative Process Privilege Page 67 of 69 Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor: Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Crime-Fraud- Misconduct; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver; Final Decision; Factual Materials No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Final Decision; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Final Decision; Waiver EFTA00179689

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 69 of 70 Description Privilege(s) Asserted Plagenhoef to Howard (May 5, 2011, 11:01 a.m.), and Howard to Plagenhoef May 5, 2011, 10:41), attached Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard, May 4, Deliberative Process P-013945 2011, 5:01 p.m., RE: draft letters in Epstein Privilege matter, with e-mail from Howard to Plagenhoef (May 4, 2011, 4:57 p-m.), attached E-mail, Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton, May 4, 2011, 4:08 p.m., RE: FYI on the Florida matter No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need Law Enforcement investigatory record, atty work product; deliberative process privilege No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Final Decision; Waiver No Factual Underpinnings; Suppl. Box 3 P-013946 Suppl. Box 3 | E-mail, Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef, May 3, | —atty work product; law Fiduciary Duty; P-013947 | 2011,12:23 p.m., RE: OPR Inquiry — enforcement Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; request for information, with post-it note investigatiory Not in Anticipation of Litigation; Improper attached with handwritten attorney notes record Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Factual Materials; Final Decision Fiduciary Duty; on telephone call between Plagenhoef and Howard with Dexter Lee and Marie Villafana E-mail, Plagenhoef to Howard and Robin Suppl. Box 3 atty work-product No Factual Underpinnings; P-013948 C. Ashton, May 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m., FW: Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Thru OPR Inquiry — request for information, Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding P-01395] with attached e-mails. Handwritten Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue attorney notes on margin E-mail, Dexter Lee to Ruth Plagenhoef, Suppl. Box 3 atty work-product; atty- | No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; P-013952 March 16, 2011, 10:52 a.m., RE: Referral client privilege Ordinary Government Communication; No Thru of Cassell Request for Investigation, with Attorney-Client Relationship; Claims Against P-013953 e-mail from Paul Cassell to Dexter Lee and Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Marie Villafana (March 15, 2011, 7:21 Conduct at Issue p.m.), attached E-mail, Plagenhoef to Neil Hurley, OPR: Page 68 of 69 Inadequate Log; No Factual Unde: pinnings; EFTA00179690

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 70 of 70 Victims’ Objections Fiduciary Duty; Crime-Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Ordinary Government Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Material Severable; Crime- Fraud-Misconduct; Factual Materials; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct At Issue. December 16, 2010, 10:59 a.m., FW: OPR client privilege Referral — Allegation of Misconduct — U.S. Attorney’s Office, $.D.Fla., with e- mail from Dexter Lee to Plagenhoef (December 16, 2010, 10:22 a.m.), attached. Handwritten attorney notations. Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on Case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys P-013954 Thru P-013955 Suppl. Box 3 atty work-product P-013956 Thru P-013846 Page 69 of 69 EFTA00179691

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

EFTA00179692

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Casi e 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 10 not to provide legal advice or assistance to the police officers but rather to provide the city with information relating to alleged indiscretion within the department). Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established. Any attorney-client privilege has not been properly invoked because the Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attorney, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle vy. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). B._ Deliberative Pro Privil e Privilege Not Properly Invoked — Any deliberative process privilege has not been properly asserted, because it must be asserted by the head of the department having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. E-D.LC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Final Decision Exempted from Privilege - Any deliberative process privilege would only cover only the processes by which a decision was made, not the final decision itself. See, e.g., NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-52 (1975). Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents — Any deliberative process privilege would be a qualified privilege, which would be overridden by the victims’ compelling need to obtain the materials here. See, e.g., Newport Pac., Inc, v. County of San Diego, 200 F.R.D. 628, 638-41 (S.D, Cal. 2001) (in action charging county Board of Supervisors with violating Federal Fair Housing Act, the interest in free expression by policy makers during the deliberative process leading up to those actions was outweighed by the litigant’s interest in obtaining information concerning those deliberations). C. Investigative Privile: EFTA00179693

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 10 Privilege Not Properly Invoked — Any investigative privilege has not been properly asserted, because it must be asserted by the head of the department having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir, 2000). Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents — Any investigative privilege would be a qualified privilege, in which the public interest in nondisclosure must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access to the privileged information. Tuite v, Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Work Product Doctrine. No Work Product Doctrine in the Context of a Claim Against Public Prosecutors — The work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated their public responsibilities under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See US. v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (refusing to extend work product privilege to public accountants, because they have ‘a public responsibility transcending any employment relationship with the client”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d at 919-21 (“the strong public interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill- served by recognition of a governmental attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal proceedings inquiring into the actions of public officials.”), EFTA00179694

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 10 Qualified Privilege Overridden By the Victims’ Need for the Documents — The work product doctrine is a qualified privilege that can be overcome where a litigant shows it has a substantial need for the materials and that it has exhausted other means of obtaining the relevant information it seeks. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 185-86 (2d Cir. 2007). The victims here can make this showing. Work Production Privilege Does Not Apply When the Attorney’s Conduct is at Issue — If the attorney’s conduct is a central issue in the case, the work-production protection does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D, 127, 130 (M.D.N.C, 1989). E. Rule 6(e)— Grand Jury Sec Court-Authorized Disclosure Not Covered Under Rule 6(e)(3)(E) — The Court can authorize disclosure of grand jury materials pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c)(3)(E). It has already authorized disclosure of grand jury materials here, and the Government has no independent “privilege” to interpose against court-ordered disclosure of grand jury materials. The Court Has Inherent Power to Release Grand Jury Materials — The Court has “inherent power beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)(3) to disclose grand jury material” and has properly exercised that power here. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1347 (1 Ith Cir. 2004). Victims Have Properly Petitioned for the Release of Grand Jury Materials — A litigant can petition for release of grand jury materials. Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F). The Court has properly granted the victims petition for release of the materials. They have also concurrently-filed such a petition. EFTA00179695

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736- The CVRA Gives the Court Authority to Release Grand Jury Materials — The Court is obligated to enforce crime victims’ rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (b)(1) (the court “shall ensure” that crime victims receive their rights), This obligation carries with it authority to release necessary materials to protect victims’ rights, including grand jury materials. Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials — The Government can redact grand jury information from the requested materials, and produce the remaining materials. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 280 (3rd Cir. 2006). Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns. The Government cannot withhold materials in this case because of the privacy rights of other victims when it has the simple option of simply redacting the names and identifying information of these other victims before producing the materials. The Government has already followed this procedure elsewhere and should do so here, See, e.g., Bates 000966-67 (materials about victim “B.B.”). No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims. Several of the victims cited by the Government are represented by undersigned counsel and do not wish to interpose privacy rights here. Nor has the Government established that they can assert the privacy rights of other victims. G. The Privacy Act The Privacy Act Does Not Apply in the Context of Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). CONCLUSION Because the Government's assertions of privilege are not well-founded, the Court should provide all of the documents the Government submitted for in camera inspection to the victims. 7 KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 10 EFTA00179696

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 10 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards _. Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00179697

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following using the Court’s CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perezek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading@royblack.com (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G, Weinberg, P.C, 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw@att.net (617) 227-3700 (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00179698

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 I. UNITED STATES / Sse AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida, Along with co-counsel, | represent Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as “the victims”) in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney’s Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government’s assertions of privilege to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case. This affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the Government’s assertions of privilege are not well founded, It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining the information. Background Regarding Unsuccessful Efforts to Reach Sti ulate Government 3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well-known to the Court. For purposes of this affidavit regarding privileges, it is enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to reach a stipulated set of facts with the Government — efforts that the Government has blocked. 4. The Court first held a hearing on victims’ petition on July 11, 2008, The Court discussed a need to “hav[e] a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that’s ... going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, [so it] may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government’s is as to what actions were taken.” Tr. at 25-26. The Court concluded the hearing with the following instructions: “So I’ll let both of you confer about whether there is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.” Tr. at 32. Facts with the 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 EFTA00179699

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9;08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 5. The victims and the U.S. Attorney’s Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts, and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the victims’ specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney’s Office suddenly reversed course. On July 29, 2008, it filed a Notice to Court Regarding Absence of Need for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 17). The U.S. Attorney’s Office took the following position: “After consideration, the Government believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary” (DE 17 at 1). The Office asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. 6. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's “Notice,” giving a proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. DE 19 at 5. The victims’ response also requested that the Court direct the Government to confer with the victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case, and produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information about the case. Jd. at 14. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The Court ultimately ordered production of the agreement to the victims, 7. After the U.S. Attorney’s Office made the non-prosecution agreement available to the victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Ultimately, however, the U.S, Attorney’s Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts with the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. 8. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other ways. In approximately May 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in both state and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement — information that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to the victims’ civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce that information, and (as the Court is aware) extended litigation to obtain the materials followed. The Court rejected all of Epstein’s objections to producing the materials. 9. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for the victims approximately 358 pages of e-mail correspondence between criminal defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. See DE48-Attachment I/Exhibit A. These e-mails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been taken by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein and the Government. While the Court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence authored by the Government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. 10. In mid-July 2010, Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 settled their civil lawsuits against Epstein. Then, armed with the new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the Court that they were preparing new filings in the case. 11. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, counsel for the victims again contacted 2 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 64 EFTA00179700

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 64 the U.S. Attorney’s Office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. That same day, the U.S. Attorney’s Office responded: “We don't have any problem with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred” (DE 41 at 2). 12. On October 23, 2010, the victims e-mailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office a detailed proposed statement of facts, with many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Epstein’s counsel. The victims requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office identify which facts it would agree to, In a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the victims stated: If you believe that any of the facts they propose are incorrect, Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 would reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us to arrive at a mutually-agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of 2008 Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 were working with you on a stipulation of facts when you reversed course and took that position that no recitation of the facts was necessary (see doc. No. 19 at 2)... . I hope that your e-mail means that you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the Court could well help move this case to a conclusion, That same day, the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review (DE 41 at 2-3). 13. On October 26, 2010, rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney’s Office contacted the victims’ attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a two- week period of time so that negotiations could be held between the Office and the victims in an attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and to hopefully reach a settlement resolution without the need for further litigation. Negotiations between the victims and the U.S. Attorney’s Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11 p.m. on October 27, 2010 — the date on which the victims’ pleading was due — the U.S. Attorney’s Office informed the victims that it did not believe that it had time to review the victims’ proposed statement of facts and advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The Office further advised the victims that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their Office under the CVRA in this case because in its view the case is “civil” litigation rather than “criminal” litigation (doc. No. 41 at 3).' 14. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, on October 27, 2010, the victims filed a report with the Court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts for up to two-weeks to see if negotiations can resolve (or narrow) the disputes with the U.S. Attorney’s Office (DE 41 at 4). Discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jane Doe No. | and the U.S. Attorney in December 2010. ' In seeming contradiction to this position, on March 17, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office informed the victims that it would not be making any initial disclosures to the victims as required for civil cases by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not explain why they believe that this rule of civil procedure is inapplicable if they think this case is properly viewed as a “civil” case. 3 EFTA00179701

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 64 15. After further discussions failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the victims informed the U.S. Attorney’s Office that they would file their “summary judgment” motion with the Court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the Office on the facts, 16. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. Attorney’s Office informed counsel for the victims that — contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts — no such stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo A. Ferrer, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any agreement on the facts: Because, as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed, your requests for the government's agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is, because whether the rights in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) attach prior to the filing of a charge in a federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation, resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts, other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agrecing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute at issue . . Letter from Wifredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell (March 15, 2011), 17. Accordingly, unable to work with the Government to reach a resolution of the facts, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging 53 undisputed facts along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. DE 48. The victims also filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of the Government’s failure to contest their facts. DE 49. The victims also filed a motion to have the Court direct the Government to not withhold relevant evidence. DE 50, 18. Following a hearing on the motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that the CVRA was inapplicable in this case because the Government had never filed charges against Epstein. DE 99. The Court, however, rejected the victims’ argument that it should accept their facts because of the Government’s failure to contest the facts. DE 99 at 11. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of requests for admission and document production requests, Jd. at 11. The Court reserved ruling on the victims’ motion that the Government should be directed not to withhold evidence. 19. In light of the Court’s order, on October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production with the Government. The requests included 25 specific requests, each of which linked very directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in this case. 20. On November 7, 2011, the day when the Government's responses were due, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims’ petitions. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government’s motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the Court that “the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even 4 EFTA00179702

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv during th DE 140 -80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 64 e pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information.” at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the Government of that statement made to the court. 21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied the Gove! rnment’s motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, the Court entered an order granting the victims’ motion to compel and directing the Government to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE 190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must “clearly identify[] each document{] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter... .” DE 190 at 2. 22. On J uly 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein’s motion to stay production of these materials, With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question, The documents that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the victims’ own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (¢.g., Bates 00142-88, 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., Bates 0008- 10, 0012-14, 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (¢.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed issues in this case. 23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims’ own pleadings, see, e.g., Bates 000671-000711 (copy of the victims’ redacted summary judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would likely fa ll into an “irrelevant” category of documents, they have simultaneously refused production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests on the basis of relevance. 24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims’ central allegations in this case. A copy of the victims’ requests for admissions and the Government's responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently tried to p' ursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. EFTA00179703

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer employed by the Justice Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Acosta, who both have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. Both of them have ignored my letters, The Need for the Materials 26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October 3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material, This section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. For the convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 201 1, request for production is attached to this Affidavit, Also attached is the victims’ supplemental discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific paragraphs in the victims’ previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23, 27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims’ proof of their claims is, at this point in the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: “Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle [the victims] to that relief fof setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record.” DE 189 at 11-12. The Court has further indicated that it will be considering an “estoppel” argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument “implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the Jederal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli.” DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added), The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show what the “entire interface” was and to respond to the Government’s estoppel arguments, as well as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g, DE 62 (52-page response from the Government to the victim’s summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually- based and other arguments against the victim’s position). 28. Request for Production (“RFP”) No. I requests information regarding the Epstein investigation, These documents are needed to support the victims’ allegations that the Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. 29. RFP No, 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These documents are needed to support the victims’ allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their 6 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 64 EFTA00179704

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 64 right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the non- prosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. 30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other victims. See, e.g, DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately causing the Government’s CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13. 31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein’s victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8. 32, REP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein. These documents are needed to prove the victims’ allegation that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein’s efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9. 33, RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government’s and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims’ allegations that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, 11. They are also relevant to bias and motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case. 34, REP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government’s awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove the victims’ allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13, 35, REP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein’s lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a 7 EFTA00179705

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18, These materials also are needed to establish the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. 36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that “this case is currently under investigation.” These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the Government's “estoppel” defense, as noted in the Court’s order DE 189 at 12 n.6. 37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims’ allegations that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the case — inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s negotiations with Epstein, If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case — a central point in the victims’ argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan — something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S. Attorney’s Office was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific allegations in the victims’ summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. 38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a non- prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment motion, See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18, 39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to me (Bradley J. Edwards) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived as well. See, e.g, DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent Position that it disclosed the “existence’ of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't Answers to RFA § 13(d) (“The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the hon-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein’s defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential.”), 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 64 EFTA00179706

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 40, REP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the Government’s and Epstein’s awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims’ full knowledge of what was happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. 41. REP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims’ allegations that the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at 14-18,and to contradict what appears to be the Government’s position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov’t Answers to RFA § 13(b) (claiming that “the USAO had communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea.”). These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, @.g., Gov't Answers to RFA § 13(d) (Government denying request that it admit that “Epstein’s defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the agreement”). 42. REP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a “corrected” notification letter on about September 3, 2008 — months after Epstein had pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement in that inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. 43. REP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was present in the U.S. Attorney’s Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: “| never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter.” DE 79-1 at 3 (4 12). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them, Additionally, I learned through public record that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein’s personal business address. However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart’s sworn statement. Since then, however, in answering the victims’ Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov’t Answers to RFA’s § 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart 9 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 64 EFTA00179707

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 64 filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information about the case that is being concealed as well. 44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims’ summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart). 45. Reinhart’s affidavit with the Court also states: “Because I did not have any, I did not share non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein’s attorneys.” DE 79-1 at 4 (§ 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false as well. Given that Mr, Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein’s business address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney’s Office, and that Mr. Reinhart ultimately represented several of Epstein’s co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is highly relevant. 46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left his job at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Gov’t Answers to RFA’s 4 16. As stated above, Reinhart left the U.S. Attorney’s Office to Start a private firm that was located in the same address as Epstein’s personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. 47. Information about Reinhart’s connections to Epstein is critical to the victims’ allegations in this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would provide a motive for Reinhart (and other Prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not to confer with them. Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereof), that could be highly relevant to the remedies stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider, in crafting a remedy, Epstein’s culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise. 48. Evidence concerning Reinhart’s connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a reason to encourage others in the U.S, Attorney’s Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than the one he was entitled to. 49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if Requests for Admission, the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and another Prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel. Answers 10 EFTA00179708

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 64 to Requests for Admission at 420. The Government should be required to disclose all of those documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. REP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justice Department to determine whether “improper influences” were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See Bates P- 013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein prosecution would support the victims’ allegations that they were not being properly notified. Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case — or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be critical to supporting the victims’ case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process. 51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a year after the victims’ request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it “regret[ted] it could not be of assistance” in providing information about the allegations. 52, REP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S, Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida was “conflicted out” of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein, It appears that the conflict of interest that has been recognized may have to do with the Office’s treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters, (It appears that this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims’ discovery requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant to determining whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office has provided complete production to the victims. A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. 53, REP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched “a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors.” This information is needed to explain 11 1. Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of EFTA00179709

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD 64 why the U.S. Attorney’s Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were, then they would have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and bias. 54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the non- Prosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly informed that Epstein’s plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for crimes committed against them. 55. RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims understand that the Government is Prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims’ claims that the conspiracy between Epstein and federal Prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli.” DE 189 at 12 n.6, 56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney’s Office would not have properly notified the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the victims’ summary judgment motion. See, e.g. DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein pushed the U.S. Attorney’s Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public criticism). 57. RFP No. 23 asks for documents that will assist Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA. This request links to the Government's obligations under the CVRA to use its “best efforts” to protect victims’ rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). The direct connection between this request and the victims’ case is self-explanatory. 58. RFP No. 24 request correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the Government had with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that these materials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, this information is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein 12 Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of EFTA00179710

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Ca se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 64 investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that investigation. 59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled. 60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI, grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to proving the victims’ allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's “estoppel” argument. This information would also show motive and bias. Inadequate Privilege L 61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court’s order in this case. I have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government’s assertions of privilege because of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. 62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that “clearly identiffies] each document{] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter... .” DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to meet this requirement. 63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in the log, covering Box No. | (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents, DE 212-1. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: “File folder entitled ‘CORR RE GJ SUBPOENAS’ containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney (Villafafia) handwritten notes.” 64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P-012362 through P-012451). The Government asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90 pages is: “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 materials.” 65, There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the government’s privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government’s privilege log. 66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with producing a privilege log that complied with the Court’s directives. At all times relevant to this case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that I sent to the Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden. Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim 13 EFTA00179711

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of 64 67. Many of the Government’s privilege assertions require factual premises — such as the existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its privilege assertions. 68. An illustration of this problem is found on page | of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: “7/10/08 emails between J. Sloman and A. Maric Villafafia, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger’s letter re victim notification.” The log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was involved. 69. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege log and the victims responsive log. Waiver of Confidentiali 70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. 71. An illustration of waiver found on page | of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: “7/08/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger’s letter re victim notification.” The log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but were also sent to the “FBI.” (This is another illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 72. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216- 1), with regard to supplemental box No, 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: “File folder labeled ‘Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew’ containing handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafafia.” Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorney- client privilege. 73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013644 through P-013653). The entry here reads: “File folder entitled “Notes Re Plea Negotiations” containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to J. Richards, N. Kuyrkendall re status update; undated and typed handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafaiia re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, 14 EFTA00179712

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 64 summary of evidence, guidelines calculations.” The Government is asserting attorney-client privilege regarding this e-mail, I understand the reference to “Richards’ and “Kuyrkendall” to be references to FBI agents — not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, the attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. The Government’s Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege 74. 1 am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a “fiduciary exception” (also known as the “Garner exception” in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. Specifically, because they were recognized “victims” under the CVRA, the Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions with the victims. 75, The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI determined that both Jane Doe No. | and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. ‘These sexual assaults involved use of means of interstate commerce (i.¢., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department’s investigation of Epstein. 76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. | a standard CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its “best efforts” to protect Jane Doe No. 1’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 in the district court involving... plea... .” The notification further explained that “a]t this time, your case is under investigation.” 77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard CVRA victim notification letter, The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its “best efforts” to protect Jane Doe No. 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 in the district court involving... plea... .” The notification further explained that “[a]t this time, your case is under investigation.” 78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several meetings with Jane Doe No. 1. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims’ rights under the CVRA. 79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosecution agreement was signed between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No, 1 was contacted to be advised regarding the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was recognized as a “victim’ of Epstein’s crime. 15 Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of EFTA00179713

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of 64 ; 80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed by the victims’ compelling need for the material, 81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page | of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: “7/08/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re Proposed response to Goldberger’s letter re victim notification.” In responding to defense attorney Goldberger’s letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims’ interests, Accordingly, the Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed by the victims’ compelling need for the materials, 82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 16 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The entry reads; “File folder entitled ‘Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights’ containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz.” Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case ~ what kind of notifications were made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications, Moreover, in evaluating victims’ rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the victims have arisen in this case, Communications Facilitating Crime-Frau -Misconduct Not Cove 83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting privilege would fall within that exception. 84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the Government’s privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a non- prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the non- prosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a representative of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the agreement to the victims, 85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters from the FBI advising them that “[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.” The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe No. | or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S, Attorney’s Office for the 16 EFTA00179714

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 64 Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.) 86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 contacted the FBI because Epstein’s counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafafia secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. | and several other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able to assist Jane Doe No. 1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafafia secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims’ Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter. 87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the USS. Attorney’s Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that “/t/his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.” The statement in the notification letter was deceptive because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. 88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafia to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. 1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA Villafafia and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, AUSA Villafafia asked me to send any information that | wanted considered by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in determining whether to file federal charges. I was not informed that previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had reached an agreement not to file federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney’s Office withheld this information from me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement. At this point it is clear that AUSA Villafana was restricted in what she was being permitted to tell me. 89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client’s desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein, In particular, I wrote on behalf of my clients: “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.” When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact that continued to be concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S, Attorney’s Office. I only learned of this fact later on. 90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case, deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed 17 EFTA00179715

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 64 non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted, 91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: “File folder entitled ‘12/05/07 Starr to Acosta’ containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafia.” Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve discussions between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense attorneys about notifications to crime victims. And given the dates of the communications, in all likelihood they would be related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. 92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is found on page | of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P- 013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: “7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification.” These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and Epstein’s defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret, 93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to information that the Government Possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public information about the Epstein case. This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government’s (inadequate) privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. 94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potentially apply is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew Menchel has a personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov’t Answers to RFA’s § 20. This could potentially show misconduct by Menchel, and also potentially a motive to violate the victims’ rights as explained previously, The Government’s privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution, See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have information suggesting that immediately after leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Menchel was associated with Epstein- controlled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced. 95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component — the Office of Professional Responsibility — has collected information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA $22 (government admits that “The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about . . . other government attorney’s [apart from Bruce Reinhart’s] possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter”). The fact that the Government's own investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie EFTA00179716

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv- 64 case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to various privileges. Factual Materials Not Privil 96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is asserting privilege are factual materials. Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege 97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any event, the Government has failed to carry ifs burden of showing that the privilege applies. 98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two pages of documents reads: “File folder entitled ‘Information Packet Drafts’ containing several drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet.” It is impossible from this description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide many other illustrations of the problem. 99. The Government’s attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was ina fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves “File folder entitled ‘12/05/07 Starr to Acosta’ containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K, Starr and from J, Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafia.” This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it goes directly to “victim notification.” Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the Government and Epstein’s attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could ethically apply to such documents. 100, As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an “estoppel” argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument “implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli.” DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to 19 80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 19 of EFTA00179717

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 20 of 64 information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the Court to provide these documents to the victims. 101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, | respectfully request an Opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm, Deliberative P: 102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with regard to the Epstein case. This investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the US, Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, Florida, At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr, Ferrer, asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C. 103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear, What is clear is that many documents are being withheld about that investigation — documents that would go to the central issues in this case. Approximately three whole Pages of the privilege log — pages 12 through 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) — relate to the OPR investigation of how the Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated. 104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR decision. It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the inadequacies of the Government’s privilege log, whether that final decision has been produced). Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: “Draft Letter, marked ‘Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,’ Robin C, Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections,” No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also noteworthy that this letter is described as a “draft” letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was “draft” and what was “final.” If this is the final embodiment of OPR’s conclusions, then this letter would not be protected by a “deliberative process” privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its 20 EFTA00179718

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 64 documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.) 105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does | and 2, and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could significantly shortcut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR “needed” the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims’ claims, then logically the victims share that “need” and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, | respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Investigative Privilege 106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party secking the discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case. On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims have requested. 107, With regard to factor (1) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), | represented four victims of Epstein’s sex offenses in Federal Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a victim I will refer to as “S.R.” and “MJ”, and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse as well. If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing information, but rather will encourage them. | have also talked personally to attorneys for a number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case. 108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims. Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein’s victims and that information has 21 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 21 of EFTA00179719

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 22 of 64 not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their identities to be disseminated, 109, With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by the Government with its CVRA obligations, Accordingly, the Government’s “program” of providing victims’ rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights in this lawsuit, 110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary), many of the items that the victims seeks are factual summaries, An example of this is found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P- 011788. The entry reads: “File folder entitled ‘6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log’ containing chart with victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts.” This would include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be purely factual information. [11. With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question), Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) who has undertaken several “limited” intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of information to the victims, 112. With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity. 113. With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen asa direct result of the victims’ efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct, then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as appropriate. substantial claim that is brought in good faith. 115. With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other Sources), as recounted throughout this affidavit, the victims have no other way to obtain the information at issue in this privilege debate, as it involves information internal to the Justice Department. Il. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government 22 EFTA00179720

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv- 80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 23 of 64 is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government’s alleged “estoppel” defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute. Work-Product Doctrine 117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. 1 will not repeat all of those assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor. 118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to OPR inves! tigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney’s involved. These interviews appear to be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic — apparently should be P-013970, a total of 14 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would be factual statements from Justice Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department has declined to provide information on this subject. 119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production requests numbers | through 25 and supplemental request number 1. 120. As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an “estoppel” argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument “implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities deliberate and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentatio (emphasis n of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli.” DE 189 at 12 n.6 added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection go directly to that “interface” between the victims, the Government, and Epstein, The victims have no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if the materials are provided to the victims. Grand Jury Information 121. The victims’ legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information. Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials. 23 EFTA00179721

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 24 of 64 122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE 212-1), with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: “File folder entitled ‘FBI Summary Charts’ containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment,” This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other information provided to the victims, 123, It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues, Moreover, it does not appear that disclosing any of the materials would “tip off” a potential target to a Government investigation. Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. 124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an Opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. Priv ights of Other Victims 125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying information about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government stating, in part, that “to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead redact that information.” eek H I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edwards BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 3. Victims’ Requests for Admissions and Government Answers 24 EFTA00179722

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 25 of 64 EXHIBIT 1 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179723

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 26 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs 1 UNITED STATES, Defendants / Se JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING IN ORMATION RELEVANT TO T COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (“the victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter “the Government”) to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court’s Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case, BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims’ “summary judgment motion”) along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government’s Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims’ motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the EFTA00179724

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 27 of 64 factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved ruling on the victims’ motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant evidence (DE 99 at 11). On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. Accordingly, the victims now seck the following information relevant to their pending summary judgment motion. The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. 1. In the victims’ currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him, In deferring ruling on the victims’ summary judgment motion, the Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s “investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on ‘overwhelming’ evidence.” DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an allegation that needed “further factual development.” DE 99 at 2 n.2, Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims’ allegations, including: (a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case; (b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein or receive from Epstein as part of “discovery” or exchange of information concerning the case; (c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against children by Jeffrey Epstein; (d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a “pros memo”) outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal EFTA00179725

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 e on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 28 of 6 . offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor or predecessor document; and (e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these prosecution memoranda and the draft federal indictments. 2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney’s Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached, Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but not limited to): a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein’s offenses; b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations between the Government and Epstein’s defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein’s victims; c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, and Epstein’s defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein’s victims; d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding “marching orders” that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement; e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein’s awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court) or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting with the Government. 3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom. EFTA00179726

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 29 of 64 4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein’s victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach). 5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein’s efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement, 6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the Government’s and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or victim objections. 7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the non- prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government’s awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims. 8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal (including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein’s lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy Black on his behalf. EFTA00179727

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 30 of 64 9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that “this case is currently under investigation.” Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications being made to the victims. 10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney’s office about the status of the case. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these allegations, including: a) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussions between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI concerning the status of the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein; b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s representations to the FBI and any other state or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI would support the position of the U.S. Attorney’s Office that it has not violated the rights of Epstein’s victims in this case. 11. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents), Related to these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June 2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim’s Law Institute (NCVLI concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLL 12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement, The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result of the attorney’s inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent. EFTA00179728

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docum 64 13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27, 2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding: a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered; b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty, including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of crimes Epstein had committed against them. 14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information about the Government’s and Epstein’s efforts to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and correspondence about “declining comment” or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret. 15, In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times, it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 9, 2008, the USS. Attorney’s Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a “corrected” notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information about these notifications, including: a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include some mention of the non-prosecution agreement, b) any information about the contents of these notifications; c) any communications between the Government and Epstein’s counsel regarding what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft; d) Any communications between the Government and Epstein’s counsel about which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether Part 3 was operative); e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein’s counsel regarding the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and f) any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement. 16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office joined Epstein’s payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein’s criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement ent 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 31 of EFTA00179729

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD D 64 reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including: a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart’s involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart’s involvement in and/or awareness of the Government’s i i Witness, subject, or target of ini igation, i i Ghislaine Maxwell, Larry Mo Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, and any other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation; d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for example, e- mails) that ied to, or sent by Reinhart in which the word “Epstein,” ” “Morrison,” “Visoki,” “Rogers,” “Hammond,” Roxburgh,” ilafana, ” “Florida Science Foundation,” “Starr,” “Black,” “Goldberger,” “Jeffrey,” “Australian,” ml “Sanchez,” “358 El Brillo Way” appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecutio ; e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example e- mails) of a similar nature that indicate that any other Government prosecutor has represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) has had any form of business, social, personal, or other relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; and g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that any Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly from Jeffrey Epstein or a Person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity). . 17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether “improper influences” were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of ‘ocket 08/16/2013 Page 32 of EFTA00179730

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225- 64 Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide: a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims’ letter; b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected as part of OPR’s inquiry/investigation; c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207) d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR’s inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution; e) Any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart’s sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that he “did not participate in any way in the Office’s investigation of Epstein;” that he “was not involved in any of the Office’s decisionmaking with regard to the Epstein matter;” and that he “never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter;” f) Any documents, correspondence, or other information regarding the circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on the Epstein case; g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of or following up on the victims’ December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein case; and h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution. 18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the USS. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was “conflicted out”, or may be conflicted out, of handling various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney’s Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 33 of EFTA00179731

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 34 of 64 were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be investigated, 19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched “a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors,” Shortly thereafter, Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or contradicted such allegations. 20, In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein’s guilty plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008, Please provide all documents, 21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence in the possession of the Government will support their claims, Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information between Government attorneys/officials (including both federal and state Prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on Epstein’s behalf) relating to (1) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein’s entry of state guilty pleas for related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the Government that barred his Prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein’s and/or the Government's obligations under the non- prosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other unredacted e-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors working on the case (including, but not limited to, federal prosecutors Alexander Acosta, Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andy Lourie, Ann Marie Villafana, Dexter Lee, and Bruce Reinhart and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward EFTA00179732

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Casi e 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 35 of 64 (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York), This should also include letters of recommendation or similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support for Jeffrey Epstein. 22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein generous concessions through the plea negotiations. Please provide any documents, correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing: (a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services, or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity; (b) Any offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment, business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties; (c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense; (d) Any consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law enforcement agencies in the past; and (e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect. 23. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), requires the Government to use its “best efforts” to protect the rights of crime victims. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this case because no indictment was filed. 24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the Government (i.c., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, and information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other countries, Epstein’s legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including e- mails) with those entities or persons. 25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time, EFTA00179733

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Do 64 the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). EFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are defined: The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, Statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications, The term “Epstein’s victims” means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein’s sex offenses, The term “Government” means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims’ claims. cket 08/16/2013 Page 36 of EFTA00179734

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 37 of 64 The term “including” means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. The term “witness statement” means any document or other recording in any form (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302’s. The term includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or Florida. NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation. PRIVILEGE LOG If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a “privilege log” consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and addressee of the document or correspondence. REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce any such burden, DATED: October 3, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com EFTA00179735

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 38 of 64 ; and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and E-Mail Transmission: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c. vill Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 RBlack@royblack.com Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al. Respectfully Submitted, S/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. EFTA00179736

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 39 of . 64 EXHIBIT 2 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179737

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 40 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs b. UNITED STATES, Defendants COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (“the victims), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter “the Government”) to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court’s Order (DE 99) directing discovery in this case, the Court’s Order denying the Government’s motion to dismiss and lifting stay of discovery (DE 189), and the Court’s Omnibus Order (DE 190): BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have repeatedly asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims? Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims’ “summary judgment motion”) along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), EFTA00179738

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-c 64 On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims’ motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved ruling on the victims’ motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant evidence (DE 99 at 11). On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide documents concerning this case, The Government declined to provide even a single document. On October 3, 2011, the victims sent requests for production of documents relevant to this case. On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of this discovery was due, rather than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims’ case. The Government also filed an accompanying motion for a stay in this case. On November 8, 2011, the Government filed an ex parte, sealed motion to stay further discovery in this case. (DE 121). On November 9, 2011, the Court granted an ex parte, sealed order to stay. (DE 123). On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government’s motion to stay. The victims strenuously objected to the Government’s approach, alleging specifically that “delay appears to be the Government’s motivation for filing the motion to dismiss.” DE 129 at 2. The victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to dismiss, concluding that “as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any ability to obtain discovery from the Government.” DE 129 at 2-3. The victims also filed a \y-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 41 of EFTA00179739

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Doi 64 protection motion to compel (DE 130) asking that the Court direct the Government to produce the requested materials. On January 24, 2012, the Government filed a reply in support of its motion to stay. DE 140, In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: “[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information.” DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not provide any information to the victims. A year after the Government’s motion to dismiss, on December 6, 2012, the victims filed a Motion for a Prompt Ruling Denying the Government’s Motion for a Stay (DE 179). The motion explained that it had been more than a year since the Government had filed its motion for a stay and that the Government’s refusal to produce any information continues to effective block the victims from learning what happened during the Government’s plea negotiations with the man who sexually abused them, The Government filed a response in opposition to that motion (DE 182), On February 25, 2013, counsel for the victims sent a request to the Government that, in view of that fact that its requested stay had never been granted, it should begin fulfilling its court-ordered discovery obligations: The victims believe that in view of fact that it has been more than fifteen months since the Government filed its motion for a stay of discovery and yet the Court has not granted that motion, the Court's discovery order is in effect and controlling. Accordingly, the victims respectfully request that by March 8, 2013, the Government produce all of the materials which is covered by the victims’ discovery requests. If the Government has not produced those materials by March 8, 2013, the victims may be forced to seck the intervention of the Court to order the Government to follow its obligations. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to set up a time where we can talk to you over the phone about all this. We are happy to work cket 08/16/2013 Page 42 of EFTA00179740

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08: 64 with you to try and minimize any unnecessary burden from your discovery obligations. E-mail from Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards to Dexter Lee, et al., Counsel for the Government (February 25, 2013). The Government ignored the e-mail and did not respond in any way. Accordingly, in view of the Government recalcitrance and refusal to even discuss its discovery obligations, on March 14, 2013, the victims filed a motion to compel production of discovery materials. The Government did not respond to this motion. On June 1, 2013, the Court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss. DE 189. That denial also lifted stay of discovery proceedings. DE 189 at 14 (“The stay of discovery pending ruling on the Government’s motion to dismiss entered on November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is also lifted.”), The Court also entered an Omnibus Order (DE 190) that, among other things, granted the victim motion to compel (DE 130). SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUEST The victims now request one specific item of supplemental discovery relating to information that, in large measure, has come into existence since they filed the first request for production of documents on October 3, 2011: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have asked the Government to investigate their allegations that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein for sexual offenses committed against them and other victims based on considerations apart from the merits of the criminal case and also that violations of criminal law, rules of ethics, Justice Department policies (including policies on crime victims’ rights), and the Crime Victims Rights Act occurred during the negotiations leading up to and surrounding the entry of the non-prosecution agreement. Please provide any information that the Government has developed concerning or relating to those allegations and the handling of the negotiations and consummation of the non-prosecution agreement, including any information developed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigative entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) allegations, including any grand jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the District of -cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 43 of EFTA00179741

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of 64 New Jersey, and/or the District of Columbia. For this one discovery request only, please include all relevant grand jury transcripts and evidence collected by the grand jury, DEFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are defined: The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. The term “Epstein’s victims” means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein’s sex offenses. The term “Government” means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims’ claims. The term “including” means containing within the request, but not limiting the request. EFTA00179742

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

64 The term “witness statement” means any document or other recording in any form (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302’s. The term includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or Florida. PRIVILEGE LOG If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a “privilege log” consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and addressee of the document or correspondence. REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN eee If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce any such burden. DATED: June 24, 201 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice §.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 45 of EFTA00179743

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 46 of 64 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00179744

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 47 of 64 EXHIBIT 3 To Brad Edwards Affidavit EFTA00179745

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 48 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No, 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs t UNITED STATES, Defendants —_—“—C/ JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2°S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERNING THE C ME VI COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (“the victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter “the Government”) to admit or deny the following facts: BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims’ “summary judgment motion”) along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government’s Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims’ motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved EFTA00179746

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736- 64 ruling on the victims’ motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant evidence (DE 99 at 11). The Court allowed the victims to propound requests for admission to the Government. DISCOVERY REQUESTED The numbered requests for admissions below should all be construed in light of the definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests. Where the request for admission has separate, lettered sub-parts, please admit or deny each separate sub-part: 1. The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein developed a case for a federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 1. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (*USAO”) conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 1. * The government’s response is confined to Request No. 1 through Request No. 26 in the “Discovery Requested” section of the Request for Admissions and does not intend to respond to assertions in any other section of the Request for Admissions (including the “Background” section), none of which appear to separately state any matter calling for an admission. Nonetheless, the government denies the assertion that the government has declined the request of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case, KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 49 of EFTA00179747

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Doc 64 2. Regarding notifications provided to victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s ket 08/16/2013 Page 50 of sexual abuse: (a) The U.S. Attorney’s Office negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein’s defense attorneys concerning the notifications to be provided to victims of UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Epstein’s abuse; 2. (a) The government admits that, after Epstein’s attorneys learned of the notification that the government planned Doe #2, who claimed that she was not a attorneys contacted the USAO and objected to to provide to Jane victim, Epstein’s the procedures for notification and the legal bases therefor. The government further admits that the USAO considered those objections when evaluating what notification to provide to victims. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(a). (b) _ It is not standard practice for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to negotiate with defense attorneys about the extent of notifications provided to crime victims; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (b) Admitted. (c) As a result of those negotiations or requests received from Epstein, the U.S. Attorney's Office stopped making notifications to some crime victims; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (©) The government admits that, as a result of objections lodged by Epstein’s attorneys, the government reevaluated the notifications that it had intended to provide to victims and, as a result of that reevaluation, the USAO altered the Scope, nature, and timing of notifications that it had contemplated providing to victims. With regard to Jane Doe #2, the government further admits that, as a result of representations made by Jane Doe #2 that she was not a victim and objections lodged by Epstein’s attorneys, the USAO stopped making notifications to Jane Doe #2. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(c). EFTA00179748

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document (d) The language used in 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 51 of 64 the notifications to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 «were affected by the negotiations with Epstein’s defense lawyers; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (d) The government admits that, after the USAO received objections to victim notifications from Epstein’s counsel and reevaluated its victim notification obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of Bradley Edwards. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d). (e) At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were not told that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was executed. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (e) The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged by Epstein’s lawyers to victim notifications, the USAO reevaluated its obligations to provide notifications to victims, and Jane Doe #1 was thus not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was signed. The government further admits that Jane Doe #2 was not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein until after the agreement was signed, but denies that the USAO did not inform Jane Doe #2 as a result of any negotiations involving Epstein or any objections lodged by Epstein’s lawyers; the USAO did not consider Jane Doe #2 a victim after she informed the USAO and the FBI that she was not a victim of any offense committed by Epstein, and, as a result, the USAO did not consider informing Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement, Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(e). 3. Because of a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it would have been a breach of the agreement for the U.S. Attorney’s Office to inform Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the terms of that non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of certain sex offenses. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 3. Denied. EFTA00179749

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 52 of 64 4. During its negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein’s defense attorneys, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was aware that publicly disclosing the hon-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein would likely have led to public criticism of the agreement. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 4. Denied. 5. During negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, it was the position of at least one experienced attorney within the U.S. Attorney’s Office that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act required notifications to the victims in this case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 5. The government admits that, during the negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein regarding the non-prosecution agreement, at least one experienced attorney within the USAO subscribed to the position that the CVRA required notifications to the victims in this case and that position was communicated to Epstein’s counsel. To the extent that Request No. 5 seeks admissions regarding the positions held by attorneys within the USAO that were not communicated to non-government personnel regarding whether or not the CVRA ultimately required notifications to the victims in this case, the government objects to Request No. 5 as violative of the deliberative process privilege. 6. The Justice Department Possesses documents, correspondence or other information reflecting contacts with the Department between May 2007 and September 2008 on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein by: UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (a) President Bill Clinton; Denied. (b) Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York); Denied. (c) Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz; Admitted (d) Ken Starr; Admitted. (e) Lillian Sanchez; Admitted to the extent that the reference to “Lillian Sanchez” was meant to refer to Lilly Ann Sanchez. (f) Jay Lefkowitz; Admitted and (g) Roy Black. Admitted EFTA00179750

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 53 of 64 7, On about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that “this case is currently under investigation,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office had already entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 7. The government admits that, on about January 10, 2008, when Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were sent letters advising them that “this case is currently under investigation,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office had already signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, but that, on that date, the non-prosecution agreement nonetheless remained in a state of some flux and was subject to being set aside as Epstein was challenging the propriety of the non-prosecution agreement and seeking further review from the Department of Justice. 8. In September 2007 when the U.S. Attorney’s entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, it did not inform FBI agents of the details of the disposition of the case in the way that it ordinarily informed them of dispositions of other cases. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 9. With regard to the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the Government: (a) Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to, a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (a) The government admits that, at Epstein’s insistence, the USAO agreed to a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that provided as follows: “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.” Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9(a). (b) In particular, the agreement stated: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record;” UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted EFTA00179751

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 54 of 64 (c) By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office put itself in a position that conferring with the crime victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement would violate certain terms of the agreement; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied (d) Even notifying the victims about the agreement would have violated the confidentiality provision; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied (e) From September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the U.S Attorney’s Office did not notify Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (c) The government admits that, during the period from September 24, 2007 through June 2008, the USAO did not notify Jane Doe #2 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits that, although FBI agents notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence and substance of the agreement at the request of the USAO on or about October 27, 2007, no employee of the USAO personally notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement during the period from September 24, 2007 through June 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 9e). 10. With regard to contact between the Government and the victims: (a) On about October 26, 2007, FBI agents met with Jane Doe #1; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 10. (a) Admitted. Because Request No. 10 appears directed solely to the communica- tions between FBI agents and Jane Doe #1 during their meeting on or about October 26, 2007, the government responses to Requests No. 10(b) through 10(g) address only that meeting. (b) The agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register as a sex offender, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1; EFTA00179752

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 55 of (b) (c) 64 UNITED STATES RESPONSE: The government admits that, on or about October 26, 2007, FBI agents explained to Jane Doe #1 that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges for procuring minors to engage in prostitution; that Epstein would be required to register as a sex offender; that Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to seek damages from Epstein; and that, if she desired, Jane Doe #1 would be entitled to use the services of an attorney at no expense to her in seeking those damages from Epstein. The government denies that the FBI agents explained that the state charges “involv[ed] another victim.” During this meeting, the agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal crimes committed against Jane Doe #1; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (c) The government denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 that an agreement had already been signed; denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 that the agreement resolved the investigation of the federal case involving Jane Doe #1; and denies that the FBI agents did not explain to Jane Doe #1 other terms of that agreement Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 10(c). (d) (e) (f) (g) The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied The agents themselves had not been informed of the existence of the provision in the non-prosecution agreement barring Epstein’s prosecution for various federal crimes or sex offenses at that time; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied Because the non-prosecution agreement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1’s view on the proposed resolution of the case; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied The agents never explained that the non-prosecution agreement would ultimately bring to an end the federal investigation in the case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied EFTA00179753

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 56 of 64 11. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter would have explained: “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... .” — Becaus of concerns from Epstein’s attorneys, the U.S. Office never _sent_the notification letter to the victims. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 11. The government admits that, on or about November 28, 2007, A. Marie Villafaiia of the USAO sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowitz, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, and that the draft notification letter stated, in part: “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 government further admits that, in part as a result of objections lodged by Epstein’s lawyers, the USAO reevaluated its obligations to provide notifications to victims, and, asa result of that reevaluation and other considerations and developments, the USAO never sent victims the draft notification letter that was sent to Jay Lefkowitz on or about November 28, 2007. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 11. 12. On July 3, 2008, when Bradley J. Edwards was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had already entered into a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 12. The government admits that, prior to July 3, 2008, the USAO had already entered a binding non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The government is without knowledge of precisely when “Bradley J. Edwards was working on a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office concerning the need to federally prosecute Epstein for sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2,” and, accordingly, the government denies the assertion that Edwards worked on that letter on July 3, 2008. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 12. 13, When Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, (a) Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. EFTA00179754

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docum UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 13. (b) (a) The government admits that, when Epstein pled guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, Jane Doe #2 had not been informed by the USAO of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The government further admits that, although the USAO, through FBI agents, had notified Jane Doe #1 of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally notified Jane Doe #1 at that time of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement, Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(a). The U.S. Attorney’s Office had not conferred with either Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (b) The government denies that, by the time of Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea, an attorney for the government working at the USAO had not already conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about their opinions regarding how the federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein should proceed. The government admits that the USAO had not conferred with Jane Doe #2 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea, The government further admits that, although the USAO had communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement through FBI agents prior to Epstein’s June 30, 2008 guilty plea, no employee of the USAO had personally conferred with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein’s guilty plea. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 13(b). (c) Epstein’s defense attorneys were aware that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had not conferred with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (c) Although the government was aware that Jane Doe #2 had been represented by counsel paid for by Epstein, the government is unaware of the extent of Epstein’s defense attorneys’ awareness of the USAO’s communications with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 about the agreement, as described in the responses to Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), and therefore can neither deny nor admit Request No. 13(c). Except as otherwise admitted above and in the responses to Requests No. 13(a) and 13(b), the government denies Request No. 13(c). ent 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 57 of 64 EFTA00179755

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9;08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 58 of 64 (d) —_ Epstein’s defense attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the agreement, UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (d) The government admits that Epstein’s attorneys negotiated with the USAO for a provision in the non-prosecution agreement that ultimately provided as follows: “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.” Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No, 13(d). 14. When Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Epstein’s defense attorneys were working to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 14, The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein’s defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non- prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 14. 15, Defense attorney Bruce E. Reinhart: (a) learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 15. (a) The government admits that, while Bruce E. Reinhart was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter, (b) discussed the Epstein matter with an attorney working on the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: (b) The government admits that, while Bruce E, Reinhart was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he discussed the Epstein matter with another Assistant US. Attorney working on the Epstein matter, EFTA00179756

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 59 of 64 (c) was involved in decision-making with regard to the Epstein matter. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 16. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs and emails) reflecting contacts between Bruce E. Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein (including Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lily Ann Sanchez) before Reinhart left the employment of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. 17. The Government possesses information (including telephone logs or emails) reflecting contacts between Bruce E, Reinhart and persons working at or for the Department of Justice or United States Attorney’s Office that related to Jeffrey Epstein or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and other potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. 18. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs or photographs or emails) reflecting improper communication or influence made or attempted with the Government, on Jeffrey Epstein’s behalf by: (a) Guy Lewis UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. (b) LilyAnn Sanchez UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied. 19, The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. Attorneys and/or Assistant US Attorneys. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 19. To the extent that Request No. 19 is directed to the business or personal relationships of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and over 5,400 Assistant U.S. Attorneys serving across this country, or the countless individuals who have formerly served as U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S, Attorneys throughout this nation, the government objects to Request No. 19 as overly broad and burdensome and not calculated to lead to or involve information relevant to the instant matter. EFTA00179757

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 60 of 64 The government denies possessing or having any knowledge or information about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and either the U.S. Attorney or any Assistant U.S. Attorney serving in the Southern District of Florida, Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 19, 20. The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, 2 22. photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Matthew Menchel. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted. . The government possesses, or has knowledge or information (including telephone logs, photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta, UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about: (a) Bruce Reinhart’s possible involvement in the Epstein matter; UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted (b) Other government attorney’s possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter; and UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted (c) A conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida handling issues relating to the Epstein matter. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Admitted EFTA00179758

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 61 of 64 23. The non-prosecution agreement signed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the U.S. Attorney’s Office from prosecuting sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 23. The government admits that the non-prosecution agreement signed by the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein currently blocks the USAO from prosecuting sex offenses committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, provided that those offenses are set out on pages 1 and 2 of the non-prosecution agreement, were the subject of the joint investigation by the FBI and the USAO, or arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 23. 24. The Justice Department possesses information that Epstein, himself or through his attorney’s or acquaintances, has provided or offered to provide to the federal government (or an individual within the Government, in his official or private capacity) valuable consideration, UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 24. Admitted; Jeffrey Epstein provided valuable consideration to the federal government through the non-prosecution agreement he entered with the USAO. 25. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility’s investigation/inquiry into alleged misconduct relating to the negotiation and consummation of the Epstein non- prosecution agreement has relevance to issues pending in this case. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 26. The Government possesses evidence, not covered by grand jury secrecy rules, that reveals that districts outside the Southern District of Florida share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against Jane Doe #1 and/or Jane Doe #2. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: 26. The government objects to Request No, 26 because it seeks information protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigative privilege. EFTA00179759

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2 64 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of construing the foregoing discovery requests, the following terms are defined: The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind. The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications. The term “Epstein’s victims” means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein’s sex offenses. The term “Government” means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims’ claims. The term “including” means containing within the uest, but not limiting the request. zg ig req q 013 Page 62 of EFTA00179760

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 63 of . 64 The term “U.S. Attorney’s Office” means the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and includes all branch offices within the Southern District of Florida. PRIVILEGE LOG If you believe that any request for admission is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a “privilege log” consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include a specific identification of the privilege being asserted and the basis for the privilege. Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G, Cassell Pro Hae Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S, 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on December 1, 2011, on the following persons via US Mail and electronic mail to: Dexter A. Lee A, Marie Villafafia EFTA00179761

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0 64 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafa: Attorneys for the Government 8/16/2013 Page 64 of EFTA00179762

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 10 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 Fk. UNITED STATES / a JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED EFTA00179763

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 10 COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to turn over to them numerous documents that to which the Government has asserted various privileges. All of the Government’s assertions of privilege are not well founded, for the reasons described in this pleading, and the Court should provide all of the documents to the victims.' The factual support for the arguments found in this memorandum is contained, inter alia, in the attached affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. The victims have also concurrently filed itemized objections to the Government’s privilege log. Inadequate Privilege Log — The great bulk of the Government’s privilege assertions do not comply with the Court's requirement that the privilege log must “clearly identify{] each document{] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter... .” DE 190 at 2. As a result of the Government's failures, it is impossible to even begin to determine which of the Government's assertions of privilege are valid. Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim — Most of the Government’s privilege assertions rest on factual underpinnings (e.g., an attorney-client relationship is at issue, a deliberative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle I McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown I City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 ' Should the Court allow the Government to assert privilege with regard to any of the materials, the victims would then be free to argue that, as a remedy for the Government’s assertion of privilege, the Court should preclude the Government from denying the claims by the victims that would have been supported by the withheld information. See, e.g., Attorney General of the U.S. I Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 1 EFTA00179764

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 10 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (government failed to prove attorney-client relationship), aff’d, 56 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir, 1995). Waiver of Confidentiality — Some of the Government's assertions of privilege fail because it is clear that any confidentiality was waived by the presence of persons outside the confidential relationship. For example, some of the assertions of attorney-client privilege involve documents and correspondence sent to person outside of any attorney-client relationship. Government’s Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege - The Government cannot invoke privilege in the context of a Crime Victims’ Rights Act petition because it owes a fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use “best efforts,” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), to protect their rights. See Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 644 F.3d 221, 226-27 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that the attorney-client privilege does not apply “in the context of fiduciary relationships” 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 Covered — Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v, Administrator US. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) (applying exception to work product claim). Such an exception applies to the facts of this case. Factual Materials Not Covered — Any privilege would only cover materials reflecting the confidential relationship, not factual materials. See, e.g., EPA v, Mink, 410 U.S, 73, 87-88 (1973) (“memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material . . . and severable from its 2 EFTA00179765

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08- context would generally be available for discovery by private parties in litigation with the Government.”), Many of the materials at issue are factual materials, Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation — The work product doctrine (as well as the investigative privilege) only applies to documents prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, not to documents prepared in the ordinary course of business, pursuant to regulatory requirement, or for other non-litigation purposes. Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 644 F.3d 221, 231 (4th Cir. 2011), Many of the documents at issue here were not prepared in anticipation of litigation, and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See, e.g, Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in connection with case at hand), Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered — A general attorney-client privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 916-21 (8th Cir, 1997). Only communications concerning legal services covered — Any attorney-client privilege would be limited to communications made for purposes of facilitating the rendition of legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond y. City of Mobile, 86 F.R.D. 324 (D. Ala. 1978) (attorney-client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city attorney while conducting the internal investigation where the purpose of the investigation was Cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 10 EFTA00179766

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1 UNITED STATES / JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2’°S RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, to renew their Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50). The Court has previously reserved ruling on this motion. DE 99 at 11. In light of the Governments’ recent decision to assert that thousands of pages of documents are privileged — and to produce a privilege log in a manner and format that makes it impossible to understand what kinds of documents have been produced, or even whether the Government has responded to each request at all — the Court should now grant the motion. By granting the motion, the Court would simplify and expedite these proceedings and largely or entirely avoid the need for a document-by-document review of the Government’s privilege assertions and the victims’ responses to them. BACKGROUND As the Court is aware from the victims’ previous filing of this motion (see DE 50 at 1-3), in discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane EFTA00179767

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08: Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was material and favorable to the victims’ case. Victims’ counsel pointed out that, if they were criminal defense attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims’ counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would provide to criminal defendants — i.¢., to voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was favorable to the victims’ CVRA case. In response, victims’ counsel were informed by the Office that it could — and would — withhold from the victims such information, apparently on the theory that the CVRA does not apply to this case or on the theory that victims lack due process rights under the CVRA. Accordingly, on March 21, 2011, the victims filed a motion asking the Court to enter an order directing the Government to produce information in its possession favorable to them. DE 50. The Government filed a response in opposition. DE 59. The victims filed a reply. DE 76. After a hearing on this and related motions, on September 26, 2011, the Court agreed to allow factual development through discovery by the victims. DE 99 at 11. The Court allowed the victims to file requests for admission and for production of documents (and potentially other discovery requests as well). Jd. The Court then noted: “Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on [the victims’] motion [for an order directing the Government not to withhold relevant evidence].” Jd. -cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 18 EFTA00179768

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 3 of 18 On October 3, 2011, the victims filed requests for production with the Government. On November 7, 2011, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims’ petition. DE 119. On that same day, the Government filed a motion to stay discovery. DE 121. The victims filed a response, arguing that the Government’s motion was a stall tactic. DE 129. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all of their discovery requests. DE 130. The Government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the Government told the Court that “the United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information.” DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the Government did not produce any information to the victims, Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, the Court entered an order granting the victims’ motion to compel and directing the Government to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE 190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must “clearly identify[] each document[] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter... .” DE 190 at 2 (emphasis added), EFTA00179769

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 18 On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production in this case. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein’s motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the victims’ own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88, 00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., Bates 0008-10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly four hundred pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves had already received. Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed issues in this case. On the other hand, the Government asserted privilege on 13,468 pages of materials. While many of these pages also do not appear to go to the disputed issues in this case, buried among the documents appear to be some highly pertinent materials. The Government has asserted privilege, for example, with regard to its internal discussions about notifications to crime victims. The Government has also asserted privilege with regard to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the 4 EFTA00179770

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 18 treatment of the victims. It is, however, difficult to say for certain which documents are important, because rather than comply with the Court’s privilege log requirement, the Government provided only a truncated log that did not fully describe the documents at issue, much less “clearly” identify the subject matter of the documents and the parties who received them.' The Government has also failed to identify which documents it is producing go to which document production requests. DISCUSSION The victims have previously explained at length why the Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold relevant documents. DE 50; see also DE 59 (Gov't Response); DE 76 (victim’s reply). The Court reserved ruling on that motion for an uncertain amount of time. The victims will not repeat their previously-advanced arguments here, but simply incorporate them by reference and respectfully suggest that now would be a propitious point in this case for the Court to take up the motion again — and to grant the motion. Doing so would save the Court and the victims considerable amount of time by narrowing (or even eliminating entirely) the number of privilege issues that would need to be resolved. In addition, the victims wish to advance three new arguments in support of their motion for such an order based on new developments in this case since they filed their motion. First and most important, the Government’s response to the Court’s discovery order is so fundamentally inadequate that the Court should simply not allow further litigation but provide the documents to the victims by granting their motion. Second, the Court should also grant the victims’ motion ' Further factual information that may be relevant to this motion is found in the contemporaneously-filed Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, attached to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged. 5 EFTA00179771

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 18 because the Government's fiduciary obligations to the victims to use its “best efforts” to protect their rights conflict with its privilege assertions. Specifically, assertion of any privilege is inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that flow from that statutory “best efforts” requirement, Third, the Government’s recent admissions and privilege log make clear that significant “Brady” material exists. Accordingly, the Court should no longer reserve ruling on the victims’ motion but instead should simply order these highly relevant materials to be produced now, just as it would order the Government to produce highly relevant materials to criminal defendants. L THE COURT SHOULD SIMPLY PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS TO THE VICTIMS BECAUSE OF THE GROSS INADEQUACIES OF THE GOVERNMENT’S PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS. The Government has grossly violated the Court’s order to provide an appropriate privilege log in connection with the disputed documents. In light of that stark failure, the Court should simply grant the victims’ pending motion regarding suppression of evidence and produce the disputed documents to them. As the Court is well aware, it has denied repeated efforts by the Government to block the victims from receiving relevant information about this case. In its most recent order (DE 190), the Court directed the Government to either produce “all other responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of document” to the victims or “file and serve, in the public portion of the court file, a privilege log clearly identifying each document{] [withheld] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter... .” DE 190 at 2 (emphasis added). Government then made its production. But rather than provide helpful information to the victims, the Government instead has provided information that was essentially irrelevant to the disputed issues. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards at 5. 6 EFTA00179772

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 7 of 18 More important with regard to this motion, the Government has not begun to comply in a meaningful way with a discovery process that would permit the victims to obtain information relevant to their claims. Of course, the purpose of a privilege log “is to provide a party whose discovery is constrained by a claim of privilege . . . with information to sufficient to evaluate such a claim and to resist if it seems unjustified.” Tuite v, Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1416 (D.C, Cir. 1996). Reinforcing that command, this Court required the Government’s privilege log to “clearly” indicate what materials were covered, The Government has not begun to provide the victims with sufficient information to resist claims of privilege. One of the most basic problems with the Government's action is that it is not identified which of the “privileged” documents apply to which of the victims’ document production requests. Instead, the Government has simply taken more than 13,000 pages of documents, Bates stamped them in no particular order (or at least no order that the victims can discern), and then asserted that they are all privileged for various reasons. The resulting “log” is wholly inadequate for multiple reasons, the most basic of which is that it does not signal to the victims which produced documents respond to which requests. To gather the documents to respond to the Requests for Production (RFPs), presumably the Government had to perform query searches in clectronic databases or actual searches in paper files.’ Each search would have then produced certain documents. But rather than disclose documents on a search-by-search basis, the Government has simply taken the all documents it gathered, apparently dropped them on the 2 The victims’ First and Second Requests for Production are included as attachments to the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an attachment to the victims’ contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged, See, e.g., Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s First RFP, § 16(d) (requesting emails and other documents in which certain particular words appear). 7 EFTA00179773

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 18 floor into a random pile, and then provided a “log” of documents in no order whatsoever — and without indicating which documents are being produced in answer to cach question, The resulting mishmash of thousands of documents places the victims in the impossible position of trying to determine what the documents mean without any context whatsoever. Compounding this problem and creating a critical additional problem, this lump and dump technique makes it impossible to verify that the Government has actually performed each of the searches required to make each of the responses. Indeed, it would be entirely possible that the Government could have failed to search for, or to produce, any documents whatsoever on certain requests and the victims would have no way to know one way or the other. Perhaps in theory these problems might be mitigated if the Government had produced (as the Court required) a privilege log “clearly” describing the subject matters and other particulars of the documents produced. But as the Court can confirm with just a casual glance at the privilege log, many of the documents have been described gencrically or not at all, leaving the victims to wonder what many of the documents really are. The upshot of the “lump and dump” approach is that the victims cannot even begin to understand what has been produced with regard to their particular discovery requests. As an illustration, consider the victims’ request for production of documents about former prosecutor Bruce Reinhart’s knowledge of information about the Epstein prosecution immediate before he left to become employed by Epstein. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s First Request for Production, { 15 (seeking this information); § 21 (requesting information collected by OPR on this subject). The victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request, because in answering the victims’ First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it 8 EFTA00179774

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 18 possessed information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice Department that related to the Epstein investigation, See Government’s Answers to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s First Request for Admissions (RFA’s), $¥ 15-17.4 It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart’s possibly improper behavior. See Goy’t’s Answers to RFA’s, § 22(a). Yet there is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages of documents) are responsive to RFP 15 because the Government has not indicated which of its documents apply to which RFP. Nor has the Government given the victims sufficient information to make this determination on their own. Indeed, the Government’s privilege log does not even contain the word “Reinhart” anywhere in it. So it is simply impossible to tell which documents apply to the Reinhart issue. As another illustration, consider the victims’ request for information about former prosecutor Matthew Menchel’s personal/business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g., Victims’ First RFP’s at § 16(f). Here again, the victims know that the Government possesses such information, because it admitted to having such information in answer to the victims’ request for admissions — information collected by its own internal affairs unit, OPR. See Gov’t’s Answers to RFA’s, § 20. Yet once again, it is impossible for the victims to even tell which documents (if any) the Government has turned over to the Court that pertain to this issue, because the Government has not explained which documents apply to this request and none of ‘ The victims’ Request for Admissions and the Government’s answers thereto are included as an attachment to the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, which is (in turn) an attachment to the victims’ contemporaneously-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged. EFTA00179775

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 10 of 18 the privilege log entries provide any description that indicates they cover documents regarding such a personal or business relationship.° As yet another illustration, consider the victims’ request for information about the OPR investigation into the possible mishandling of the Epstein prosecution and victim notifications. Here again, the victims have very specifically requested such information. See Victims’ First RFP’s at 17. The Government has admitted that OPR collected information about possible improper behavior by prosecutors in the Epstein matter. Gov’t’s Answers to RFA’s, § 22. Yet it is simply impossible to tell where the information that the Government collected appears among thousands of pages of documents it has produced.® As a fourth and final illustration, the victims requested information about why the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) was “conflicted out” of considering issues relating to the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about that conflict after the Epstein matter was referred to another district (e.g., the Middle District of Florida). See Victims’ First RFP’s at § 18; Victims’ Second FRP’s at § 1. The victims know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO- MDFPL evaluated something as a result. Yet apart from a few preliminary emails within the ° Menchel is, of course, revealed in the privilege log at several points as on the e-mails chains involved in the plea bargain discussions surrounding the Epstein prosecution. But none of the vague descriptions in the privilege log appear even remotely related to a personal or business relationship. Moreover, given that many of the privilege log entries do not even include dates, it is not even possible to look for materials that might follow the date on which Menchel left the U.S. Attorney’s Office. ® The Court will notice that some pages in the Government’s privilege log do deal with the OPR investigation. See Gov’t Supp. Privilege Log at 12-14. But so far as the victims can discern, the documents covered there are simply e-mails about the OPR investigation, rather than the underlying substantive information collected during the OPR (or OPR-triggered) investigation. 10 EFTA00179776

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of 18 Justice Department regarding whether the recusal should occur, see Gov't First Privilege Log at pp. 22-23, nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal, Indeed, so far as the victims can tell, the Government may even be staking out the remarkable position that there is not even one single document in the Middle District of Florida that is responsive to the victims’ requests, because (so far as the victims can tell) nothing has been provided from the Middle District of Florida. These are but four clear and illustrative examples, which the victims could multiply dozens of times. The victims respectfully ask the Court to require the Government, in its response to this motion, to indicate where (if anywhere) in the privilege log documents pertaining to these four issues appear, so that the Court can then judge for itself whether the victims have been given sufficient information to respond to the Government's claims of privilege. Again, our point in this pleading is not to try and debate the Government on its privilege assertions. The more basic point in this pleading is that the victims cannot even begin to fairly challenge many of the Government’s assertions because they do not know which (if any) of the documents at issue pertain to their discovery requests. The Government's privilege assertions are simply broken beyond repair. In view of this gross failure by the Government, the Court should simply provide the documents it has received to the victims by granting the victims’ Motion for an Order to the Government not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. At an absolute minimum, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which documents apply to ll EFTA00179777

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of 18 which requests, the Government should be required to provide a listing of documents on a request-by-request basis. Il. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE CVRA’S BEST EFFORTS REQUIREMENT CREATES A_ FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO ALL PRIVILEGES. In their 2011 motion, the victims explained that the CVRA obligates government prosecutors to “make their best efforts to see that crime victims are . . . accorded{] their rights” under the CVRA. DE 50 at 3-5 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (c)(1)); see also DE 76 at 2-6. In light of the Government's recent assertion of privilege, the Government’s failure is now even more apparent. The Government’s invocation of a privilege to block disclosure of documents is simply inconsistent with the Government's statutorily-mandated best efforts obligation. Controlling circuit precedent supports the conclusion that the Government fiduciary duty bars an assertion of privilege, even in the context of the well-established and absolute attorney- client privilege. In Garner v, Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (Sth Cir. 1970), the Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over this Court” held that an attorney-client privilege can give way when “the client asserting the privilege is an entity which in the performance of its functions acts wholly or partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications.” Jd. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action, noting that beneficiaries of its actions with the stockholders. Jd. Since that 7 See Knight v. Thompson, ---F.3d---, 2013 WL 3843803 at *5 n.5 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (11th Circuit adopts as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981)). 12 EFTA00179778

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 13 of 18 ruling, many courts (including this Court) have applied the “Garner doctrine” or “fiduciary exception doctrine” in settings outside the shareholder derivative context. See, e.g., Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 644 F.3d 221, 227-28 (4th Cir. 2011) (applying Garner principles to bar assertions of privilege to communications by ERISA fiduciary and plan attorneys in suit concerning alleged mismanagement of plan assets); Maltby v, Absolut Spirits Co., Inc., 2009 WL 800142 at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (“Defendant maintains that this Court should not apply the fiduciary exception here because the Eleventh Circuit has never applied the fiduciary exception in the context of an ERISA case. Defendant provides no legal or factual explanation of why this Court should not apply this doctrine, however.”); Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 144 F.R.D, 68, 71 (E.D. Va. 1992) (holding that the Garner doctrine applies because unions owe a fiduciary duty to their members). The “Garner doctrine” or “fiduciary exception” has also been applied to bar the federal government from asserting privilege against those whose interests it must protect, such as Indian tribes. See, e.g., Osage Nation and/or Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma vy. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 244 (2005); Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C. 2002). For instance, in Osage Nation, the Government argued against application of the fiduciary exception in the context of a case alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are “often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe’s interest.” Jd. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim “that the government’s sovereign interests somehow negate or offset its obligations as trustee to be unpersuasive.” Jd. at 248. The situation here is parallel to situations such as a union being challenged by its members or the Government is being challenged an Indiana tribe. In this case, of course, a U.S. 13 EFTA00179779

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 14 of 18 Attorney’s Office is being challenged by recognized crime victims, who are arguing that the Office violated its statutory obligation to act in their “best interests.” Accordingly, under Garner, an attorney-client privilege is not appropriate, provided the victims to show “good cause” why the privilege should not be invoked. Jd. at 1104. Here, there is ample good cause. See generally Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (filed concurrently with this motion as an attachment to the Victims’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents that Are Not Privileged) (explaining why good cause exists for production of documents requested). As a result, the Court should not allow the Government to invoke privilege but should instead simply grant the victims’ motion for an order not allowing the Government to withhold relevant evidence and turn the disputed materials over to the victims. Ii. THE VICTIMS HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT UNDER THEIR CVRA “RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS.” In their 2011 motion, the victims also argued that they were entitled to receive favorable evidence in the Government’s possession for the same reason that criminal defendants receive such information: fundamental considerations of fairness require that the Government not deliberately withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. DE 50 at pp. 5-9 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and arguing that they are entitled to “Brady” information contradicting the Government's position no less than criminal defendants). In light of the Government's recently-filed privilege log, the need for the Court to grant the victims’ motion has become even more apparent. The Government's privilege log indicates that it is withholding significant information that is critical to the victims’ arguments. For example, the Government is withholding 14 EFTA00179780

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 15 of 18 information about its discussions concerning how to notify crime victims. See, e.g., page 16 of first privilege log (DE 212-1) regarding Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. And the Government is withholding information about its own internal investigation into the potential wrongdoing in this case. See, e.g. page 13 of supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) regarding Suppl. Box 3 P- 013940 to P-013942. As we understand the Government’s position on this issue, it does not contend that it does not have important evidence for the victims’ case. Nor does the Government argue that it would be difficult to identify that material. Instead, the Government’s argument has been that Brady obligations are confined to criminal cases against criminal defendants, DE 59 at 5-6. But the case law is not so narrow as the Government believes. The victims have recently identified several cases in which courts have applied Brady outside of the criminal context. In Demijanjuk y. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit applied Brady in the context of a denaturalization and extradition case. In United States v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the district court applied Brady to civil commitment proceedings for sexual offenders. And in EEOC y. Los Alamos Constructors, Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1373, 1374 (D.N.M. 1974), the district court applied Brady to an employment discrimination action, The issue of Brady obligations in a CVRA action appears to be one of first impression. Thus, more important than case law is the fact that the victims here can rely on specific statute — the CVRA — that gives them a right to be “treated with fairness.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Being treated with fairness means (at a minimum) treated someone with due process, As one of the CVRA’s co-sponsors (Senator Kyl) explained, “The broad rights articulated in this section [§ 3771(a)(8)] are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of 1S EFTA00179781

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 16 of 18 these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve.” 150 Cong. Rec. $4269 (Apr. 22, 2004) (emphasis added). In the context of this particular case, it is simply inconsistent with the “due process” requirements of the CVRA to allow the Government to withhold documents that will help the victims prove their case. The Court should accordingly enter an order, paralleling its “Standing Discovery Order” in criminal cases, directing the Government to provide favorable evidence to the victims. See Local Rule 88.10. The Standing Discovery Order typically provides: “The government shall reveal to the defendant(s) and permit inspection and copying of all information and material known to the government which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).” The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and associated local rule 88.10(O) — contains a broad, commonsense provision which the Government has plainly violated in this case. The Order provides: “The parties shall make every possible effort in good faith to stipulate to all facts or points of law the truth or existence of which is not contested and the early resolution of which will expedite the trial.” For more than five years, the victims have been trying to get the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts, precisely as the Court’s rules envision. The Government, however, has refused to do so. Accordingly, the Court should enter an order 16 EFTA00179782

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 17 of 18 requiring the Government to produce evidence which it well knows is relevant and material to the victims’ case. And because the Court has in its possession thousands of pages of documents that fit that description, the Court should simply turn that information over to the victims. CONCLUSION The Court should enter an order directing the Government not to withhold material evidence in this case and should provide to the victims the materials it has received for in camera review. In addition, to solve the problem that the Government has not indicated which documents apply to which requests, the Government should be required to provide such a responsive document. DATED: August 16, 2013 17 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hae Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail; cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00179783

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 16, 2013, on the following using the Court’s CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter. Poc@usdol gov E-mail: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perezek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Email: pleading@royblack.com (305) 37106421 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: lefkowitz@kirkland.com (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: owlmgw@att.net (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 18 EFTA00179784

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. / RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Petitioners’ Renewed Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence, and states: IL. INTRODUCTION In its Omnibus Order of June 18, 2013, this Court directed that petitioners should have thirty days after service of the government's privilege log to file a motion to compel contesting any asserted privilege claim. D.E. 190 at 2. Any such motion to compel was limited to seven pages. Id. Within fifteen days, the government was permitted to file its response, which was also limited to seven pages. D.E. 190 at 3. Petitioners’ response to the government’s filing of its privilege log has been the filing of the following: (1) the government’s privilege log with its objections annotated (D.E. 224-1); (2) a motion to compel production of documents that are not privileged, numbering eight pages D.E. 225; (3) a twenty-four page, single-spaced affidavit of petitioners’ counsel, addressing the EFTA00179785

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 2 of 12 various privileges asserted by the government, D.E. 225-1; and (4) a renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to withhold relevant evidence, numbering seventeen pages, D.E. 226. The renewed motion also challenges the government's assertions of privilege. I. THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROPERLY INVOKED APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES Petitioners argue that this Court should summarily dismiss the privileges invoked by the government because of the “gross inadequacies” in the privilege assertions. D.E. 226 at 6-7. Their argument is baseless because the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in camera review to determine if the privilege is valid. Petitioners go so far as to complain that the government has not identified in the privilege log which documents respond to which requests. Id. at 7. They do not explain how the validity of a privilege is contingent upon which request for production the document is responsive to. In request for production no. 18, petitioners requested documents “regarding potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL ... .” The government's privilege log clearly references e-mails between Assistant General Counsel Richard Sudder, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg, “regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated August 24 and August 29, 2011.” D.E. 212-1 at 22. Further, the privilege log detailed emails between Peter Mason, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee, “seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010.” D,E, 212-1 at 23. EFTA00179786

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 3 of 12 The subjects of the e-mails, office-wide recusal and “seeking advice regarding office- wide recusal,” were stated in the privilege log. The attorney-client privilege was invoked for these documents, along with the deliberative process and work product privileges for a subset of these documents. Since petitioners requested these documents, they should be able to discern what document request they pertain to. Moreover, the purpose of the e-mails, seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal, was stated in the privilege log. This is sufficient factual detail to permit petitioners and the Court to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies. Petitioners’ claim that the government has failed to produce relevant documents is based on fallacious assumptions. They use as an example of a failure to produce documents the request for documents regarding former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Reinhart. D.E. 226 at 8-9. “The victims know that the Government has information responsive to this request, because in answering the victims’ First Request for Admissions, the Government admitted that it possessed information reflecting contacts between Reinhart and persons working at the Justice Department that related to the Epstein investigation.” Id, Continuing, petitioners state, “It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart’s possibly improper behavior.” They then argue that “there is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages of documents) are responsive to RFP 15 because the Government has not indicated which of its documents apply to which RFP.”! Id, at 9. The fallacy in petitioners’ reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government’s response to the request for admission was a document, rather than personal observation. If it was based on the latter, there would be no document to produce. Petitioners make the same fallacious assumption in the case of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Menchel. D.E, 226 at 9-10, The admission in Request for Admission No. 20 need not have been based upon a ! The REP which seeks documents pertaining to Reinhart is actually number 16, rather than 15. 3 EFTA00179787

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 4 of 12 document. Petitioners admit that the government has included documents from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in its privilege logs. D.E. 226 at 10 n.6. The government has properly invoked the attorney-client, work product, and deliberative process privileges for many of the OPR documents. D.E, 216-1 at 12-14. In Sandra T.E 100, 600 F.3d 612 (7" Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s finding that the attorney-client and work product privileges did not apply to notes of witness interviews, and memoranda prepared from those interviews, by a law firm retained by a school district. A teacher in the school district was charged with sexually molesting numerous students over several years, Id. at 615. A civil lawsuit was filed against the school district and the principal. The school district hired Sidley Austin LLP to conduct an internal investigation and provide legal advice to the school board. Sidley Austin was not the school district’s litigation counsel in the civil lawsuit. Attorneys from Sidley Austin interviewed current and former school district employees, as well as third-party witnesses. The attorneys took handwritten notes and later drafted memos summarizing the interviews. Id. During discovery in the civil litigation, the plaintiffs sought documents in Sidley Austin’s possession regarding its investigation. The law firm invoked the attorney-client and work product privileges as to its notes and internal memoranda relating to the employee witness interviews, as well as other legal memoranda. The district court rejected the privilege claims, finding that Sidley Austin had been hired to provide investigative services, not legal services. Id. The appellate court found, based on the engagement letter between Sidley Austin and the school district, that the law firm had been hired to “investigate the response of the school administration to allegations of sexual abuse of students,” and “provide legal services in EFTA00179788

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 5 of 12 connection with the specific representation.” Id, at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. y, United States, 449 U.S, 383 (1981), “which explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within the protection of the attorney-client privilege.” 600 F.3d at 619(emphasis in original). Despite the fact that Sidley Austin was not the school district’s litigation counsel, the appellate court found that Sidley’s investigation of the factual circumstances surrounding the abuse was an integral part of the package of legal services for which it was hired and a necessary prerequisite to the provision of legal advice about how the school district should respond. Id. at 620, The Court also found the witness interview notes and memoranda were entitled to protection under the work product privilege because they were prepared “with an eye toward” the pending litigation. Id, at 622 In this case, OPR is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of misconduct committed by DOJ attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). The counsel heading OPR reports to the Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a, One of OPR’s functions is to “[rJeceive, review, investigate and refer for appropriate action.” § 0.39a(a)(2). In discharging this function, OPR attorneys interviewed DOJ attorneys regarding the allegations of misconduct lodged by petitioners’ counsel, took notes, and prepared memoranda, just like the law firm retained by the South Berwyn School District. The documents generated by these investigative actions are covered by the work product privilege because notes and memoranda prepared by OPR attorneys are created with an eye toward potential litigation. Under § 0.39a(a)(3), OPR Counsel shall, “[rJeport to the responsible Department official the results of inquiries and investigations arising under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, and, when appropriate, make recommendations for disciplinary and other corrective action.” EFTA00179789

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 6 of 12 In their fourth example, petitioners claim they “know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-MDFL evaluated something as a result.” D.E. 226 at 10-11. They contend that, other than a few preliminary emails within the DOJ regarding whether the recusal should occur, “nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal.” Petitioners appear to believe that, because the USAO-SDFL was recused from the Epstein case, the USAO-MDFL “evaluated something as a result.” In U.S. v. Weyhrauch, 544 F.3d 969 co" Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit noted that, “the General Counsel’s Office of the EOUSA coordinates office-wide recusals, obtains necessary approvals and helps arrange the transfer of responsibility to another office ... .” Id. at 973-74. Office-wide recusals are frequently based upon a finding that a reasonable person could question the impartiality of a particular U.S, Attorney’s Office, such as when the Office is prosecuting a crime where the victim is an employee in that U.S. Attorney’s Office, or a defendant is a close family member of a U.S. Attorney’s Office employee. Petitioners seem to believe that the recusal of the USAO- SDFL was based on a finding that misconduct had occurred in the Epstein case, which is incorrect. Further, the transfer of responsibility to the USAO-MDFL was not a charter for it to investigate the USAO-SDFL. Instead, the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein case, and exercises its own independent judgment and discretion in deciding what action to take, if any. Il. THE FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE Petitioners argue that government should be ordered to produce the requested documents because there is a fiduciary exception to all privilege. This wholesale attempt to overcome the EFTA00179790

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 7 of 12 government's claims of privilege should be rejected because it lacks any legal basis. The premise of petitioners’ argument is that the CVRA provides that government prosecutors are to “make their best efforts to see that crime victims are accorded their rights.” 18 U.S.C, § 3771(c)(1). They provide no legal authority for the contention that the CVRA creates a fiduciary obligation between the government and crime victims. Instead, petitioners attempt to engraft such a duty from other cases, involving duties owed by a corporation to its shareholders, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (st Cir. 1970), and the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. None of those cases are apposite. In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S.Ct. 2313 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Federal Claims’ finding that the government was required to produce documents in litigation involving the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The Tribe had instituted a breach of trust action against the United States, claiming the government had mismanaged funds held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe sought various documents in discovery, which included materials for which the government claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court of Federal Claims applied the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege, applied in the context of common law trust, and found the documents were not privileged, 131 S.Ct. at 2319. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the government is not a private trustee, and the trust defined between the government and the Tribe was governed by statutes, rather than the common law. Id, at 2323. Further, the United States did not obtain legal advice as a “mere representative” of the Tribe, nor was the Tribe the “real client” for whom that advice was intended. Id, at 2326. Assuming any fiduciary relationship exists between the government and acrime victim, such relationship would be based on the CVRA, not the common law. Further, the government would be managing any trust relationship as a sovereign function, pursuant to EFTA00179791

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 8 of 12 the plenary authority of Congress, not as a private trustee. In Jicarilla, the Supreme Court distinguished Garner: The United States has a sovereign interest in the administration of Indian trusts distinct from the private interests of those who may benefit from its administration. Courts apply the fiduciary exception on the ground that “management does not manage for itself.” Garner, 430 F.2d at 1101; Wachtel, 482 F.3d at 232 (“[O]f cental importance in both Garner and Riggs was the fiduciary’s lack of a legitimate personal interest in the legal advice obtained”). But the Government is never in that position. While one purpose of the Indian trust relationship is to benefit the tribes, the Government has its own independent interest in the implementation of federal Indian policy. For that reason, when the Government secks legal advice related to the administration of tribal trusts, it established an attorney-client relationship related to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law. In other words, the Government seeks legal advice in a “personal” rather than a fiduciary capacity. See Riggs, 355 A.2d at 711. 131 S.Ct. at 2327-28. In this case, the government had its own independent interest in the exercise and implementation of its sovereign authority to prosecute an individual for violating federal law. Therefore, the fiduciary exception does not apply.’ Petitioners argue that they have a due process right to documents in the government’s possession. D.E. 226 at 14-17. The basis for a due process right, according to petitioners, is the CVRA’s provision that crime victims have a right “to be treated with fairness.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). In making this due process argument, petitioners dispense with any analysis of whether the CVRA creates any protected liberty or property interest, sufficient to trigger the due process clause. “The necessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining ? The two cases cited by Petitioners i in support of a fiduciary exception due to the government's relationship with Indian tribes, O: 66 Fed, CL. 244 arid and Cobell y, Norton, 212 F.R.D. 24 (D.D.C. 2002), are ‘of dubious vitality in light of Jicarilla A, 8 EFTA00179792

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12 whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated.” Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (1 1" Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stie im, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11"" Cir. 1986)(“in assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation, there can be no denial of due process.”). There is no life, liberty, or property interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts are hesitant to find that a substantive duc process right has been created. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992)(“As a general matter, the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this uncharted area are scarce and open ended. (citation omitted). The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.”). Without a protected life, liberty, or property interest, petitioners cannot invoke the due process clause as a basis for compelling the government to disclose documents to them. Petitioners’ reliance upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is similarly unavailing. Petitioners are not charged with any crime, nor are they in the position of having their liberty deprived at the hands of the government, such as the case with a defendant charged with committing a crime. Petitioners rely upon three cases, which they claim demonstrate the application of Brady outside the criminal context. D.E. 226 at 15. In Demjanjuk v. P: sky, 10 F.3d 338 (6" Cir, 1993), the Sixth Circuit observed: We believe Brady should be extended to cover denaturalization and extradition cases where the government secks denaturalization or extradition based on proof of alleged criminal activities of the party proceeded against. If the government had sought to denaturalize Demjanjuk only on the basis of his misrepresentation at the time he sought admission to the United EFTA00179793

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 10 of 12 States and subsequently when he applied for citizenship, it would have been only a civil action, Id. at 353. Demjanjuk has no application to this case since the government does not seek to deprive petitioners of their United States citizenship, or anything else. The Sixth Circuit found Brady should apply because of two factors, F irst, the government was seeking to denaturalize Demjanjuk. Second, it was seeking to do so on the ground that Demjanjuk engaged in criminal activities. The appellate court's specific focus on the government's reliance upon Demjanjuk’s participation in criminal activities, demonstrates that was the legal basis for its finding that Brady applied. Their reference to the denaturalization case being “only a civil action,” if the government had relied solely upon Demjanjuk’s misrepresentations, suggests that seeking to denaturalize, without an allegation of criminal activity, would not be a sufficient basis for applying Brady. Similarly, in U.S. v. Edwards, 777 F “Supp.2d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the government was seeking to civilly commit Edwards for being a “sexually dangerous person” under 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a). The district court found that Edwards had a liberty interest in avoiding detention and civil commitment. Id. at 990. Consequently, the due process clause was implicated because the government was seeking to deprive Edwards of a liberty interest in avoiding detention. In this case, the government does not seek to deprive petitioners of anything. The third case cited by petitioners is EE F.Supp. 1373 (D.N.M. 1974). The district court’s analysis of the due process issue is contained in one sentence in the following footnote: “Brady v. Maryland (1 63) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, orders that exculpatory information must be furnished a defendant ina criminal case, A defendant in a civil case brought by the government should be afforded no less due process of law.” Id. at 1383.5. This is no authority for petitioner’s due process argument 10 EFTA00179794

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 11 of 12 , since there is no analysis of whether a protected life, liberty, or property interest is implicated by the government’s actions. Moreover, by its own terms, this district court decision is inapplicable because petitioners are not defendants in a civil case brought by the government. CONCLUSION Petitioners’ renewed motion should be denied. The privilege log provided by the government adequately describes the documents for which privileges are being asserted. Further, there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege invoked by the government, nor is there any due process right to documents provided in the CVRA, DATED: September 3, 2013 By: 2RTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respectfully submitted, WILFREDO A, FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S, Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT | HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 3, 2013, | electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. s/ Dexter A, Lee DEXTER A, LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST ll EFTA00179795

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 12 of 12 Jane Does | and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J, Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com 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: casselp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe # | and Jane Doe #2 Roy Black Jackie Perezek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 371-6421 Fax: (305) 358-2006 E-mail: rblack@royblack.com jperczek@royblack,com Attorneys for Intervenors 12 EFTA00179796