EFTA01079864.pdf

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 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED EFTA01079864 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. t 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. I. General Responses to All Assertions of Privilege. 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 v. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v. 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. v. fish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 1 EFTA01079865 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 "[Otis 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 U.S. 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 EFTA01079866 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 4 of 10 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 Assn, 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). II. Specific Responses to Specific Assertions of Privilege. A. Attorney-Client Privilege. Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered — A general attorney-client privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tenon, 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 v. 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 3 EFTA01079867 Case 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 v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). B. Deliberative Process Privilege 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. FDIC., 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 Privilege 4 EFTA01079868 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. FDIC., 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 U.S. 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."). 5 EFTA01079869 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 Secrecy 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(e)(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 (11th 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. 6 EFTA01079870 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 10 The CVFtA 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). F. The Privacy 'bats of Other Victims 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 EFTA01079871 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 10 DATED: August 16, 2013 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 Facsimile Florida Bar No.: E-mail: and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake I Cit s UT 84112m Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail: Attorneysfor Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 8 EFTA01079872 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 CWECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 E-mail: Attorneysfor the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Email Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10022 Email: Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: Criminal Defense Counselfor Jeffrey Epstein /5/ Bradley J. Edwards 9 EFTA01079873 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 v. UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. 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, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 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 Stipulated Facts with the Government 3. On July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 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. 1 EFTA01079874 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 64 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. Id. 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 1/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. 1 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. II. 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 EFTA01079875 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 afactual 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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 EFTA01079876 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, Willed() 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 agreeing 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 II. Instead, the Court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of requests for admission and document production requests. Id. at II. 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 EFTA01079877 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 5 of 64 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, 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 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. 22. On July 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 (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 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 fall 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 pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. 5 EFTA01079878 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 6 of 64 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 Requested by the Victims 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, 2011, 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 [of 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 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 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. 1 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 EFTA01079879 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. 1 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. RFP 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. RFP 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. RFP 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 EFTA01079880 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 8 of 64 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 agreem