EFTA00081116.pdf

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. EFTA00081116 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 EFTA00081117 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. 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 fonvard 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 EFTA00081118 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 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 EFTA00081119 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 EFTA00081120 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 EFTA00081121 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, II. 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 EFTA00081122 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 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 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."). 8 EFTA00081123 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 64 40. RFP 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. RFP 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, e.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. RFP 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. RFP 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: "I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at 3 (¶ 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 EFTA00081124 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 ¶ 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 relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the 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 the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims' allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' 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 I0 EFTA00081125 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 11 of 64 to Requests for Admission at I 20. 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. RFP 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. RFP 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. RFP 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 EFTA00081126 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 12 of 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 Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "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. 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. 1 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 EFTA00081127 Case 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 w