From: "Kochevar, Steven (USANYS)" To: "McEnany, John (USANYS r>, USANYS)" ' (USANYS)" C c: I tt II tt Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 21:16:02 +0000 Understood. Thanks, John. David Jones thought this approach was reasonable, but I'll check with Sarah too. Overall, I don't think we have a ton of precedent for referring folks to another USAO on a Touhy, and certainly not to a third USAO in the referral context. Some information that might be useful in this that I don't have a complete understanding of—are the materials from the S.D. Fla. investigation available to us? As in, have we ever seen or used them? If not, is there a particular reason for that? We may be in the odd situation of technically having some purview over those materials by virtue of the Touhy regs, but without access to them. But please let me know if I'm overlooking some dimension of our cooperation (if any) with the other USAOs. Thanks, Steven From: McEnany, John (USANYS) Sent: Friday, May 22,2020 4:34 PM To: Kochevar, Steven (USANYS) < >; (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests <->; I have some hesitation on just referring them to NDGa for the SDFla investigative stuff. First, under Touhy section 16.22(b), the responsible USA is the USA for the district "where the issuing authority" is located. They actually have an action filed in this district, no? Like it or not, we may be stuck with dealing with their requests for does from the Florida investigation. Stephen, you might want to consult wiser Touhy heads in civ div, like Sarah for instance. Also, it is possible that Touhy does not fall within the scope of SDFla's recusal. I can't see NDGA racing to embrace doing Touhys on this. From: Kochevar, Steven (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:24 PM To: McEnany, John (USANYS) ifl; (USANYS) (USANYS) Cc: Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests All, Closing the loo