From: ' )" To: "Kochevar, Steven (USANYS)" cl k "McEnany, John (USANYS)" Cc: ' t, t r SANYS)" (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 21:37:05 +0000 We do possess the FBI investigative files from the SDFL investigation. What we do not have, and avoided obtaining for a variety of reasons (including conflict issues, discovery issues, and a desire not to create even an appearance that we were stepping into the shoes of a district that was unable to prosecute due to the prior non-prosecution agreement) are any files specifically from the U.S. Attorney's Office in SDFL. As relevant here, for example, we do not have any materials relating to the purported immunity discussions relating to Lacerda; we have not identified any such materials in the FBI files, and we assume that any discussions or correspondence on that issue likely would have been between defense counsel and the SDFL USAO. On the civil side, I can't immediately think of a reason you guys shouldn't be able to make a request to either SDFL or NDGA, whichever is the right entity, for any such materials. We've just avoided literally any contact with SDFL on the criminal side. Let us know if any additional questions on this at all, we realize it's a little complex. From: Kochevar, Steven (USANYS) < Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 17:16 To: McEnany, John (USANYS) < (USANYS) (USANYS) Cc: <->; Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests 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?