From: ' (USAFLS)" To: In1S tiAn (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" Cc: InSaLS)" >, . (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Epstein -- Rule 6(e) issue Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:50:43 +0000 Importance: Normal Okay. I will just sit tight. I am supposed to receive another 200 pages. Assuming it is more of the same, I will not bother you all again. Thank you. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda June 30, 2010 2:38 PM To: (USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Epstein -- Rule 6(e) issue -.(USAFLS; (USAFLS (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) I agree with Stamm, especially in light of the fact that Judge Marra has ordered that the dots be produced. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:04 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS • (USAFLS USAFLS c: (USAF S Cc (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein -- Rule 6(e) issue I also do not see how we could prevail on a 6(e) basis to block a private party from turning over materials which they have in their possession. Nor do I see any reason for us to do this, particularly in a civil litigation setting where we are not a party. It might be different if they were trying to subpoena the materials directly from us, but that is not the case here. m, E, anyone else have a different view? EFTA00207650