Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 84 Entered on FLSD Docket 05)33 2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AUTHORITIES Respondent, United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2's Motion to Supplement Authorities, and states: Petitioners seek to supplement authorities in their Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. The motion should be denied since petitioners fail to explain how a letter from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) constitutes "authority" in support of their contention that the U.S. Attorney's Office has a legal obligation to provide them with evidence in their CVRA lawsuit. The May 6, 2011 letter from OPR references Professor Cassell's claim that "improper influences" may have resulted in the U.S. Attorney's Office's decision to enter into a non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Petitioners' Exhibit A at 1. The letter advises that OPR's policy is to "refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of EFTA01081638