District Attorney. Mr. Weinberg told me that he was unable to take a position on the Post’s motion without first reviewing it and reserved the right to file an opposition, if necessary. 11. On December 21, 2018, the Post filed a motion requesting an order unsealing the appellate briefs and directing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to produce copies with the names of victims redacted (the “December 21 Motion”). 12. On or about December 28, 2018, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office filed an affirmation in response to the Post’s motion, signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo and dated December 28, 2018 (the “DA Affirmation”). A true and correct copy of the Affirmation is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. 13. On January 2, 2019, I spoke with Ms. Friedman Agnifilo to discuss the DA Affirmation. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo told me that there had been a miscommunication by Mr. Frost and that the District Attorney’s Office did oppose the December 21 Motion. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo also told me that, in the view of the District Attorney’s Office, the Post should give notice of their motion to unseal the appeal briefs to the prosecutors in Florida that handled the prosecution that led to Mr. Epstein’s conviction for solicitation of prostitution from a minor. The Post disagrees with that position but nevertheless decided to moot any procedural issues related to requirements to notify the Florida prosecutors. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo subsequently informed me that the agency in Florida responsible for Mr. Epstein’s prosecution was the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office. 14. On January 3, 2019, I received an email from Mr. Weinberg stating that “after consideration of your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain identities, we take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein.” A true and correct copy of that email is annexed hereto as Exhibit F. 3 4840-5788-8644v. 1 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016426