{"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_count": 7, "url": "https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01200571", "pdf_url": "https://epstein-data.com/pdf/EFTA01200571.pdf", "pages": [{"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 0, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 1 of 7 \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA \nCASE NO.:08-CV-80736-ICAM \nJANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, \nPetitioners, \nvs. \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \nRespondent. \nORDER ON THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG \nThis cause is before the Court on the Government's Third Supplemental Privilege Log. \n(DE 338-1). The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents submitted with the \nmost recent privilege log, and it has considered the Government's privilege assertions as well as \nPetitioners' previously-argued objections to those assertions. The Court hereby adopts its \nreasoning and holdings from its Opinion and Order dated July 6, 2015. (DE 330). \nThe Court must address an issue that it previously found unnecessary to address. The \nGovernment claims that certain email correspondence between attorneys in the United States \nAttorney's Office and agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigations are protected by the \nattorney-client privilege. See DE 338-1 at 1, 2, 4, 5). Petitioners have objected to this assertion \nbecause the FBI cannot be considered a \"client\" of the United States Attorney's Office and the \ncommunications in question were not seeking the provision of legal advice. See DE 265 at 5). \nAfter reviewing the documents submitted with the third supplemental privilege log, the Court \nconcludes that the Government has not demonstrated that the attorney-client privilege applies to \nEFTA01200571\n", "char_count": 1517}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 1, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 2 of 7 \ncommunications it had with FBI agents concerning prosecution and victims notification.' \nThe attorney-client privilege \"protects the disclosures that a client makes to his attorney, \nin confidence, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance.\" Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel \n& Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1414 (11th Cir. 1994). The privilege may cover \"conversations \nbetween the prosecutors (as attorneys) and client agencies within the government.\" United States \nv. Zingsheim, 384 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). Such communications, i.e., \n\"communication[s] by an attorney working for a government agency,\" are protected \"when the \ncommunication relates to some legal strategy, or to the meaning, requirements, allowances, or \nprohibitions of the law.\" \nCoal. v. Jewell, 292 \n. 44, 48 (M. \n2013) \n(emphasis added). In the context of prosecutions, it has been held that prosecutors \"do[] not \nrender legal services to ... investigators in the context of pursuing criminal charges against a \nthird-party.\" Sampson v. Schenck, No. 8:07CV155, 2009 WL 484224, at *8 (D. Neb. Feb. 23, \n2009). \nThe communications at issue do not indicate that the FBI was a \"client agency\" of the \nUnited States Attorney's Office, so as to say that the Office was \"working for\" FBI agents. Nor \ndo the communications indicate that their purpose was to secure legal advice or assistance for the \n' In its previous Opinion and Order, the held that the Government's correspondence with \nFBI agents was protected under the work-product doctrine. (See, e.g., DE 330 at 36 (S:13282-\n13283, S:13284), 44 (S:14070-14074)). The Court reaffirms that holding: The \"work-product \ndoctrine is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege.\" United States v. Nobles, \n422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). Moreover, \"work-product privilege applies to . . . discussions \nbetween prosecutors and investigating agents, both state and federal.\" United States v. \nZingsheim, 384 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983)). \nIn its third supplemental privilege log, however, the Government does not assert that its \ncorrespondence with various FBI agents is protected by the work-product doctrine. (See, e.g., \nDE 338-1 at 1 (P-014928)). As discussed above and in the table, the Court concludes that the \nprivileges that are asserted do not apply. \n2 \nEFTA01200572\n", "char_count": 2465}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 2, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 3 of 7 \nFBI. The communications do not contain the provision of legal advice or assistance from the \nUnited States Attorney's Office. Rather, the communications evince the Office's and FBI's \ncommon goal of pursuing criminal charges against Jeffrey Epstein and accomplishing victims' \nnotification. The Court concludes that they are not covered by the attorney-client privilege. \nAccordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government shall \nproduce documents consistent with the following Table, which rulings and comments constitute \nthe holding of this Court.' \nDONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, \nFlorida, this 1\" day of October, 2015. \n/e\nrn \nKENNETH A. MARRA \nUnited States District Judge \nTo the extent any documents required to be produced by this order contain the names or \naddresses of any actual or alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein's, the documents shall be produce to \nPlaintiffs in an unredacted form. If any of the documents are later filed with the Court in \nconnection with an attempt either to obtain or oppose a claim for relief, the names or addresses of \nany actual or alleged victim may be redacted if the individual wishes to remain anonymous. \n3 \nEFTA01200573\n", "char_count": 1305}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 3, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 4 of 7 \nTABLE \nDetail of Privilege and Relevancy Holdings \nBates Range' \nRuling on Privilege or Relevancy \nComment (as necessary) \n014924 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014925.014927 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014928 \nProduce. \nThe attorney-client privilege does not \napply, as the FBI is not a client \nseeking legal services or advice. The \ninvestigative privilege does not \napply, as the Government has not \ndemonstrated that withholding the \ndocuments is necessary to protect an \n\"ongoing criminal investigation.\" \nSee F.T.C. v. Timeshare Mega \nMedia & Mktg. Grp., Inc. No. \n10-62000-CIV, 2011 WL 6102676, \nat •3.4 (M. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). To \nthe extent the investigative privilege \nwould apply, Petitioners' need \noutweighs the qualified privilege. \nGrand jury secrecy does not apply, as \nthe communication does not \n\"disclose a matter occurring before \nthe grand jury.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. \n6(e). All previous protective orders \nand instructions (DE 336 at 2) \nregarding victim identity apply. \n014929-014933 \nProduction not necessary; not relevant or likely \nto lead to the discovery of materials relevant to \nthe instant CVRA litigation. \n014934.014935 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \nThe following documents are found in Box #5 submitted for in camera review. \n4 \nEFTA01200574\n", "char_count": 1456}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 4, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 5 of 7 \n014936-014940 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege and grand jury secrecy. \n014941.014954 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014955.014971 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014972.014975 \nProtected from discovery by grand jury \nsecrecy; also, not relevant or likely to lead to \nthe discovery of materials relevant to the \ninstant CVRA litigation. \n014976 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014977.014978 \nProduce. \nThe attorney-client privilege does not \napply, as the FBI is not a client \nseeking legal services or advice. The \ninvestigative privilege does not \napply, as the Government has not \ndemonstrated that withholding the \ndocuments is necessary to protect an \n\"ongoing criminal investigation.\" \nSee F.T.C. v. Timeshare Mega \nMedia & Mktg. Grp., Inc., No. \n10-62000-CIV, 2011 WL 6102676. \nat •3.4 (M. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). To \nthe extent the investigative privilege \nwould apply, Petitioners' need \noutweighs the qualified privilege. \n014979-014980 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014981 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege and grand jury secrecy. \n014982.014990 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n014991.015004 \nProtected from discovery by grand jury \nsecrecy. \n015005.015006 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015007 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015008.015024 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n5 \nEFTA01200575\n", "char_count": 1686}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 5, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 6 of 7 \n015025.015028 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015029-015034 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015035.015062 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015063.015069 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015070-015071 \nProduce. \nThe attorney-client privilege does not \napply for the reasons discussed \nabove. \n015072.015074 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015075.015081 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015082.015084 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015085.015090 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015091-015092 \nProduce. \nThe attorney-client privilege does not \napply, as the FBI is not a client \nseeking legal services or advice. The \ninvestigative privilege does not \napply, as the Government has not \ndemonstrated that withholding the \ndocuments is necessary to protect an \n\"ongoing criminal investigation.\" \nSee F.T.C. v. Timeshare Mega \nMedia & Mktg. Grp., Inc. No. \n10-62000-CIV, 2011 WL 6102676, \nat •3-0 (M. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). To \nthe extent the investigative privilege \nwould apply, Petitioners' need \noutweighs the qualified privilege. \nGrand jury secrecy does not apply, as \nthe communication does not \n\"disclose a matter occurring before \nthe grand jury.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. \n6(e). All previous protective orders \nand instructions (DE 336 at 2) \nregarding victim identity apply. \n015093.015097 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n6 \nEFTA01200576\n", "char_count": 1692}, {"efta_number": "EFTA01200571", "page_number": 6, "text_content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 339 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2015 Page 7 of 7 \n015098 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015099 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015100-015116 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015117.015135 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015136-015172 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015173.015186 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015187.015194 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015195.015198 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015199-015206 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015207.015213 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015214.015226 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege; also, not relevant or likely to \nlead to materials relevant to this CVRA \nlitigation. \n015227.015233 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015234.015238 \nProduction not necessary; not relevant to likely \nto lead to materials relevant to this CVRA \nlitigation. \nThe letter from the Florida Bar's \ncounsel simply denies the \nGovernment's request for an \nadvisory opinion and points the \nGovernment to potentially applicable \nrules of professional conduct. It \nbears no indication on whether the \nGovernment violated victims' rights \nunder the CVRA in distributing \nvictim notification letters. \n015239-015263 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n015264.015267 \nProtected from discovery by opinion work \nproduct privilege. \n7 \nEFTA01200577\n", "char_count": 1703}]}