Epstein Data Wiki

The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation

Properties1
tagstopic, usao-sdfl, court-records, cvra, privilege, office-of-professional-responsibility, grand-jury, document-release

46 min read

What was withheldMaterial from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s own Epstein file, submitted to the court for private inspection rather than given to the two victims suing the office12
Who withheld itThe United States as respondent in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.); the logs are signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña under U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer34
Under what orderOmnibus Order, Document 190, signed 18 June 2013: produce, or file “a privilege log clearly identifying each documents by author(s), addressee(s), recipient (s), date, and general subject matter” and submit the withheld material for in camera inspection1
The logsPrivilege Log, Document 212-1, docketed 19 July 2013, 23 pages; Supplemental Privilege Log, Document 216-1, docketed 27 July 2013, 14 pages; Second Supplemental Privilege Log — Box #4, Document 329-1, docketed 23 June 2015, 18 pages567
ColumnsBates Range · Description · Privilege(s) Asserted5
Grounds recorded in that columnRule 6(e) grand jury secrecy; work product; deliberative process; investigative privilege; attorney-client privilege; the Privacy Act; and, in the 2011 material, “Law Enforcement investigatory record”58910
Scale, as the petitioners counted it14,825 pages submitted for in camera inspection, 1,357 pages given to the victims, privilege asserted over 13,468 pages — “more than 90% of the documents in question”11
The victims’ answer”PRIVILEGE LOG – WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS”, Exhibit A to Document 224, docketed 16 August 2013: the two 2013 logs reproduced with a fourth column of objections, 69 numbered pages1213
The government’s answerDocument 230, 3 September 2013: “the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in camera review”2
How it endedOpinion and Order, Document 330, 6 July 2015: the logs held “adequate to facilitate a meaningful in camera inspection”; the individual claims resolved in an appended Table — see Doe v. United States14

Content note and page limits. The Description column of these logs describes material gathered in an investigation of the sexual abuse of minors, and some entries are titled by an individual’s name. This page reproduces no description that identifies a complainant or a witness, and gives no location for any such entry. It reports no count of rows. Every page of the annotated exhibit was rendered locally, and the pages cited here were read at the image; but no row total was derived from that reading, and none is given. Clock times printed inside the logs’ own descriptions of emails carry no time zone and are not reproduced.

In 2013 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida was ordered to hand its Epstein file to the two women suing it, or to say in a public filing what it was keeping back and why. It did the second. The resulting privilege logs are the office’s own written account of what it would not give the victims of the case it had closed, entry by entry, with the legal ground named against each. Three weeks after the second log the victims filed both of them back into the record with a fourth column added, headed Victims’ Objections; and the exchange that followed (a motion to compel, an affidavit running to sixty-four pages with its exhibits, a renewed motion, and the government’s opposition) argues about specific entries rather than about the case.

This page is about the claim. The court’s ruling on it, two years later, belongs to Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation) and is not retold here.

The order that produced the logs

On 18 June 2013 Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted the petitioners’ motion to compel discovery and gave the government thirty days.1 The order divided the material in two. Anything “exchanged by or between the federal government and persons or entities outside the federal government (including without limitation all correspondence generated by or between the federal government and Epstein’s attorneys)” was to be produced outright.1 For the rest, which was the office’s own internal file, the government could assert privilege, but only on two conditions: it must “contemporaneously file and serve, in the public portion of the court file, a privilege log clearly identifying each documents by author(s), addressee(s), recipient (s), date, and general subject matter and such other identifying data as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1 (g)”, and it must “contemporaneously submit all responsive documents withheld on claim of privilege to the court for in camera inspection by submitting the same for filing with the court under seal.”1

The order then set the terms of the fight over that log. The petitioners had thirty days after service to file a motion to compel contesting any asserted privilege claim, “limited to SEVEN (7) PAGES in length”; the government had fifteen days to respond, also “limited to SEVEN (7) PAGES in length”; and “No further submissions on asserted privilege claims shall be entertained without the express invitation of the court.”115 The order is signed in manuscript above the typed name “Kenneth A. Marra / United States District Judge” and dated “this 18th day of June, 2013”; a box at the foot is marked NOT SEALED.15

What the government filed

The government made its production on 19 and 27 July 2013 and filed a log with each tranche.

The first, Document 212-1, is headed simply “PRIVILEGE LOG” and runs to twenty-three of its own numbered pages.516 The covering notice, Document 212, states that “The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court’s Omnibus Order,” and carries a typed conformed signature for Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña beneath the line “WIFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.”3 The second, Document 216-1, “SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG”, runs to fourteen pages and picks up at the Bates number where the first stops.61716 A third, “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #4”, was filed nearly two years later on 23 June 2015 and runs to eighteen pages; its covering notice states that “The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-013970 thru P-014923.”47

Each log is a three-column table: Bates Range, Description, Privilege(s) Asserted.5 The Bates Range column does two things at once. It gives the range of pages the entry covers, and it names the physical container the material came out of, so that the log reads as an inventory of boxes: Box #1, Box #2, Box #3, Suppl. Box #3 and, in 2015, Box #4.51667

The scale is not stated in the logs themselves. The petitioners counted it in their renewed motion: “the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question,” and, separately, “the Government asserted privilege on 13,468 pages of materials.”11 The court’s own later summary is consistent with those figures without adopting them: the government “produced 1,357 pages of documents to Petitioners, filed three privilege logs, and submitted nearly 15,000 pages to the Court for in camera inspection.”18

What kind of material, and on what ground

In the first log the Description column describes a working prosecutor’s file: folders, not documents. Its first entry is a “File folder entitled ‘CORR RE GJ SUBPOENAS’ containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney (Villafaña) handwritten notes”, withheld under “6(e)” and “Work Product.”5 The second is the “Operation Leap Year Grand Jury Log containing subpoenas OLY-01 through OLY-81, correspondence and research related to enforcement of same, documents produced in response to some subpoenas; and attorney (Villafaña) handwritten notes”, withheld on the same two grounds with two further reservations printed in the same column: “Contains documents subject to investigative privilege” and “Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation.”5 That entry, and the investigation it names, are set out at Operation Leap Year. The 2015 Box #4 log is not built that way. On its first page every row is a dated email or a short exchange of emails rather than a folder, most of them naming both sender and recipient, against Bates ranges of one to four pages.7

The grounds are not evenly distributed across the file. Grand-jury secrecy and investigative privilege attach to the investigative material: subpoena folders, sealed search-warrant applications, records received from subpoenaed companies.519 Work product and deliberative process attach to the office’s research and drafting: a “File folder entitled ‘Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights’ containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz”; a “File folder entitled ‘Immunity’ containing attorney research on granting immunity to witnesses”; a “File folder entitled ‘Research re G.J. Transcript’ containing attorney research and draft pleadings re compelling production of grand jury transcript with subpoena.”20 Attorney-client privilege is asserted against the office’s dealings with the Department above it and with Epstein’s lawyers.162122 The Privacy Act is asserted against the office’s April 2008 self-reports to the Office of Professional Responsibility, discussed below.8

One thing printed in the Privilege(s) Asserted column is not a privilege at all: the recurring reservation that a folder “Also contains documents subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation.”5 The Description column carries a withholding of its own. Where a folder is titled by a complainant’s name the log prints the substitution “[Victim name]” rather than the name, as in “File folder entitled ‘[Victim name] Transcript of Interview & GJ Transcript’” and “File folder entitled ‘[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9’”, while naming, in the clear, the experts whose files sit beside them and a witness whose statement the office had subpoenaed.192324 The substitution is the government’s own: it appears in the government’s log as filed, not only in the victims’ annotated copy.1923

What the log records that the office was not withholding

The log is not only a list of refusals. On some rows the government asserted no privilege at all: it left the Privilege(s) Asserted cell blank and put a bracketed explanation in the Description instead. Against those rows, in the victims’ annotated copy, the added fourth column enters only “N/A”.2324 One reads “7/3/2008 Email from A. Marie Villafaña to Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work release with attachment [not being withheld as privileged – produced to opposing counsel]”.24 Another reads “12/6/2007 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) [pursuant to Court’s Order, not being withheld as privileged – will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit])”.24 The Starr and Lefkowitz letters of late November 2007 are flagged the same way inside the “Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights” entry: “Pursuant to the Court’s Order, these will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit.”20

So the correspondence category the order had exempted from privilege altogether was still not in the victims’ hands in August 2013, and the log says why: Epstein had moved in the Eleventh Circuit to stay its production, and the government was holding it pending that ruling.1124 One further row records material simply taken out of the count: “P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive documents and have been removed.”19

The office’s own conduct, in the office’s own log

Four consecutive entries in Box #3 log the office reporting itself to the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility in April 2008, less than three months before the victims’ petition was filed, and more than a decade before the OPR investigation that produced the Department’s 2020 report:

  • “April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting”;
  • “April 21, 2008 Letter from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting with attachments”;
  • “April 22, 2008 Letter from A. Marie Villafaña to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest”;
  • “April 23, 2008 Memo from Jeffrey Sloman to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self Reporting, Corrected Version of the previously submitted April 21, 2008 Letter to OPR.”8

All four are withheld under a single ground: the Privacy Act.8 The log says nothing about what was self-reported, beyond the phrase “Allegation of Conflict of Interest” in the third entry.

The entries immediately below them log the correspondence by which the office was recused from its own case. Most are emails between Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Benjamin Greenberg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, “regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida”, dated across July and August 2011.821 One of them attaches “memorandum from A. Marie Villafaña to Benjamin Greenberg summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Investigation.”16 Another is the notice itself, sent by Sudder to Wifredo Ferrer (U.S. Attorney, SDFL), Robert O’Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), Greenberg and Lee Bentley (First Assistant, MDFL), copied to David Margolis at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and four officials at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.21 An earlier pair, from December 2010, logs Peter Mason of the Executive Office and Dexter Lee of the Southern District of Florida “seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal”, with an attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer.16 Every one of these is withheld as attorney-client privileged; the Villafaña memorandum adds deliberative process and work product.82116

The supplemental log carries the office’s handling of the misconduct allegations themselves. It logs an email from Dexter Lee to Ruth Plagenhoef of March 2011 “RE: Referral of Cassell Request for Investigation”, attaching an email from Paul Cassell to Lee and Villafaña sent the previous day; an email from Plagenhoef to Neil Hurley of OPR in December 2010 forwarding “OPR Referral – Allegation of Misconduct – U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D.Fla.”, with “Handwritten attorney notations”; and, as the last entry in the log, “Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys.”17925 Two May 2011 entries add a ground that appears nowhere else in the three logs, on a whitespace-tolerant search of their extracted text for “law enforcement investigat-”, left open at the suffix to catch the log’s own misspelling: an email from Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton “RE: FYI on the Florida matter” and an email from Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef “RE: OPR Inquiry – request for information”, both withheld in part as a “Law Enforcement investigatory record.”910 The logs’ Privilege(s) Asserted column was not read page by page across all fifty-five of their pages, so that is a statement about what the extraction holds.

The last entry of the supplemental log carries a defect on its face: its Bates range runs “P-013956 Thru P-013846”, backwards.2517 The government found the error itself and said so on the record. Filing the second supplemental log two years later, it hung a footnote on the sentence giving that log’s Bates range: “Please note that, while preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned discovered an error on the Supplemental Privilege Log, that is, the last entry states that the last document bears Bates Numbers P-013956 thru P-013846. The correct Bates range for that document is P-013956 thru P-013969 [14 pages].” The corrected range runs to fourteen pages, which is what that entry’s own description says the document is: “Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys.”417

The victims’ answer: a fourth column

On 16 August 2013 Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell filed four things at once.

The first was Document 224, headed “JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2’S NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO PRIVLEGE LOG”; the typographical error is the filing’s own. Its whole text is three sentences: the victims give “notice of their filing of objections to the Government’s two privilege logs (DE 212 and DE 216). The objections are attached hereto. The victims are filing these objections concurrently with a motion to compel production of the materials at issue.”26

Attached to it is Exhibit A, headed “PRIVILEGE LOG – WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS.”12 It is the government’s two 2013 logs reproduced whole, with a fourth column headed Victims’ Objections added against every row: Bates Range · Description · Privilege(s) Asserted · Victims’ Objections.27 The two government logs run to thirty-seven of their own numbered pages between them; the annotated version, with the key at its front and the fourth column throughout, runs to sixty-nine.161728

The objections are entered as abbreviations, and the exhibit opens with a two-page key giving each abbreviation, its full form, and the heading it falls under: twenty-five grounds under eight headings: General Objections, Attorney Client Objections, Deliberative Process Objections, Investigative Privilege, Work Product Doctrine, Rule 6(e), The Privacy Rights of Other Victims, and the Privacy Act.1327 The key is expressly a pointer into the argument filed the same day: it is headed “Key to Objections (linking to Victims’ Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Privileged)”, again with the filing’s own spelling.13

The abbreviations are terse, but the propositions behind them are not. The motion to compel, Document 225, sets each out with authority: that “A general attorney-client privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications”; that “The Government cannot invoke privilege in the context of a Crime Victims’ Rights Act petition because it owes a fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use ‘best efforts,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), to protect their rights”; that any privilege is subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception; that work product “only applies to documents prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation … and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims’ Rights Act”; that “The Government can redact grand jury information from the requested materials, and produce the remaining materials”; that on the privacy of other victims, “The Government cannot withhold materials in this case because of the privacy rights of other victims when it has the simple option of simply redacting the names and identifying information of these other victims before producing the materials,” and that “Several of the victims cited by the Government are represented by undersigned counsel and do not wish to interpose privacy rights here”; and that “The Privacy Act Does Not Apply in the Context of Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery.”293031

The third filing was Document 225-1, an affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards. Its body runs to twenty-four docket pages and 122 numbered paragraphs, followed by the victims’ two requests for production and their requests for admissions as exhibits, sixty-four pages in all. It opens: “This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government’s assertions of privilege to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case.”3233

The fourth, Document 226, was a renewed motion for an order directing the office not to withhold relevant evidence.34 The government’s opposition opened by reciting what had arrived against a seven-page cap: “the government’s privilege log with its objections annotated (D.E. 224-1); (2) a motion to compel production of documents that are not privileged, numbering eight pages D.E. 225; (3) a twenty-four page, single-spaced affidavit of petitioners’ counsel, addressing the various privileges asserted by the government, D.E. 225-1; and (4) a renewed motion for an order directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to withhold relevant evidence, numbering seventeen pages, D.E. 226.”35

The complaint the fourth column is making

The renewed motion states the objection the abbreviations compress: not that the privileges are wrong, but that the log does not let anyone test them. “The Government provided only a truncated log that did not fully describe the documents at issue, much less ‘clearly’ identify the subject matter of the documents and the parties who received them. The Government has also failed to identify which documents it is producing go to which document production requests.”36

The mechanism, as the victims describe it: “the Government has simply taken more than 13,000 pages of documents, Bates stamped them in no particular order (or at least no order that the victims can discern), and then asserted that they are all privileged for various reasons.”37 The result they call “lump and dump”: the government “has simply taken the all documents it gathered, apparently dropped them on the floor into a random pile, and then provided a ‘log’ of documents in no order whatsoever – and without indicating which documents are being produced in answer to each question.”3738 Two consequences follow, and the second is the sharper one. “Compounding this problem and creating a critical additional problem, this lump and dump technique makes it impossible to verify that the Government has actually performed each of the searches required to make each of the responses. Indeed, it would be entirely possible that the Government could have failed to search for, or to produce, any documents whatsoever on certain requests and the victims would have no way to know one way or the other.”38

The motion gives four worked examples, all of them about officials acting officially. The first two concern requests for documents about two of the office’s own former prosecutors. One is described in the motion as having left “to become employed by Epstein”; the other’s “personal/business relationship” with Epstein was the subject of a separate request. In each case, the motion says, the government had admitted in answers to requests for admission that it held responsive information, and nothing in the log lets the victims find it. The government’s answer to that is below.3839 The third concerns the OPR investigation. The fourth concerns the recusal: the victims “know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-MDFL evaluated something as a result,” and yet, apart from a few preliminary emails, “nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal.”4041

The government’s opposition

The government answered on 3 September 2013 in Document 230, signed for U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter A. Lee.42 It met each point.

On the adequacy of the log: “Their argument is baseless because the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in camera review to determine if the privilege is valid.”2 On the complaint that the log does not map documents to requests, the opposition answered by pointing at the recusal entries and quoting them back: the log “clearly references e-mails between Assistant General Counsel Richard Sudder, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg, ‘regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated August 24 and August 29, 2011.’”2 “Since petitioners requested these documents, they should be able to discern what document request they pertain to.”43

On the two former prosecutors: “The fallacy in petitioners’ reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government’s response to the request for admission was a document, rather than personal observation. If it was based on the latter, there would be no document to produce.”43

On OPR: the opposition set out the Office’s regulatory functions under 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a and argued from Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100 that notes and memoranda made by OPR attorneys interviewing Department attorneys are work product, “because notes and memoranda prepared by OPR attorneys are created with an eye toward potential litigation.”4445

On the recusal, the government contradicted the premise: “Petitioners seem to believe that the recusal of the USAO-SDFL was based on a finding that misconduct had occurred in the Epstein case, which is incorrect. Further, the transfer of responsibility to the USAO-MDFL was not a charter for it to investigate the USAO-SDFL. Instead, the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein case, and exercises its own independent judgment and discretion in deciding what action to take, if any.”41

It denied the fiduciary theory on the authority of United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, and denied that the Act creates any protected liberty or property interest capable of supporting a due process claim to the documents.4647 Its conclusion: “The privilege log provided by the government adequately describes the documents for which privileges are being asserted. Further, there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege invoked by the government, nor is there any due process right to documents provided in the CVRA.”42

What became of the claim

The dispute did not end in 2013. The government filed its second supplemental log in June 2015, and the petitioners re-lodged their objections to all three logs before the court ruled.448 In an opinion and order of 6 July 2015 Judge Marra found the logs “adequate to facilitate a meaningful in camera inspection and assessment of the asserted privileges,” declined to order a more detailed log, and resolved the individual claims in a Table appended to the order.14 The ruling, the Table, and what it directed the government to produce are set out at Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation).

Documents

DocumentDescription
EFTA00209344Omnibus Order, Document 190, signed 18 June 2013 — the order requiring the log
EFTA00211385United States’ Notice of Filing Privilege Log, Document 212, and the Privilege Log, Document 212-1, 19 July 2013
EFTA00209306United States’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Privilege Log, Document 216, and the Supplemental Privilege Log, Document 216-1, 27 July 2013
EFTA00179613The victims’ 16 August 2013 filings in one run: Notice of Filing of Objections (Doc. 224), “Privilege Log – With Victims’ Objections” (Doc. 224-1), Motion to Compel (Doc. 225), Edwards affidavit and exhibits (Doc. 225-1), Renewed Motion (Doc. 226), and the government’s Opposition of 3 September 2013 (Doc. 230)
EFTA01325051United States’ Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log, Document 329, and the Second Supplemental Privilege Log — Box #4, Document 329-1, 23 June 2015
EFTA01657752Opinion and Order on the privilege claims, Document 330, 6 July 2015

Timeline

DateEvent
18 June 2013Omnibus Order signed: produce, or log and submit for in camera inspection; motion to compel capped at seven pages115
19 July 2013Privilege Log, Document 212-1, filed; withheld material delivered to chambers35
27 July 2013Supplemental Privilege Log, Document 216-1, filed6
16 August 2013Notice of Filing of Objections, the annotated log, the motion to compel, the Edwards affidavit and the renewed motion all filed26123234
3 September 2013The government’s opposition filed42
23 June 2015Second Supplemental Privilege Log — Box #4 filed4
6 July 2015The court finds the logs adequate and resolves the claims in an appended Table14

Cases: Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation), the court’s ruling on these claims; the 2008 non-prosecution agreement. Topics: Operation Leap Year, the file these boxes came out of; Federal charging decisions; Document redaction integrity; Epstein investigations overview. People: A. Marie Villafaña; Alex Acosta; Brad Edwards; Paul G. Cassell; Jack Goldberger.

Footnotes

  1. Omnibus Order, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 190, entered on the FLSD docket 19 June 2013, its own p. 2 (paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs b, c, c(i) and c(ii), and the page limits). Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209344 p. 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  2. Same opposition, its own p. 2 of 12: “Their argument is baseless because the privilege log does clearly indicate what documents for which a privilege is being claimed. Further, the Court also has the actual document for in camera review to determine if the privilege is valid.”; “The government’s privilege log clearly references e-mails between Assistant General Counsel Richard Sudder, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg, ‘regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida, dated August 24 and August 29, 2011.’ D.E. 212-1 at 22.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 174. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. “United States’ Notice of Filing Privilege Log,” Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States of America, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla.), Document 212, entered 19 July 2013, p. 1: “The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court’s Omnibus Order.” The signature is a typed conformed signature for A. Marie Villafaña, Assistant United States Attorney, beneath “WIFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211385 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. “United States’ Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log,” Document 329, entered 23 June 2015, its own p. 1 of 2: “The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-013970 thru P-014923.” The mark printed immediately after “P-013970” is a superscript footnote reference, not an apostrophe: rendered at 600 dpi and cropped to the glyph, it is a raised vertical stroke with a foot serif spanning its width and a flag at the top left, where the apostrophes elsewhere on the same page (“Court’s”, “States’”) are comma-shaped marks hanging from cap height with no foot. The note it keys to stands at the foot of the same page and reads in full: “Please note that, while preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned discovered an error on the Supplemental Privilege Log, that is, the last entry states that the last document bears Bates Numbers P-013956 thru P-013846. The correct Bates range for that document is P-013956 thru P-013969 [14 pages].” The notice is signed by conformed signature “s/A. Marie Villafaña”, Assistant United States Attorney, beneath “WIFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”. Counsel’s telephone, facsimile and email lines are on the page and are not reproduced. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. “PRIVILEGE LOG,” Document 212-1, entered on the FLSD docket 19 July 2013, its own p. 1 of 23 (p. 3 of the corpus document). Column headings “Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted”; the first two rows quoted. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211385 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  6. “United States’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Privilege Log,” Document 216, entered 27 July 2013, and “SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG,” Document 216-1, whose own p. 1 of 14 begins at Bates P-013279, the number immediately after the first log’s last. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209306 pp. 1, 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG - BOX #4,” Document 329-1, entered 23 June 2015, its own p. 1 of 18, captioned “JANE DOE v. UNITED STATES / COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA”. Three columns, “Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted”, and no fourth column. Every row on this page is a dated email or a short exchange of emails rather than a folder title — 11/29/2006–12/1/2006, 5/18/2007, 5/21/2007, 5/22/2007 and 5/23/2007 — against Bates ranges of one to four pages; most name both sender and recipient. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Same exhibit, its own p. 45 of 70 (footed “Page 44 of 69”): the four April 2008 Office of Professional Responsibility self-reporting entries quoted in the text, each with “Privacy Act” alone in the Privilege(s) Asserted column; and the first two Sudder–Greenberg recusal entries, each “Attorney-Client Privilege”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 54. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. Same exhibit, its own p. 69 of 70 (footed “Page 68 of 69”): “E-mail, Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton, May 4, 2011, … RE: FYI on the Florida matter”, withheld as “Law Enforcement investigatory record, atty work product; deliberative process privilege”; “E-mail, Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef, May 3, 2011, … RE: OPR Inquiry – request for information, with post-it note attached with handwritten attorney notes on telephone call between Plagenhoef and Howard with Dexter Lee and Marie Villafana”, withheld as “atty work product; law enforcement investigatiory record” (the misspelling is the exhibit’s own); and the Lee–Plagenhoef “Referral of Cassell Request for Investigation” entry. Clock times printed in these entries are not reproduced: they carry no time zone. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 78. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Same supplemental log, its own p. 13 of 14, carrying on the government’s own filing the two May 2011 rows quoted in the text: “E-mail, Plagenhoef to Robin C. Ashton, May 4, 2011, … RE: FYI on the Florida matter” against “Law Enforcement investigatory record, atty work product; deliberative process privilege”, and “E-mail, Paul Cassell to Plagenhoef, May 3, 2011, … RE: OPR Inquiry – request for information, with post-it note attached …” against “atty work product; law enforcement investigatiory record” (the misspelling is the log’s own). The search behind the sentence in the text: a whitespace-tolerant regular expression for “law enforcement investigat-”, open-ended at the suffix, run over the extracted text of all three logs and of the annotated exhibit. It returns these two rows on the government’s supplemental log, the same two rows in the exhibit, and nothing else in any log; two further hits in the exhibit run fall inside the Edwards affidavit’s exhibits on the different phrase “law enforcement investigative” and are not log rows. The Privilege(s) Asserted column was not read page by page across all fifty-five log pages, so the claim rests on the extraction and not on the images. Clock times printed in these entries are not reproduced: they carry no time zone. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209306 p. 15. ↩ ↩2

  11. Same motion, its own p. 4 of 18: “On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production in this case. With regard to item (1) – correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein’s motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the Court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the Government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question.”; “On the other hand, the Government asserted privilege on 13,468 pages of materials.” Read from the page image. These are the petitioners’ figures, not the government’s. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 158. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. “EXHIBIT A / PRIVILEGE LOG – WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS,” Document 224-1, entered 16 August 2013, its own p. 1 of 70 — the exhibit cover sheet. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Same exhibit, its own p. 2 of 70, footed “Page 1 of 69”: “PRIVILEGE LOG – WITH VICTIMS’ OBJECTIONS / Key to Objections (linking to Victims’ Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Privileged)”, with two columns headed “Objection” and “Abbreviation”. The spelling “Docments” and the line “Work Production Privilege Does No Apply When the Attorney’s Conduct is at Issue” are the exhibit’s own. The key’s headings on this page are General Objections, Attorney Client Objections, Deliberative Process Objections, Investigative Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and Rule 6(e). Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 11. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. Same order, p. 4: “The Court has reviewed the Government’s privilege logs and the documents that they describe, and the Court finds that the logs—describing nearly 15,000 pages of documents— are adequate to facilitate a meaningful in camera inspection and assessment of the asserted privileges. To the extent inadequacies may be present, the Court finds that judicial resources would not be best spent by requiring the Government to submit a revised, more detailed log.” The Table appended to the order, and the rulings in it, are set out at Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation) and are not repeated here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 pp. 3–4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Same order, its own p. 3: “the government shall thereafter have FIFTEEN (15) DAYS after service of the petitioners’s motion motion to file its response, if any, limited to SEVEN (7) PAGES in length. No further submissions on asserted privilege claims shall be entertained without the express invitation of the court.”; “DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day of June, 2013.” A manuscript signature stands above the typed name “Kenneth A. Marra / United States District Judge”; a box at the foot encloses two lines, “SEALED” above “NOT SEALED”, each preceded by a short blank rule, and a single diagonal stroke — of a different and varying weight from the box’s rules — descends to the rule beside “NOT SEALED”. The repeated word “motion motion” is the order’s own. Read from the page image at 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209344 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Same log, its own last page, p. 23 of 23, whose two rows are the July 2011 recusal emails with the attached “memorandum from A. Marie Villafaña to Benjamin Greenberg summarizing Jeffrey Epstein Investigation” and the December 2010 Mason–Lee emails “seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010”. The log ends at Bates P-013278. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211385 p. 25. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  17. Same supplemental log, its own last page, p. 14 of 14: “E-mail, Dexter Lee to Ruth Plagenhoef, March 16, 2011, … RE: Referral of Cassell Request for Investigation, with e-mail from Paul Cassell to Dexter Lee and Marie Villafana … attached” (atty work-product; atty-client privilege); “E-mail, Plagenhoef to Neil Hurley, OPR, December 16, 2010, … FW: OPR Referral – Allegation of Misconduct – U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D.Fla., with e-mail from Dexter Lee to Plagenhoef …, attached. Handwritten attorney notations.” (atty work-product, atty-client privilege); “Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys” (atty work-product), whose Bates range is printed “P-013956 Thru P-013846”. Clock times printed in these entries are not reproduced: they carry no time zone. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209306 p. 16. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  18. Same order, p. 3: “The Government produced 1,357 pages of documents to Petitioners, filed three privilege logs, and submitted nearly 15,000 pages to the Court for in camera inspection.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 3. ↩

  19. Same log, its own p. 8 of 23: “P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive documents and have been removed”; ‘File folder entitled “ANNA SALTER” containing attorney research on select expert, use of experts at trials in child exploitation cases, and additional research materials on offenders and victims’; ‘File folder entitled “JUAN ALESSI STATEMENT” containing transcript obtained via subpoena’; ‘File folder entitled “[Victim name] Transcript of Interview & GJ Transcript”’. The bracketed substitution is the log’s own. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211385 p. 10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. Same exhibit, its own p. 35 of 70 (footed “Page 34 of 69”): the “Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights”, “Immunity” and “Research re G.J. Transcript” folder entries, quoted in the text, with the parenthesis “(Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher; and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P-010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the Court’s Order, these will be produced to opposing counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit)”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 44. ↩ ↩2

  21. Same exhibit, its own p. 46 of 70 (footed “Page 45 of 69”): two further Sudder–Greenberg recusal entries and the entry for the notice itself, “Email from Richard Sudder, Assistant General Counsel, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, to Wifredo Ferrer (U.S. Attorney, SDFL), Robert O’Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), Benjamin Greenberg, (FAUSA, SDFL), and Lee Bentley (FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated August 24, 2011. CC’s David Margolis (ODAG), Jay Macklin (USAEO), Thomas Anderson (USAEO), Michelle Tapken (USAEO), James Read (USAEO)”, withheld as attorney-client privileged. “USAEO” is the log’s own abbreviation. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 55. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  22. Same exhibit, its own p. 49 of 70 (footed “Page 48 of 69”): the Suppl. Box #3 folder entries for August 2008 email traffic among A. Marie Villafaña, A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson and D. Lee and with J. Lefkowitz, R. Black and M. Weinberg concerning the Agreement, the last of them “email from A. Marie Villafaña to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson re production of Agreement to victims”, withheld as attorney-client privileged, work product and deliberative process. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 58. ↩

  23. Same log, its own p. 13 of 23, carrying on the government’s own filing the two rows quoted in the text: P-009114 thru P-009115 and P-009116 thru P-009125, whose Privilege(s) Asserted cells are blank. The string “N/A” appears nowhere on this page. The page is ruled into the log’s three columns and has no fourth column. Other rows on it are blank in the same column and carry the same kind of bracketed note in the Description, among them the folder “Certified Copy of State Case” and an 11/26/2008 email from Roy Black. The following page of the same log, its own p. 14 of 23, carries the row “File folder entitled ‘[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9’ containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation” — the bracketed substitution standing in the government’s own Description column, as it does at its own p. 8 of 23. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211385 pp. 15–16. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  24. Same exhibit, its own p. 30 of 70 (footed “Page 29 of 69”): the two rows whose Privilege(s) Asserted cells are empty and whose Victims’ Objections cells read “N/A”, quoted in the text; and the two rows for folders entitled “[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9” and “[Victim name]/Jane Doe #13”, each “containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and grand jury data related to that victim/witness for indictment preparation”, withheld under work product, 6(e) and investigative privilege with the reservation “Contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this suit”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 39. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  25. Same exhibit, its own p. 70 of 70 (footed “Page 69 of 69”): the row continued from the preceding page, whose Privilege(s) Asserted cell reads only “client privilege” because the row begins on p. 78; and the final row, “Fourteen (14) pages of handwritten attorney notes on case, telephone interviews with DOJ attorneys”, “atty work-product”, whose Bates cell reads “P-013956 Thru P-013846”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 79. ↩ ↩2

  26. “Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Notice of Filing of Objections to Privlege Log,” Document 224, entered on the FLSD docket 16 August 2013, p. 1. The heading’s spelling of “PRIVLEGE” is the filing’s own. Signed “/s/ Bradley J. Edwards” over the Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman block, with Paul G. Cassell pro hac vice below; dated August 16, 2013. Counsel’s telephone, facsimile and email lines are on the page and are not reproduced. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 7. ↩ ↩2

  27. Same exhibit, its own p. 3 of 70, footed “Page 2 of 69”. The key concludes at the top of this page with the last Rule 6(e) ground and the headings “The Privacy Rights of Other Victims” and “Privacy Act”; the table then begins, ruled into four columns headed “Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted | Victims’ Objections”, its first two rows being the two Box #1 rows that open the government’s own log. Counting across pp. 11 and 12: twenty-five grounds under eight headings. Read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 11–12. ↩ ↩2

  28. Same exhibit, its own p. 70 of 70, footed “Page 69 of 69”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 79. ↩

  29. “Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents That Are Not Privileged,” Document 225, entered on the FLSD docket 16 August 2013, ECF pp. 1–3 of 10 — the caption page carrying the title, and the filing’s own pp. 1 and 2 (general responses: Inadequate Privilege Log; Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings). This filing is scanned out of order within the corpus run: its pp. 1–4 appear after the affidavit, at pp. 151–154, and its pp. 5–10 before it, at pp. 81–86. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 151–154. ↩

  30. Same motion, ECF pp. 3 and 4 of 10 (the filing’s own pp. 2 and 3): “Waiver of Confidentiality”; “Government’s Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege – The Government cannot invoke privilege in the context of a Crime Victims’ Rights Act petition because it owes a fiduciary duty to the crime victims to use ‘best efforts,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), to protect their rights.”; “Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered”; “Factual Materials Not Covered”; “Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation – The work product doctrine (as well as the investigative privilege) only applies to documents prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation … and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.”; “A general attorney-client privilege does not exist for ordinary governmental communications.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 153–154. ↩

  31. Same motion, ECF p. 8 of 10 (the filing’s own p. 7): “Grand Jury Materials Can Be Severed from Other Materials – The Government can redact grand jury information from the requested materials, and produce the remaining materials.”; “Government Redaction Can Resolve Privacy Concerns. The Government cannot withhold materials in this case because of the privacy rights of other victims when it has the simple option of simply redacting the names and identifying information of these other victims before producing the materials.”; “No Assertion of Privacy Rights by Other Victims. Several of the victims cited by the Government are represented by undersigned counsel and do not wish to interpose privacy rights here.”; “The Privacy Act Does Not Apply in the Context of Court-Compelled Disclosures for Discovery.”; and the conclusion, “Because the Government’s assertions of privilege are not well-founded, the Court should provide all of the documents the Government submitted for in camera inspection to the victims.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 84. ↩

  32. “Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Regarding Need for Production of Documents,” Document 225-1, entered on the FLSD docket 16 August 2013, its own p. 1 of 64, paragraphs 1–2: “This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government’s assertions of privilege to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in this case.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 87. ↩ ↩2

  33. Same filing, whose numbered paragraphs run to 122 and end on its own p. 24 of 64; its pp. 25, 39 and 47 are divider sheets reading “EXHIBIT 1 / To / Brad Edwards Affidavit”, “EXHIBIT 2 …” and “EXHIBIT 3 …”, the exhibits being the victims’ First and Second Requests for Production and their Requests for Admissions, and the filing ends at its own p. 64 of 64. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 110, 111, 125, 133, 150. ↩

  34. “Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Renewed Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence,” Document 226, entered on the FLSD docket 16 August 2013, its own p. 1 of 18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 155. ↩ ↩2

  35. “Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Renewed Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney’s Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence,” Document 230, entered on the FLSD docket 3 September 2013, ECF pp. 1–2 of 12: “In its Omnibus Order of June 18, 2013, this Court directed that petitioners should have thirty days after service of the government’s privilege log to file a motion to compel contesting any asserted privilege claim. D.E. 190 at 2. Any such motion to compel was limited to seven pages.”; and the recital of the four filings quoted in the text, which begins on p. 1 and ends on p. 2. Read from the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 173–174. ↩

  36. Same motion, its own p. 5 of 18: “the Government provided only a truncated log that did not fully describe the documents at issue, much less ‘clearly’ identify the subject matter of the documents and the parties who received them. The Government has also failed to identify which documents it is producing go to which document production requests.” The grammar of the second sentence is the filing’s own. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 159. ↩

  37. Same motion, its own p. 7 of 18: “Instead, the Government has simply taken more than 13,000 pages of documents, Bates stamped them in no particular order (or at least no order that the victims can discern), and then asserted that they are all privileged for various reasons.”; “But rather than disclose documents on a search-by-search basis, the Government has simply taken the all documents it gathered, apparently dropped them on the …” — the sentence continues onto p. 8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 161. ↩ ↩2

  38. Same motion, its own p. 8 of 18, which completes the preceding sentence: “floor into a random pile, and then provided a ‘log’ of documents in no order whatsoever – and without indicating which documents are being produced in answer to each question.”; “Compounding this problem and creating a critical additional problem, this lump and dump technique makes it impossible to verify that the Government has actually performed each of the searches required to make each of the responses. Indeed, it would be entirely possible that the Government could have failed to search for, or to produce, any documents whatsoever on certain requests and the victims would have no way to know one way or the other.”; and the first of the four illustrations, concerning a former prosecutor’s knowledge of the Epstein prosecution “immediate before he left to become employed by Epstein” — the missing “-ly” is the filing’s own. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 162. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  39. Same motion, its own pp. 9–10 of 18: the second and third illustrations, concerning a second former prosecutor and the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation, and the statement that “the Government’s privilege log does not even contain the word ‘Reinhart’ anywhere in it.” These are the petitioners’ characterisations of what the government held; the government’s answer is set out under “The government’s opposition” above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 pp. 163–164. ↩

  40. Same motion, its own p. 11 of 18: “The victims know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of some decisions, so presumably the USAO-MDFL evaluated something as a result. Yet apart from a few preliminary emails within the Justice Department regarding whether the recusal should occur, see Gov’t First Privilege Log at pp. 22-23, nothing in the privilege log indicates that the Government has produced even a single document in response to the request for information about what happened as a result of the recusal.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 165. ↩

  41. Same opposition, its own p. 6 of 12: “Petitioners seem to believe that the recusal of the USAO-SDFL was based on a finding that misconduct had occurred in the Epstein case, which is incorrect. Further, the transfer of responsibility to the USAO-MDFL was not a charter for it to investigate the USAO-SDFL. Instead, the USAO-MDFL assumed responsibility for the Epstein case, and exercises its own independent judgment and discretion in deciding what action to take, if any.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 178. ↩ ↩2

  42. Same opposition, its own p. 11 of 12: “Petitioners’ renewed motion should be denied. The privilege log provided by the government adequately describes the documents for which privileges are being asserted. Further, there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege invoked by the government, nor is there any due process right to documents provided in the CVRA.”; “DATED: September 3, 2013”; the signature block is a typed conformed signature, “s/ Dexter A. Lee / DEXTER A. LEE / Assistant U.S. Attorney”, beneath “WILFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”. The U.S. Attorney’s forename is printed “WILFREDO” here and “WIFREDO” on the government’s own privilege-log notice; both spellings are in the record and neither is corrected. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 183. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  43. Same opposition, its own p. 3 of 12: “The subjects of the e-mails, office-wide recusal and ‘seeking advice regarding office-wide recusal,’ were stated in the privilege log.”; “Since petitioners requested these documents, they should be able to discern what document request they pertain to.”; “The fallacy in petitioners’ reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government’s response to the request for admission was a document, rather than personal observation. If it was based on the latter, there would be no document to produce.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 175. ↩ ↩2

  44. Same opposition, its own p. 4 of 12: “Petitioners admit that the government has included documents from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in its privilege logs. … The government has properly invoked the attorney-client, work product, and deliberative process privileges for many of the OPR documents,” followed by its discussion of Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 176. ↩

  45. Same opposition, its own p. 5 of 12: “In this case, OPR is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of misconduct committed by DOJ attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1).”; “The documents generated by these investigative actions are covered by the work product privilege because notes and memoranda prepared by OPR attorneys are created with an eye toward potential litigation.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 177. ↩

  46. Same opposition, its own p. 7 of 12: “They provide no legal authority for the contention that the CVRA creates a fiduciary obligation between the government and crime victims,” and its discussion of United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 179. ↩

  47. Same opposition, its own p. 9 of 12: “There is no life, liberty, or property interest implicated in the CVRA”; “Without a protected life, liberty, or property interest, petitioners cannot invoke the due process clause as a basis for compelling the government to disclose documents to them.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00179613 p. 181. ↩

  48. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of America, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 330, entered on the FLSD docket 6 July 2015, p. 1: “In response to Petitioners’ first requests for production, the respondent Government asserted various privileges in three privilege logs and submitted nearly 15,000 pages of documents for in camera inspection. (DEs 212-1, 216-1, 329-1). Petitioners object to every privilege asserted. (DE 265).” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 1. ↩

Backlinks