Epstein Data Wiki

The Second Supplemental Privilege Log, Box #4 (2015)

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

57 min read

What it is”SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG – BOX #4”, Document 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla.), entered on the FLSD docket 23 June 2015; 18 pages on its own numbering1
Who filed itThe United States as respondent, by Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafaña beneath “WIFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”; the covering notice is Document 3292
Under what authority”Pursuant to the Court’s June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190)”, the order that required a public privilege log and in camera submission of anything withheld2
ColumnsBates Range · Description · Privilege(s) Asserted. Three columns; there is no fourth1
Size137 rows, counted at the image across the log’s own pp. 1–18; Bates P-013970 through P-014923, 954 numbers, running consecutively with no gap3
What is in the boxAlmost entirely the office’s own internal email, dated 29 November 2006 to 15 August 2008: the charging decision, the grand jury preparation, and the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement14
Grounds assertedWork product; Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy; deliberative process; investigative privilege; attorney-client privilege; the Privacy Act; and a reservation, printed in the same column, that a document “Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation”5
What the court didOpinion and Order, Document 330, 6 July 2015: the Table appended to it rules on 136 of the 137 rows, ordering two produced outright67
Why it was late”When preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned realized that some emails had not been reviewed and produced due to a hard drive crash in 2008”, Document 332, 20 July 20158

Content note and page limits. The Description column of this log describes material gathered in an investigation of the sexual abuse of minors, and some entries characterise witnesses and third parties. This page reproduces no description that identifies a complainant or a witness, and gives no location for any such entry. Where a row is quoted, it is quoted because it names no complainant and no witness; and where the log gives a person no role or title, none is supplied here. Counsel’s direct telephone, facsimile and email lines are printed on the covering notice and are not reproduced here. Clock times do not appear in this log’s descriptions, so the time-zone problem that affects other logs in this case does not arise. One convention: the Privilege(s) Asserted cell stacks its grounds on separate lines, so where the footnotes below render a cell they join those lines with an oblique and do not put the result in quotation marks; the oblique is the desk’s, not the log’s.

The two 2013 privilege logs are a separate subject and are covered on their own page, together with the victims’ annotated exhibit that added a fourth “Victims’ Objections” column to them. That exhibit is the victims’ document. This one is the government’s, and it has no fourth column. The court’s ruling on all three logs belongs to Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation); only the parts of that ruling which bear on Box #4 are set out below.

The order it was filed under, and the two years

The log recites a single authority, and it is nearly two years old: “Pursuant to the Court’s June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Second Supplemental Privilege Log.”2 That order had given the government thirty days.9

Between the two 2013 logs and this one the case went to the Eleventh Circuit and came back. An order of Judge Kenneth A. Marra dated 22 September 2014 records the sequence in a footnote: “Thereafter, the parties appealed these Orders. (DE 194, 195, 196). On April 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the disclosure order, and the mandate was issued on June 11, 2014. (DE 254).”10 The same order set a fresh timetable for the privilege fight: the petitioners’ motion to compel was denied as moot, but “to the extent Petitioners raise objections to the government’s assertions of privileges, Petitioners may re-assert these objections”, with twenty-one days to do so.11 The petitioners re-asserted; the government responded on 14 November 2014; the petitioners replied on 24 November 2014.12

Nothing on the docket sheet between that reply and 23 June 2015 records an order directing the government to file a further privilege log. The entries in that period concern intervention, sealing, an amendment motion and a page-limit motion; the entry immediately before Document 329 is an endorsed order of 18 May 2015 granting leave to file a sixty-page summary-judgment motion.13 The log’s own recital points only at the 2013 order.2

The government’s own explanation came a month later, in a notice of partial compliance filed 20 July 2015: “When preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned realized that some emails had not been reviewed and produced due to a hard drive crash in 2008. Those emails have been recovered, but need to be reviewed for privilege and produced.” The same paragraph records that “The Eleventh Circuit previously granted an extension of time in Baston to allow the undersigned to finish the Second Supplemental Privilege Log.”8

On the day it filed, the office also wrote to the petitioners’ counsel by Federal Express: “Enclosed please find one CD containing additional emails bearing Bates Numbers 002111 through 002266. I had previously produced these to Brad via email. I also have enclosed a copy of the Second Supplemental Privilege Log. A copy of the documents that accompany that log have been hand-delivered to Judge Marra’s chambers today.”14

What the log is

Document 329 is two pages: the notice and a certificate of service. Document 329-1, the log, begins on the third page of the run and is eighteen pages, footed “Page 1 of 18” through “Page 18 of 18”. It is headed “JANE DOE v. UNITED STATES / COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA / SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG – BOX #4” and ruled into three columns: Bates Range, Description, Privilege(s) Asserted.14

Every one of the eighteen pages was rendered and read. The log carries 137 rows. Counted page by page at the image, the rows per page run 8, 8, 9, 11, 8, 10, 8, 8, 9, 8, 8, 5, 6, 7, 6, 6, 7, 5.3 The Bates ranges run consecutively from P-013970 to P-014923 with no gap anywhere: each row’s range begins at the number immediately after the previous row’s last, across every page boundary, and the final row ends at P-014923, the number the covering notice gives.32 That is 954 Bates numbers. Unlike the first 2013 log, which carries a row recording that a block of pages “are non responsive documents and have been removed”, nothing is subtracted from this sequence.3

Every row asserts at least one ground; no row leaves the Privilege(s) Asserted cell blank, and no row carries the “not being withheld as privileged” bracket that appears in the 2013 log.5 The last row of the log is the single exception in the other direction, and it is a note in the Description rather than the privilege column: against P-014920 thru P-014923 the log adds “(Redacted version produced to opposing counsel)”, while still asserting work product and deliberative process over the row.4

The copy this page reads from is produced without redaction: no page of the eighteen in EFTA01325051 carries a redaction box.3 That is a fact about that copy and not about the release. Other copies of the same filing do carry redaction boxes, and they are set out below.15

What is in Box #4

The first 2013 log describes folders rather than documents. This one describes email, almost row for row, and it runs broadly in date order from 29 November 2006 to 15 August 2008, with local inversions where a range overlaps the row before it.14 That span covers the whole of the federal charging decision and the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement, and the log indexes it as a day book.

The rows name, in the clear, the people who wrote and received the messages. The names the log carries are A. Marie Villafaña, Jeff Sloman, Matt Menchel, Andrew (Andy) Lourie, Alex Acosta, Karen Atkinson, Rolando Garcia, Robert (Bob) Senior, Cyndee Campos, Annette Castillo, John McMillan, Frederica Devlin, Shawn Ball, Dexter Lee, Janice LeClainche, David Weinstein, Sigal Mandelker, Caroline Heck Miller, Susan Roe, Krishna Patel, Alan Santiago, E.J. Yera, Serene Nakano and James Cott. The log gives most of them no title, and none is supplied here. Where it does give one it is reproduced: “AUSAs” against Nakano and Cott; “(CEOS)” against Myesha Braden, Andrew Oosterbaan and Alexandra Gelber; “S/A” against Jason Richards, Eliasib Ortiz and Nesbitt Kuyrkendall; and “(FBI)” against Kuyrkendall and Richards on the last page. Andrew Oosterbaan appears in some rows as “Drew Oosterbaan”.16

The descriptions also name Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Ken Starr, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez. Where the log states no role for a person, none is supplied here. What the rows say of these five is that one records an “intent to subpoena Roy Black’s private investigator”; that another records “correspondence from Roy Black and Motion to Quash”, and a third a “Motion to Quash grand jury subpoena and supporting affidavit filed by Roy Black”; that one is a 22 May 2007 email “re letter received from Gerald Lefcourt discussing a meeting to discuss Epstein investigation”; that there was an “extension of time to respond to subpoenas requested by Lilly Ann Sanchez” and, a month later, a “letter received from Lilly Ann Sanchez”; that there was “press coverage of meeting with Ken Starr”, a “12/4/2007 Acosta letter to Ken Starr” and “correspondence from Ken Starr”; and that Jay Lefkowitz is the counterparty in the telephone conference quoted below.117181920

The subject matter of the rows falls into a small number of recurring kinds: drafting and revising the indictment package and the grand jury presentation; charging research, in particular on 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and the use of a telephone as a “facility of interstate commerce”21; the plea and non-prosecution negotiations; victim notification letters; dealings with the State Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office; and the office’s waiting on Washington.17222324

What the descriptions record about the office’s own conduct

A privilege log is written to withhold. The Description column has to say enough for the claim to be tested, and in this log that requirement produced a set of one-line summaries of the office’s own decisions. Those set out below are quoted from the rows as the government wrote them, and each concerns officials acting officially.

On a disagreement over the plea negotiations. Against P-014011 thru P-014025 the log describes a “7/3/2007-7/13/2007 email chain between Matt Menchel and Marie Villafaña regarding disagreement on Menchel’s plea negotiations and written request for meeting between USAO management and victims”, withheld under 6(e), work product, deliberative process and investigative privilege.17 A month later, against P-014035, the log records a “7/31/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Jeff Sloman, Matt Menchel, and Andrew Lourie summarizing proposed plea terms as per Menchel recommendation”.18

On what Epstein’s counsel is said to have conceded. Against P-014509 thru P-014519 the log describes “1/3/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Alex Acosta, and Jeff Sloman regarding Alex Acosta telephone conference with Jay Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz admitted that he never intended to have Epstein plead guilty to an offense that required sex offender registration”, withheld as work product and deliberative process.23 This is the government’s own characterisation, in a log entry, of what Epstein’s counsel said on a telephone call; it is not a transcript and no party to the call is quoted. No row of this log gives Lefkowitz a role: he is described as Epstein’s counsel here on the strength of documents covered elsewhere on this wiki, among them his firm’s submission to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and his letter of 8 November 2007 asserting that Epstein was complying with the non-prosecution agreement. The page searched the release for a response by that counsel to the characterisation, on “Declaration of Jay Lefkowitz”, “Affidavit of Jay Lefkowitz” and “Lefkowitz declares”, each returning nothing, and did not find one; the name “Lefkowitz” appears on 5,222 pages of the release and no exhaustive reading of them was attempted.25

On work release. Against P-014299 thru P-014307 the log describes “11/14/2007-11/19/2007 emails between Marie Villafaña, Jason Richards, Jeff Sloman, Rolando Garcia, Alex Acosta, and Karen Atkinson regarding communications with State Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office in an attempt to insure that Epstein was ineligible for work release”, withheld as work product, deliberative process and attorney-client privileged.26 The spelling “insure” is the log’s own.

On the treatment of victims by the defence. Against P-014781 thru P-014800 the log describes “3/19/2008-3/27/2008 emails between Jeff Sloman, Bob Senior, Karen Atkinson, Rolando Garcia, Nesbitt Kurykendall, and Jason Richards regarding waiting for DC’s decision regarding Epstein’s challenges to NPA; status of ongoing investigation; problems with Epstein’s counsel contacting victims in the guise of deposing them for the state criminal action; and securing pro bono counsel for those victims to represent them in connection with the depositions”.27 Two rows further down the page, at P-014811 thru P-014829, a 3/31/2008 chain ends its description with “problems with victims being harassed”. The row that sits between the two, P-014801 thru P-014810, is a 3/28/2008 chain “regarding status of DC review of case and preparing for grand jury presentation”.27

On self-reporting to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Against P-014852 thru P-014864 the log describes “4/11/2008-4/23/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Jeff Sloman, and Dexter Lee regarding self-reporting to OPR false allegations of ethics violations”, withheld as work product, deliberative process and under the Privacy Act.24 The four April 2008 self-report letters themselves are logged in the 2013 material, where the office describes them neutrally, one of them as a “Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest”; here the office’s description of the surrounding email calls the allegations false.24 When the court came to rule on this row it described the same material differently again: “Involves self-reporting to OPR regarding Epstein’s allegation that certain prosecutors had conflicts of interest. Not relevant to victims’ CVRA rights.”28

One further row is worth recording for what it says the office was doing outside its own case. Against P-013995 thru P-014010 the log describes a “6/12/2007-7/6/2007 series of emails between Marie Villafaña and AUSAs Serene Nakano and James Cott re an earlier unrelated investigation of Epstein”, withheld as work product, investigative privilege and under the Privacy Act.17

The grounds, counted

Six grounds appear in the Privilege(s) Asserted column across the eighteen pages: work product (printed once, at P-014162 thru P-014170, as “Work Production”); “6(e)”; deliberative process; investigative privilege; attorney-client privilege (variously “A/C privilege”, “Attorney client privilege” and “Attorney-Client Privilege”); and the Privacy Act.5 Alongside them the column carries a reservation which is not a privilege at all, in the same wording the 2013 logs use: “Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation.”5

Two counts were taken exhaustively, by reading the Privilege(s) Asserted cell of all 137 rows at the image across the log’s own pp. 1–18:

  • The victims’ privacy reservation appears against 17 rows. They are distributed across the log’s pp. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16; no row on pp. 1 to 6, 9, 17 or 18 carries it.5
  • The Privacy Act is asserted against 4 rows, at the log’s pp. 1, 2, 11 and 17.5

The second of those counts is a caution about method as much as a fact. A search of the extracted text of this document for “Privacy Act” returns three pages, not four. The fourth instance, on the log’s p. 2, is rendered in the text layer as “Privac Act”, one character short, and is invisible to an exact-string search. The count above is a count of what is on the images.5

No count is offered of the other grounds. Reading a cell is not the same as tabulating it, and a distribution asserted over 137 rows would be a claim this page has not separately verified.

What the court did with it

Judge Marra’s Opinion and Order of 6 July 2015, thirteen days after the log was filed, disposed of all three logs at once. It found them “adequate to facilitate a meaningful in camera inspection and assessment of the asserted privileges” and resolved the individual claims in a Table appended to the order.29

The Table marks where they begin. A footnote keyed to the entry for P-013970 thru P-013971, on the order’s p. 42, reads: “The Government’s Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1).”30 From there to the order’s last page the Table works through the box.

The Table carries 136 entries for the Box #4 range, against the log’s 137 rows. Counted at the image across the order’s pp. 42 to 51, the entries per page run 3, 18, 19, 16, 8, 17, 11, 14, 19, 11.7 The single log row with no Table entry is P-014465 thru P-014485, twenty-one pages described in the log as “12/18/2007-12/21/2007 emails between Marie Villafaña and other AUSAs regarding other instances of charging 2422(b) based on the use of a telephone as a ‘facility of interstate commerce’”, withheld as work product and under 6(e). The order’s p. 47 ends at the entry for S:14457-14464 and its p. 48 opens at the entry for S:14486; both page images were read and both tables are closed by a ruled border, so this is a gap in the Table and not a break in the extraction.7

Most Box #4 entries in the Table read “Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege.” Two rows were ordered produced outright, and in each the court said the government had failed to support the same claim.

Against S:14520, which the log describes as a “1/3/2008 email from Marie Villafaña to Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards regarding renewed plea negotiations and press coverage of Epstein matter”, the Table reads “Produce”, with the comment: “The Government has not supported its assertion of attorney-client privilege: the email does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that it was a communication between an attorney and clients regarding the provision of legal services or legal advice. Petitioners’ need for this material outweighs any deliberative process or investigative privilege that may apply.”2331

Against S:14551, which the log describes as a “1/17/2008 email from Nesbitt Kuyrkendall to Marie Villafaña regarding updated summary charts for indictment preparation, meetings with victims, and victim notification letters from FBI”, the Table again reads “Produce”: “The Government has not supported its assertion of attorney-client privilege: the email, authored by an FBI agent, does not indicate that it is a client communication seeking legal services or advice from an attorney, the United States Attorney’s Office. Petitioners’ need for this material outweighs any investigative privilege that may apply. This must be produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.”2332

One row was disposed of on relevance rather than privilege: against S:14557 the Table reads “Production not necessary as not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to this CVRA litigation.”32 And against the log’s last row the Table records the government’s own note back to it: “The Government notes that a redacted version has been produced to Petitioners. (DE 329-1 at 18). Only the unredacted version is privileged.”28

The Table’s transcription of the log’s Bates numbers is not always exact. Three entries print the number in a form the log does not use: “S:S:14011-14025”, with the prefix doubled, for P-014011 thru P-014025; “S:14031-01432” for P-014031 thru P-014032; and “S:14157-15160” for P-014157 thru P-014160. All three were read at the page image.7

What the government said it had produced

On 20 July 2015 the government filed a notice of partial compliance with the Table, Document 332. Its schedule lists six Box #4 ranges. Five are the ranges the Table had held only partially privileged, each answered “Produced with internal correspondence redacted”, four of them adding “Had previously been produced”; against P-014311 thru P-014329 it states that it produced the correspondence with Epstein’s counsel at P-014320 thru P-014321. The sixth is the single row the Table had ordered produced in full: against P-014520, described in the schedule as “Correspondence with FBI agents”, the note reads “Produced pursuant to Court’s order”.33

The second row the Table had ordered produced, P-014551, is not in that schedule. It appears instead in the motion for more time that follows, among the material the court had directed be produced under a protective order, alongside five ranges from the 2013 logs; the government said “The parties have not yet drafted a protective order” and that it was “in the process of attempting to determine the position of the other individuals whose names were provided to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein regarding the disclosure of their personal information to Petitioners’ counsel.”8

The notice also records the office’s position on names: “the government notes that two of the items listed above contained the names of individuals identified through the course of the investigation. At this time, these names have been redacted, except for the names of the Petitioners and one individual who publicly identified herself in court documents in the Doe v. Epstein litigation. As explained below, the government believes that providing the names of individuals who have always asked to proceed as ‘Jane Does,’ without their permission, would violate state and federal law.”33

Box #4 was not the last. The docket sheet records a Third Supplemental Privilege Log and documents in camera filed on 3 August 2015, and an “ORDER ON THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG” signed 1 October 2015.34 Those are not covered here.

The draft of this log is also in the release

Pages 40 to 51 of a sixty-five page run in Data Set 9 carry a twelve-page table headed “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG”, footed “Page 1 of 12” to “Page 12 of 12”, ruled into the same three columns, and crossed by a large diagonal grey watermark reading DRAFT. On the table’s last page the five letterforms are legible in the white space below the table without any processing; on its first page, where the mark falls across the ruled rows, they were resolved by isolating the mid-grey layer of the raster and rotating it forty degrees.3536

The draft differs from the filed log in three ways visible on its face. Its Bates Range column contains no Bates ranges: the first cell reads “Box #4 / P-013970 / thru / P-”, with the closing number never filled in, and every row below is numbered instead, 1, 2, 3 and so on.35 Its rows are not in date order; on its p. 6 of 12, entry 50 is dated 3/31/2008, entry 54 is dated 8/15/2008 and entry 55 is dated 12/3/2007-12/5/2007.37 And it is shorter: its last numbered entry carrying a description is 102, followed by a row numbered 103 with an empty Description and an empty Privilege(s) Asserted cell, and then a wholly empty row.36 The filed log has 137 rows.

The first row of the filed log, the November-December 2006 exchange with a prison employee, is not entry 1 of the draft; entry 1 of the draft is the 18 May 2007 email to Matt Menchel, which is the filed log’s second row.351 Several other early rows of the filed log likewise have no counterpart in the draft’s opening page. In some rows the draft abbreviates where the filed version spells out: it writes “AMCV” for the line prosecutor and “WP”, “DP” and “IP” for work product, deliberative process and investigative privilege.36

Whose draft it is, the run does not say. The pages carry no court header, no docket stamp, no date and no signature. The run they sit in has no docket stamps at all; its first page is the government’s response to the petitioners’ first request for admissions, and pages 39 and 52 to 65 are a July 2013 transmittal letter from the U.S. Attorney’s office to the petitioners’ counsel and a copy of the 2013 Supplemental Privilege Log.38 The draft’s position in that company is a fact about the release, not a finding about who prepared it, and this page draws no conclusion from it.

The copies

Seven copies of the filed log are in the release on the tests run here. The count comes from the string “Document 329-1” that the court’s electronic filing system prints across the head of every docketed page: that search returns seven documents and 126 stamped pages, eighteen in each. A second probe, four phrases of the log’s own body text taken from its pp. 1, 7, 11 and 18, does not count copies and is not used as though it did; three of the four return eight documents and the fourth returns nine, because the same words appear in the draft run described below and in two further documents that quote them. Both probes read the extracted text layer, and a copy whose redactions or scan quality defeated the extraction of all five strings would appear in neither, so seven is the number these searches find and not a closed set.39

Three are the full twenty-page run of Document 329 and Document 329-1: EFTA01325051 and EFTA01325031 in Data Set 10, and EFTA00211410 in Data Set 9. Two are the eighteen-page log without its covering notice: EFTA00020711 in Data Set 8 and EFTA00594171 in Data Set 9. A sixth, EFTA02755738 in Data Set 12, is the eighteen-page log again. The seventh is not a document of its own: pp. 223 to 242 of EFTA00185206, a 310-page run in Data Set 9, carry Document 329 and Document 329-1 in full, ending on the page footed “Page 18 of 18”. The covering notice appears once more on its own, at EFTA02755756 in Data Set 12.39

The copies do not carry the same redactions, and the log’s own p. 1 was rendered from five of them to compare. On EFTA01325051, EFTA01325031 and EFTA00211410 that page carries no box anywhere. On EFTA02755738, which is docket-stamped “Document 329-1 … Page 1 of 18” like the rest, a black box stands over the first word of the first column’s header, where the other copies print “Bates”, and a box stands in every one of the page’s eight Description cells, in each case over part of a personal name whose remainder survives. On EFTA00185206 the same log page is scanned a quarter turn round and the boxes are heavier and fall the other way: most of the personal names in the Description column are covered, in some rows a whole name and in others only the surname, so that “Andy” survives on that copy and the name after it does not. A box also covers the “v.” in the caption “JANE DOE v. UNITED STATES”, while “Roy Black” and “Gerald Lefcourt” are uncovered and the “Bates Range” header is not boxed. The log’s last page, rendered from three copies, shows the same three patterns.15

The covering notice is redacted differently again. EFTA00175211 is not a copy of the filing but of the office’s own transmittal: the 23 June 2015 letter to petitioners’ counsel with the notice and certificate of service behind it. On the letter a redaction box stands beneath each addressee’s name, another above the line reading “United States Attorney”, another after “By:”, another after “cc:”, and one across the head of the page; the addressees’ names, “Brad Edwards, Esq.” and “Paul G. Cassell”, are printed above the boxes. On the second page, which reproduces the notice, a box covers the whole signature block below “By:”.1440 On EFTA00185206 p. 223 the notice is boxed after “By:” and across the telephone and facsimile lines. On EFTA02755756 the boxes fall in different places again: one word in the body, two in the footnote, one in the sentence about delivery to chambers, part of the name in the conformed signature and in the typed name below it, and the line beneath “Facsimile:”.15 The docketed filing carries a typed name above the corresponding “United States Attorney” line and a conformed signature below the corresponding “By:”, and this page takes both from that filing rather than from any of the redacted ones.2

Four pages of the log were rendered from more than one copy: its p. 1 from five, its p. 18 from three, and its pp. 11 and 17 from two each, the last two matching line for line with no redaction in either copy. The remaining fourteen pages were read at the image in EFTA01325051 alone.3915

Documents

DocumentDescription
EFTA01325051United States’ Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log (Doc. 329) and the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, Box #4 (Doc. 329-1), 23 June 2015; 20 pages
EFTA02755738The Second Supplemental Privilege Log, Box #4 (Doc. 329-1), 23 June 2015; 18 pages, docket-stamped, carrying redaction boxes over part of the personal names in the Description column and over the first word of the first column header
EFTA00185206310-page run in Data Set 9 whose pp. 223–242 carry Document 329 and Document 329-1 in full; its pp. 225 and 242 are scanned a quarter turn round and redacted over most of the personal names
EFTA02755756United States’ Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log (Doc. 329) alone, 23 June 2015; 2 pages, redacted
EFTA00175211Letter of 23 June 2015 from the U.S. Attorney’s office to petitioners’ counsel enclosing the log and a CD of additional emails, with the notice and certificate of service; redacted
EFTA00191199Undocketed 65-page run: the government’s response to the first requests for admissions, a July 2013 transmittal letter, the 2013 logs, and at pp. 40–51 a twelve-page table headed “Second Supplemental Privilege Log” watermarked DRAFT
EFTA01099441Order, Document 257, 22 September 2014, resetting the privilege briefing after the Eleventh Circuit mandate
EFTA01657752Opinion and Order, Document 330, 6 July 2015, with the appended Table; the Box #4 rulings are at pp. 42–51
EFTA02755809United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time, Document 332, 20 July 2015
EFTA00800218FLSD docket sheet for 9:08-cv-80736, printed 25 February 2019

Timeline

DateEvent
18 June 2013Omnibus Order, Document 190: produce, or log publicly and submit the withheld material for in camera inspection, within thirty days9
19 and 27 July 2013The two 2013 privilege logs filed; see the 2013 logs10
18 April 2014The Eleventh Circuit affirms the disclosure order; mandate issued 11 June 201410
22 September 2014Order, Document 257: the petitioners may re-assert their privilege objections within twenty-one days11
14 and 24 November 2014The government’s response and the petitioners’ reply on the re-asserted objections12
23 June 2015Second Supplemental Privilege Log, Box #4, filed; the documents hand-delivered to chambers and a copy sent to petitioners’ counsel with a CD of additional emails214
6 July 2015Opinion and Order, Document 330: the logs held adequate; the Table rules on the Box #4 rows29
20 July 2015Notice of partial compliance: five ranges produced with internal correspondence redacted, one produced under the order, and the disclosure that emails had been missed after a 2008 hard drive crash338
3 August 2015Third Supplemental Privilege Log and documents in camera filed34
1 October 2015Order on the Third Supplemental Privilege Log34

Topics: The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation, the two earlier logs and the victims’ annotated exhibit; Operation Leap Year, the investigation whose file these boxes hold; The 2013 requests for admission; Federal charging decisions; Discovery materials. Cases: Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation), the court’s ruling on these claims; the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, the negotiation this box indexes. People: A. Marie Villafaña; Alex Acosta; Brad Edwards; Paul G. Cassell.

Footnotes

  1. “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG – BOX #4,” Document 329-1, entered on the FLSD docket 23 June 2015, its own p. 1 of 18 (p. 3 of the corpus document), captioned “JANE DOE v. UNITED STATES / COURT FILE NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA”. Column headings “Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted”; the table is ruled into three columns and there is no fourth. Eight rows, P-013970 thru P-013984. The first row: “11/29/2006-12/1/2006 emails between Marie Villafaña and prison employee regarding attempted contact with potential witness”, against Work Product / Investigative Privilege / Privacy Act. The second: “5/18/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Matt Menchel informing him of intent to subpoena Roy Black’s private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization”, against Work Product / 6(e) / Deliberative Process / Investigative Privilege. The row states no office or title for Matt Menchel; none is supplied here. Also on this page, at P-013981, a “5/22/2007 email from Andy Lourie to Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman (cc: Marie Villafaña) re letter received from Gerald Lefcourt discussing a meeting to discuss Epstein investigation”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process; the row states no role for Lefcourt and none is supplied here. Also on this page, rows naming an unnamed expert witness, Myesha Braden “(CEOS)”, Jason Richards and Karen Atkinson. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  2. “United States’ Notice of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log,” Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman (S.D. Fla.), Document 329, entered on the FLSD docket 23 June 2015, its own p. 1 of 2: “Pursuant to the Court’s June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Second Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-013970 thru P-014923.”; “The documents referenced in the Second Supplemental Privilege Log will be 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 conformed signature, “s/A. Marie Villafaña”, above the typed “A. MARIE VILLAFAÑA / Assistant United States Attorney”, beneath “WIFREDO A. FERRER / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”; counsel’s Florida Bar number, office address, telephone, facsimile and email lines are printed on the page and are not reproduced here. The extracted text renders the order’s date as “June IS, 2013”; the image reads “June 18, 2013”. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. The row count, the per-page distribution and the Bates continuity were taken by rendering all eighteen pages of Document 329-1 at 400 dpi and reading each row. Rows per page, in the log’s own numbering: p. 1, 8; p. 2, 8; p. 3, 9; p. 4, 11; p. 5, 8; p. 6, 10; p. 7, 8; p. 8, 8; p. 9, 9; p. 10, 8; p. 11, 8; p. 12, 5; p. 13, 6; p. 14, 7; p. 15, 6; p. 16, 6; p. 17, 7; p. 18, 5. Total 137. Continuity was checked by comparing each row’s opening Bates number with the previous row’s closing number, within pages and across every page boundary: the sequence runs unbroken from P-013970 to P-014923, 954 numbers. No page of the eighteen carries a redaction box. For the 2013 log’s removal row, “P-005084 thru P-005107 are non responsive documents and have been removed”, see The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 pp. 3–20. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Same log, its own p. 18 of 18, five rows, P-014895 thru P-014923, the last being “8/15/2008 email from Marie Villafaña to Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Robert Senior, Karen Atkinson, and Dexter Lee containing draft response to 8/15/2008 email from Jay Lefkowitz regarding implementation of the NPA. (Redacted version produced to opposing counsel)”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process. The page is footed “Page 18 of 18”. This row’s date, 15 August 2008, is the latest in the log; the earliest, on its own p. 1, is 29 November 2006. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 20. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. The Privilege(s) Asserted cell of all 137 rows was read at the image across the log’s own pp. 1–18 (corpus pp. 3–20), rendered at 400 dpi. Every cell carries at least one ground; none is blank, and no row carries a bracketed “not being withheld as privileged” note of the kind the 2013 log uses. The grounds appearing are work product, “6(e)”, deliberative process, investigative privilege, attorney-client privilege and the Privacy Act, together with the reservation “Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation”. “Work Production” appears once, against P-014162 thru P-014170 at the log’s p. 6. The reservation appears against 17 rows, distributed one on p. 7, one on p. 8, two on p. 10, one on p. 11, four on p. 12, three on p. 13, two on p. 14, two on p. 15 and one on p. 16. The Privacy Act appears against 4 rows, one each on pp. 1, 2, 11 and 17. The extracted text of this document contains the string “Privacy Act” on three pages only; the fourth instance, on the log’s p. 2, extracts as “Privac Act”. No count was taken of the remaining grounds. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 pp. 3–20. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  6. Same order, the Table entries against S:14520 (p. 48 of 51) and S:14551 (p. 49 of 51), each of which reads “Produce.” in the ruling column. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 pp. 48–49. ↩

  7. The comparison of the Table against the log was made by rendering the order’s pp. 42–51 at 400 dpi and reading every Table entry. Entries per page: p. 42, 3; p. 43, 18; p. 44, 19; p. 45, 16; p. 46, 8; p. 47, 17; p. 48, 11; p. 49, 14; p. 50, 19; p. 51, 11. Total 136, against the log’s 137 rows. The single unmatched row is P-014465 thru P-014485: the order’s p. 47 ends with the entry for S:14457-14464 and its p. 48 begins with the entry for S:14486, with a ruled table border closing p. 47 and opening p. 48. Three Table entries print the log’s numbers in a form the log does not use: “S:S:14011-14025”, “S:14031-01432” and “S:14157-15160”. The log’s own description of the unmatched row is at its p. 10 of 18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 pp. 47–48; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 12. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Same notice, its own p. 4 of 6: “the Court has ordered the United States to produce to Petitioners a list of other identified victims and information related to other victims pursuant to a Protective Order (see DE330 ref documents bearing [redacted] Nos. P003647-P003651; P003712; P005420; P011778-P011788; P012451-P012452; P-014551). The parties have not yet drafted a protective order. The United States also is in the process of attempting to determine the position of the other individuals whose names were provided to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein regarding the disclosure of their personal information to Petitioners’ counsel.”; “When preparing the Second Supplemental Privilege Log, the undersigned realized that some emails had not been reviewed and produced due to a hard drive crash in 2008. Those emails have been recovered, but need to be reviewed for privilege and produced. On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, the undersigned has a brief due to the Eleventh Circuit in the matter of United States v. Baston, 14-14444-EE. The Eleventh Circuit previously granted an extension of time in Baston to allow the undersigned to finish the Second Supplemental Privilege Log.” A word before “Nos.” in the first passage is covered by a redaction box on this copy, as is a name following the word “Brad” in the sentence that closes the page; nothing under either box is supplied from this document. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755809 p. 4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Omnibus Order, Document 190, entered on the FLSD docket 19 June 2013, its own p. 2, requiring production within thirty days and, for anything withheld, a contemporaneous public privilege log and submission of the withheld material for in camera inspection. The order and its page limits are set out at The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209344 p. 2. ↩ ↩2

  10. Order, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 257, entered on the FLSD docket 22 September 2014, its own p. 2 and its footnote 1: “In order to comply with the Orders, on July 19 and 26, 2013, the government filed its responses to the requests for admissions, it filed its privilege log …”; footnote: “Thereafter, the parties appealed these Orders. (DE 194, 195, 196). On April 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the disclosure order, and the mandate was issued on June 11, 2014. (DE 254).” This order gives the second 2013 filing date as July 26; the supplemental log itself and the docket give July 27, and the later date is used here and at the 2013 logs. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01099441 p. 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Same order, its own p. 3, paragraphs 1 and 4: “Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents that are not Privileged (DE 225) is DENIED AS MOOT. However, to the extent Petitioners raise objections to the government’s assertions of privileges, Petitioners may re-assert these objections.”; “Within 21 days from the date of this Order, Petitioners may file their motion re-asserting the objections to the government’s assertions of privilege.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01099441 p. 3. ↩ ↩2

  12. FLSD docket sheet for Case 9:08-cv-80736, printed 25 February 2019, p. 22 of 35: entry of 11/14/2014, “RESPONSE to … Petitioners’ Reassertion of Objections to Government’s Assertions of Privileges by United States of America”; entry of 11/24/2014, “RESPONSE/REPLY … Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Reply is Support of Reassertion of Objections to Government’s Assertions of Privleges by Jane Doe”. The spellings “is Support” and “Privleges” are the docket’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00800218 p. 22. ↩ ↩2

  13. Same docket sheet, p. 25 of 35, covering 25 February 2015 to 18 May 2015: the entries concern responses on the Rule 15 amendment motion, Alan M. Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention, an order denying the amendment motion, a supplemental order, an order on intervention, and, last, entry 328 of 5/18/2015, “ENDORSED ORDER granting … Motion for Leave to File a Single 60-Page Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”. No entry in this period directs the filing of a further privilege log. The absence claim rests on reading the docket sheet’s entries at pp. 22–26 for the period 20 October 2014 to 3 August 2015 and on the recital in Document 329 itself, which cites only the June 2013 order; no wider search of the case file was made. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00800218 p. 25. ↩

  14. Letter of 23 June 2015 on U.S. Department of Justice / United States Attorney / Southern District of Florida letterhead, addressed to Brad Edwards, Esq. and Paul G. Cassell, “DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS”, re Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States: “Enclosed please find one CD containing additional emails bearing Bates Numbers 002111 through 002266. I had previously produced these to Brad via email. I also have enclosed a copy of the Second Supplemental Privilege Log. A copy of the documents that accompany that log have been hand-delivered to Judge Marra’s chambers today.” The extraction renders the first Bates number as “0021 II”; the image reads 002111. On this copy a redaction box stands beneath each addressee’s name, one above the line reading “United States Attorney”, one after “By:”, one after “cc:” and one across the head of the page; the addressees’ names are printed above the boxes and are given here. Nothing under any of those boxes is supplied from this document. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00175211 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. The redaction comparison across copies, all pages rendered locally and read. The log’s own p. 1 was rendered at 400 dpi from EFTA01325051 (its p. 3), EFTA02755738 (its p. 1) and EFTA00185206 (its p. 225), and at 300 dpi from EFTA01325031 (its p. 3) and EFTA00211410 (its p. 3); the log’s p. 18 at 400 dpi from EFTA01325051 (its p. 20), EFTA02755738 (its p. 18) and EFTA00185206 (its p. 242); the covering notice at 400 dpi from EFTA00185206 (its p. 223) and EFTA02755756 (its p. 1). On EFTA01325051, EFTA01325031 and EFTA00211410 the log’s p. 1 carries no box: measured on those same rasters, no forty-pixel block on any of the three exceeds 37 % dark at a darkness threshold of 64 of 255, while every page named below as carrying boxes contains blocks that are wholly black. On EFTA02755738 p. 1 the docket stamp reads “Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 329-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2015 Page 1 of 18”; a solid black box covers the first word of the first column’s header, which the other copies print as “Bates”, and nine boxes stand across the page’s eight Description cells, the cell at P-013977 thru P-013979 carrying two, in every case over part of a personal name whose remainder is left legible; its p. 18 carries the same header box and one box in each of its five rows. On EFTA00185206 pp. 225 and 242 the log pages are scanned a quarter turn round; the boxes cover most of the personal names in the Description column, in some rows a whole name and in others only the surname, and a box covers the “v.” in the caption; on p. 225 “Roy Black” and “Gerald Lefcourt” are legible and the “Bates Range” header is not covered. On EFTA00185206 p. 223, which is Document 329 p. 1 of 2, boxes cover the conformed signature and typed name after “By:”, the telephone and facsimile numbers, and the line below them. On EFTA02755756 p. 1, also Document 329 p. 1 of 2, a box stands where the other copies print the word before “Numbers” in the body and the words before “Numbers” and before “range” in the footnote; another where they print the word before “of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra”; two over part of the name in the conformed signature and in the typed name below it; and one across the line beneath “Facsimile:”. Nothing under any box on any of these copies is supplied from them. The names this page prints are taken from EFTA01325051, which prints them in the clear. Separately, two further pages of the log were rendered from two copies each and compared line by line: its p. 11 from EFTA01325051 and EFTA00020711, and its p. 17 from EFTA01325051 and EFTA00594171. In each case the copies are identical and neither carries a redaction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00020711 p. 11; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00594171 p. 17; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755738 pp. 1, 18; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00185206 pp. 223, 225, 242; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755756 p. 1; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325031 p. 3; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00211410 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  16. The roster is taken from reading all eighteen pages of Document 329-1 at the image, rendered at 400 dpi. First appearances, by the log’s own page numbering: Villafaña, Menchel, Sloman, Braden “(CEOS)”, Lourie, Richards and Atkinson on p. 1; “S/A Jason Richards and S/A Eliasib Ortiz”, and AUSAs Nakano and Cott, on p. 2; Acosta, Campos and Devlin on p. 3; Andrew (and “Drew”) Oosterbaan and McMillan on p. 4; Garcia, Ball and Kuyrkendall on p. 5; Castillo on p. 8; LeClainche and “Bob Senior” on p. 9; Santiago, Mandelker and Heck Miller on p. 13; Weinstein and Roe on p. 14; Patel and Yera on p. 15; “Alexandra Gelber (CEOS)” on p. 16; Lee on p. 17; and “Nesbitt Kuyrkendall (FBI), and Jason Richards (FBI)” and “S/A Kuyrkendall” on p. 18. Where a row gives no title, none is stated on this page. The roster was then re-checked by a second method: the extracted text of all eighteen pages was scanned for every capitalised token not already in the list. The scan returned no further personal name — its returns were OCR variants of names already listed (“Rolanda” for Rolando Garcia at the log’s p. 6, “Ken Stan” for Ken Starr at p. 9, “E.J. Yen” for E.J. Yera at p. 15, “Karen Atkins” for Karen Atkinson at p. 17), place and office words (“Alaska”, “Civil Rights Division”, “Special Master”, “Attorney Representative”) and production stamps. The extraction can drop what the image shows, so the scan is a check on the image reading and not a substitute for it. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 pp. 3–20. ↩

  17. Same log, its own p. 2 of 18, eight rows, P-013985 thru P-014032: “6/12/2007-7/6/2007 series of emails between Marie Villafaña and AUSAs Serene Nakano and James Cott re an earlier unrelated investigation of Epstein”, against Work Product / Investigative Privilege / Privacy Act (the extraction renders the last as “Privac Act”); “7/3/2007-7/13/2007 email chain between Matt Menchel and Marie Villafaña regarding disagreement on Menchel’s plea negotiations and written request for meeting between USAO management and victims”, against 6(e) / Work Product / Deliberative Process / Investigative Privilege; and rows on the addendum to the Pros Memo and the interstate nexus for 2422(b); at P-013992 thru P-013994, an “extension of time to respond to subpoenas requested by Lilly Ann Sanchez and possible resolution of case”; at P-014026 thru P-014027, “correspondence from Roy Black and Motion to Quash”; at P-014028 thru P-014030, a “Motion to Quash grand jury subpoena and supporting affidavit filed by Roy Black”; and at P-014031 thru P-014032, the potential service of target letters. The rows state no role for Sanchez or for Black and none is supplied here. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  18. Same log, its own p. 3 of 18, nine rows, P-014033 thru P-014046, including “7/31/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Jeff Sloman, Matt Menchel, and Andrew Lourie summarizing proposed plea terms as per Menchel recommendation”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process; and, at P-014043 thru P-014044, “Emails dated 8/6/2007 from Marie Villafaña to Cyndee Campos/Frederica Devlin and Jeff Sloman regarding Matt Menchel’s correspondence prior to his departure.” Also on this page, at P-014038 thru P-014041, “8/2/2007 emails between Matt Menchel, Jeff Sloman, Andy Lourie, and Marie Villafaña regarding letter received from Lilly Ann Sanchez”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process; the row states no role for Sanchez and none is supplied here. The word “drom” for “from” at P-014037 is the log’s own. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 5. ↩ ↩2

  19. Same log, its own p. 4 of 18, eleven rows, P-014047 thru P-014058, including “8/8/2007 email chain between Andrew Oosterbaan, Alex Acosta, Marie Villafaña, Cyndee Campos, Jeff Sloman, and Andrew Lourie regarding ‘The meeting on Epstein’” and “8/30/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Jeff Sloman, Andrew Lourie, Drew Oosterbaan, John McMillan, and Karen Atkinson regarding press coverage of meeting with Ken Starr”. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 6. ↩

  20. Same log, its own p. 8 of 18, eight rows, P-014308 thru P-014420, including the 12/3/2007-12/5/2007 correspondence “about drafting and sending the 12/4/2007 Acosta letter to Ken Starr” and the 11/29/2007-12/1/2007 emails “regarding draft response to Jay Lefkowitz and victim notification letters”. Also on this page, at P-014403 thru P-014414, a 12/6/2007 chain “regarding correspondence from Ken Starr, request for a meeting from Epstein counsel, and need to notify victims of upcoming plea”; the row names Starr and states no role for him, and none is supplied here. The spelling “Jay Lekowitz” at P-014355 thru P-014361 is the log’s own. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 10. ↩

  21. Same log, its own p. 10 of 18, eight rows, P-014455 thru P-014506, including “12/18/2007-12/21/2007 emails between Marie Villafaña and other AUSAs regarding other instances of charging 2422(b) based on the use of a telephone as a ‘facility of interstate commerce’”, against work product and 6(e). This is the row for which the court’s appended Table carries no entry. Two rows on this page carry the victims’ privacy reservation. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 12. ↩

  22. Same log, its own p. 5 of 18, eight rows, P-014059 thru P-014134, including “9/10/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Jeff Sloman and John McMillan regarding Acosta inquiry about FBI investigation into State grand jury proceeding” and “9/13/2007 emails from Marie Villafaña to Andrew Lourie, Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson regarding plea to federal charges recommending 18 USC 403 or 1512(d), or 47 USC 223(a)(1)(B); response that Epstein was only willing to plead to assault on the plane; and rejection of facts supporting assault on the plane charge”. The statutory citations are given here as the image prints them; the extraction renders the last as “223(aX1XB)”. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 7. ↩

  23. Same log, its own p. 11 of 18, eight rows, P-014507 thru P-014552: “1/3/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Alex Acosta, and Jeff Sloman regarding Alex Acosta telephone conference with Jay Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz admitted that he never intended to have Epstein plead guilty to an offense that required sex offender registration”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process; “1/3/2008 email from Marie Villafaña to Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards regarding renewed plea negotiations and press coverage of Epstein matter”, against Attorney client privilege / Deliberative Process / Investigative Privilege; and “1/17/2008 email from Nesbitt Kuyrkendall to Marie Villafaña regarding updated summary charts for indictment preparation, meetings with victims, and victim notification letters from FBI”, against Attorney-client privilege / Investigative Privilege / Also contains information subject to privacy rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation 6(e). Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 13. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  24. Same log, its own p. 17 of 18, seven rows, P-014838 thru P-014894, including “4/11/2008-4/23/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Jeff Sloman, and Dexter Lee regarding self-reporting to OPR false allegations of ethics violations”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process / Privacy Act. For the four April 2008 self-report letters as the government logged them in 2013, including the “Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest”, see The 2013 privilege logs in the CVRA litigation, which sources them to the annotated exhibit. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 19. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. Searches run over the corpus full-text index, column-scoped, for a response by Epstein’s counsel to the characterisation in the log: “Declaration of Jay Lefkowitz”, 0 pages; “Affidavit of Jay Lefkowitz”, 0 pages; “Lefkowitz declares”, 0 pages. The phrase “never intended to have Epstein plead” returns 9 pages, all of them copies of this log or documents reproducing its wording. The name “Jay Lefkowitz” returns 2,470 pages and “Lefkowitz” 5,222; those were not read exhaustively, and this page reports the searches it ran rather than asserting that no response exists in the release. ↩

  26. Same log, its own p. 7 of 18, eight rows, P-014239 thru P-014307, whose last is “11/14/2007-11/19/2007 emails between Marie Villafaña, Jason Richards, Jeff Sloman, Rolando Garcia, Alex Acosta, and Karen Atkinson regarding communications with State Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office in an attempt to insure that Epstein was ineligible for work release”, against Work Product / Deliberative Process / Attorney-Client Privilege. The spelling “insure” is the log’s own. The row above it, P-014285 thru P-014298, reads at the image “regarding response to objections raised by Epstein counsel and efforts to change date for guilty plea”; the extracted text of that clause is damaged. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 9. ↩

  27. Same log, its own p. 16 of 18, six rows, P-014728 thru P-014837. Read at the image at 400 dpi, the six run in this order: P-014728 thru P-014742; P-014743 thru P-014780; P-014781 thru P-014800; P-014801 thru P-014810, “3/28/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, Jeff Sloman, Robert Senior, and Karen Atkinson regarding status of DC review of case and preparing for grand jury presentation”; P-014811 thru P-014829; and P-014830 thru P-014837. Two of them are quoted here: “3/19/2008-3/27/2008 emails between Jeff Sloman, Bob Senior, Karen Atkinson, Rolando Garcia, Nesbitt Kurykendall, and Jason Richards regarding waiting for DC’s decision regarding Epstein’s challenges to NPA; status of ongoing investigation; problems with Epstein’s counsel contacting victims in the guise of deposing them for the state criminal action; and securing pro bono counsel for those victims to represent them in connection with the depositions”; and “3/31/2008 emails between Marie Villafaña, Jeff Sloman, Robert Senior, and Nesbitt Kuyrkendall regarding status of ongoing investigation, planned presentation to grand jury, continued delay in awaiting decision from Washington, DC, and problems with victims being harassed”. The spellings “Kurykendall”, “Nesibtt” and “Esptein” on this page are the log’s own. Also on this page, the row naming “Alexandra Gelber (CEOS)”. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01325051 p. 18. ↩ ↩2

  28. Same order, p. 51 of 51, the Table entries against S:14852-14864 and S:14920-14923. The first: “Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege; also not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to this CVRA litigation,” with the comment “Involves self-reporting to OPR regarding Epstein’s allegation that certain prosecutors had conflicts of interest. Not relevant to victims’ CVRA rights.” The second: “Protected from discovery by opinion work product privilege,” with the comment “The Government notes that a redacted version has been produced to Petitioners. (DE 329-1 at 18). Only the unredacted version is privileged.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 51. ↩ ↩2

  29. 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. 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.” Its p. 1 records that the 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 pp. 1, 4. ↩ ↩2

  30. Same order, p. 42 of 51, read from the page image at 400 dpi. The last three Table entries on the page are S:13970-13971, S:13972 and S:13973-13976; a superscript reference on the first of them keys to a footnote at the foot of the page reading in full: “The Government’s Second Supplemental Privilege Log begins here. (DE 329-1).” The entry immediately above it is S:013956-013969, which is the Bates range the covering notice gives as the correction to the 2013 supplemental log’s last entry. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 42. ↩

  31. Same order, p. 48 of 51, the Table entry against S:14520: “Produce.” with the comment “The Government has not supported its assertion of attorney-client privilege: the email does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that it was a communication between an attorney and clients regarding the provision of legal services or legal advice. Petitioners’ need for this material outweighs any deliberative process or investigative privilege that may apply.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 48. ↩

  32. Same order, p. 49 of 51, the Table entries against S:14551 and S:14557. S:14551: “Produce.” with the comment “The Government has not supported its assertion of attorney-client privilege: the email, authored by an FBI agent, does not indicate that it is a client communication seeking legal services or advice from an attorney, the United States Attorney’s Office. Petitioners’ need for this material outweighs any investigative privilege that may apply. This must be produced pursuant to an appropriate protective order.” S:14557: “Production not necessary as not relevant or likely to lead to material relevant to this CVRA litigation.” Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01657752 p. 49. ↩ ↩2

  33. “United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time,” Document 332, entered on the FLSD docket 20 July 2015, its own p. 3 of 6. The schedule on this page lists six Box #4 ranges: P-014206 thru P-014216, P-014217 thru P-014238, P-014252 thru P-014275, P-014311 thru P-014329 and P-014330 thru P-014337, each described as “Correspondence with Epstein counsel with internal correspondence” and each answered “Produced with internal correspondence redacted”, with “Had previously been produced” added against all but the third and with the fourth adding “Produced correspondence with Epstein counsel at P-014320 thru P-014321”; and P-014520, described as “Correspondence with FBI agents”, answered “Produced pursuant to Court’s order”. Below the schedule: “The government notes that two of the items listed above contained the names of individuals identified through the course of the investigation. At this time, these names have been redacted, except for the names of the Petitioners and one individual who publicly identified herself in court documents in the Doe v. Epstein litigation. As explained below, the government believes that providing the names of individuals who have always asked to proceed as ‘Jane Does,’ without their permission, would violate state and federal law.” The word in the schedule’s first column header is covered by a redaction box on this copy. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755809 p. 3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  34. Same docket sheet, p. 26 of 35, read from the page image at 400 dpi: “06/23/2015 329 NOTICE by United States of America of Filing Second Supplemental Privilege Log (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (Villafana, Ann Marie) (Entered: 06/23/2015)”; “07/20/2015 332 NOTICE of Compliance (Partial) by United States of America”; “08/03/2015 338 NOTICE by United States of America of Filing Third Supplemental Privilege Log and Documents in Camera (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Third Supplemental Privilege Log) (Villafana, Ann Marie)”; “10/01/2015 339 ORDER ON THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG … Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 10/1/2015.” The extracted text renders the entry number 329 as “322” and 330 as “33Q”; the image reads 329 and 330. Two later entries on this page carry redaction boxes over a court reporter’s contact details. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00800218 p. 26. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  35. Twelve-page table headed “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG”, its p. 1 of 12, at p. 40 of a 65-page run in Data Set 9. Three columns, “Bates Range | Description | Privilege(s) Asserted”. The first cell of the Bates Range column reads “Box #4 / P-013970 / thru / P-”, with no closing number; every cell below it in that column carries a sequence number, 1 to 9 on this page. Entry 1 is “5/18/2007 email from Marie Villafaña to Matt Menchel informing him of intent to subpoena Roy Black’s private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization”; the filed log’s first row, the November-December 2006 exchange, does not appear on this page. The page carries no court header, no docket stamp, no date and no signature. A large grey diagonal mark crosses the page; isolating the mid-grey layer of the raster and rotating it forty degrees resolves it as the five letterforms D, R, A, F, T. Read from the page image at 400 dpi, with the watermark read from the same raster at native scale after isolation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191199 p. 40. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  36. Same table, its p. 12 of 12, at p. 51 of the run. The diagonal watermark reads DRAFT unaided on this page, in the white space below the table. The last numbered entry carrying a description is 102, “3/5/2008-3/6/2008 emails between AMCV, Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Drew Oosterbaan, Robert Senior, Myesha Braden, Rolando Garcia, and Karen Atkinson regarding meeting in DC, additional information to prepare for meeting, and new information from ongoing investigation”, against WP / DP / 6(e) / IP; it is followed by a row numbered 103 whose Description and Privilege(s) Asserted cells are empty, and then by a wholly empty row. Entry 99 uses “AMCV” where the filed log writes “Marie Villafaña”, and “WP” and “DP” where the filed log writes “Work Product” and “Deliberative Process”. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191199 p. 51. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  37. Same table, its p. 6 of 12, at p. 45 of the run, six consecutive entries numbered 50 to 55: entry 50 is dated 3/31/2008, 51 is 4/10/2008-4/18/2008, 52 is 4/21/2008-5/1/2008, 53 is 5/19/2008-5/22/2008, 54 is 8/15/2008 and 55 is 12/3/2007-12/5/2007, so the draft’s numbering does not follow date order. Entry 54 is the row the filed log places last, at P-014920 thru P-014923, and it already carries the note “(Redacted version produced to opposing counsel)”. The DRAFT watermark is visible on this page. Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191199 p. 45. ↩

  38. The run in which the draft sits at pp. 40–51. Its p. 1 of 65 is headed “UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT” under the caption “Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra/Matthewman”; the page carries no docket stamp. The title was read from the page image at 400 dpi; the extracted text of this page renders “REQUEST” as “REOUEST”, so an exact-string search finds the title only on a later page of the same run. Its p. 39 is a letter of 19 July 2013 on the U.S. Attorney’s letterhead to petitioners’ counsel enclosing, among other items, “A copy of the Privilege Log that was filed with the Court”. Its pp. 52 onward are a copy of the 2013 “SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG”. The run is described here by what its pages show; the desk makes no finding about who assembled it. The government’s responses to the first requests for admissions are covered at The 2013 requests for admission. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00191199 pp. 1, 39, 52. ↩

  39. The copies of the filed log in the release. Two column-scoped searches of the corpus full-text index were run and the returns checked against the documents table. The first was for four phrases of the log’s own body text, taken from four different pages of it: “attempted contact with potential witness” (the log’s p. 1), “insure that Epstein was ineligible for work release” (p. 7), “never intended to have Epstein plead” (p. 11) and “Redacted version produced to opposing counsel” (p. 18). The four phrases do not return the same set and do not count the copies: the p. 1, p. 7 and p. 18 phrases each return eight documents, the eighth being EFTA00191199, the draft run described above; the p. 11 phrase returns nine, adding two documents that carry the same quoted words, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224943 p. 29 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225378 p. 79, both located by this text-layer search and neither read at the image for this page. The copy count comes from the second search, for the electronic-filing stamp “Document 329-1”, which returns seven documents and 126 stamped pages, eighteen in each: EFTA01325051 (Data Set 10, 20 pages), EFTA01325031 (Data Set 10, 20 pages), EFTA00211410 (Data Set 9, 20 pages), EFTA00020711 (Data Set 8, 18 pages), EFTA00594171 (Data Set 9, 18 pages), EFTA02755738 (Data Set 12, 18 pages) and EFTA00185206 (Data Set 9, 310 pages). EFTA00020711 and EFTA00594171 begin at Document 329-1 p. 1 and do not carry the covering notice; in EFTA00185206 the filing sits at pp. 223 to 242. A third search, for the stamp “Document 329 Entered”, returns four of those seven — EFTA01325051, EFTA01325031, EFTA00211410 and EFTA00185206 — together with EFTA02755756 (Data Set 12, 2 pages), which carries the covering notice alone. That same stamp search also returns EFTA02747254, which is a Document 329 in a different case, 9:08-cv-80119, and is not this filing. All three probes read the extracted text layer. A copy whose redactions or scan quality defeated the extraction of every one of these strings would appear in none of them, so seven is what these searches find and not a closed set. A search for the phrase “SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG” alone is not a copy count: it returns 28 documents, most of which mention the log rather than reproduce it. This footnote reports the searches it ran; the copies it names are cited and pinned in the note below. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  40. Same document, its own pp. 2–3, which reproduce Document 329’s notice and certificate of service. On this copy the whole signature block beneath “By:” is covered by a redaction box, as are the entries in the service list. The extraction of p. 2 also renders “ex parte” as “ex porte” and “Bates” as “Elates”. Read from the page images at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00175211 pp. 2–3. ↩

Backlinks