EFTA00184224

Mase990118eov28072614fAllil atonannera2332EritstedeatcRLPSESDatiekeSOM351202B16Pafrocit 
St1 
25 
during the pendency of the stay [of discovery] and is undertaking a search for that information." 
DE 140 at 4. Contrary to that representation, however, over the next seventeen months, the 
Government did not produce any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the 
Government of that statement made to the court. 
21. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the Court denied 
the Government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. DE 189. That same day, 
the Court entered an order granting the victims' motion to compel and directing the Government 
to produce (1) all correspondence between it and Epstein; (2) all communications between the 
Government and outside entities; and (3) every other document requested by the victims. DE 
190 at 2. With respect to the third item, the Court allowed the Government to assert privilege by 
producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege 
log. Id. The Court required that the privilege log must "clearly identify[] each document[] by 
author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, and general subject matter ...." DE 190 at 2. 
22. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the Government made its production. 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. The documents that the 
Government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they included such things that the 
victims' own letters to the Government (Bates 0001-04), court pleadings filed by the victims 
themselves or other victims, by Epstein, or by news media organizations (e.g., Bates 00142-88, 
00229-31, 281-311, 00668-69), public court rulings on Epstein related matters (e.g., Bates 0008-
10, 0012-14. 0036-86, 00190-228), public newspaper articles (e.g., Bates 0011, 0030, 0032-33), 
and similar materials already available to the victims. 
It also included roughly four hundred 
pages of notices sent to the various other victims in this case — notices that were substantively 
indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. 
Almost without exception, the documents the Government produced do not go to the disputed 
issues in this case. 
23. The Government made one last production of materials in this case on August 6, 2013. This 
involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the 
contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case such the crime victims' 
own pleadings, see, e.g., Bates 000671-000711 (copy of the victims' redacted summary 
judgment motion). Curiously, while the Government has produced these documents that would 
likely fall into an "irrelevant" category of documents, they have simultaneously refused 
production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests on the basis of 
relevance. 
24. The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for 
admission. The Government, however, has refused to admit many of the victims' central 
allegations in this case. A copy of the victims' requests for admissions and the Government's 
responses is attached to this affidavit so that the Court can see that the victims have diligently 
tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in this case. 
5 
EFTA00184964

GDase99002cov20:772.614kAM Clacciarneati2252132E rEEntetimirRLYSES D attack EOM larzial EP dila" df 644 
25 
25. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by 
voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer emaedi g the Justice 
Department. For example, I have sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and 
who both 
have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. 
Both of them have ignored my letters. 
The Need for the Materials Requested by the Victims 
26. The documents that the victims requested that the Government produce to them on October 
3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested 
them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This 
section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. 
For the 
convenience of the Court, the affidavit will proceed on a section-by-section basis concerning the 
need for the materials. Also for the convenience of the Court, a copy of the October 3, 2011, 
request for production is attached to this Affidavit. Also attached is the victims' supplemental 
discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the Court will note from reviewing the requests for 
production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents 
would support, in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the Government that the documents 
were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production link directly to specific 
paragraphs in the victims' previously-filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims 
have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary 
judgment motion found at DE 48 at 3-23. 
27. The Court has previously concluded that the victims' proof of their claims is, at this point in 
the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled: "Whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle 
[the victims] to that relief [of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement] is a question properly 
reserved for determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record." DE 189 at 11-12. The 
Court has further indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the 
Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument 
"implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual 
context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the 
federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy 
between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of 
negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of 
the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). 
The victims have a compelling need for information about the Government's actions to show 
what the "entire interface" was and to respond to the Government's estoppel arguments, as well 
as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. See, e.g., DE 62 (52-page response 
from the Government to the victim's summary judgment motion, raising numerous factually-
based and other arguments against the victim's position). 
28. 
Request for Production ("RFP") No. 1 requests information regarding the Epstein 
investigation. 
These documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that the 
Government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued 
against Epstein. See, e.g., DE 48 at 3-7. 
29. RIP No. 2 requests information regarding crime victim notifications in this case. These 
documents are needed to support the victims' allegations that their rights under the CVRA, their 
6 
EFTA00184965

asee92028EAMEGr731f614sPAM Ditecuitaerti t2262132ErffinteaseboRRIIDdithekeE02312022160
25 
rvi 
• 
614 
right to notice and to confer with the Government, were violated in this case. In particular, these 
documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the non-
prosecution agreement (NPA) entered into by the Government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the 
Government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11-17. 
30. RFP No. 3 requests information about the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality 
provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision 
precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, as well as to other 
victims. See, e.g., DE 48 at 10-17. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that 
Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately 
causing the Government's CVRA violation in this case. See, e.g., DE 48 at 13. 
31. RFP No. 4 requests documents relating to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey 
Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea 
(including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or another 
location outside of West Palm Beach). These documents are relevant to the victims allegations 
that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would 
effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from 
learning what was happening through the press. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8. 
32. RFP No. 5 requests documents pertaining to negotiations between the Government and 
Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein. 
These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegation that part of the plea negotiations 
with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in 
civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer or by 
someone familiar to Epstein or his legal team. See, e.g., DE 48 at 9. 
33. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or 
discussion of possible public criticism and/or victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement 
that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that the 
Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view 
because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been 
disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the 
judge not to accept the agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 7-8, 11. They are also relevant to bias and 
motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in this case. 
34. RFP No. 7 requests documents regarding the Government's awareness of its potential 
CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and 
Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. These documents are needed to prove 
the victims' allegations that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under 
the CVRA to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any related state court 
plea agreement. See, e.g., DE 48 at 12-13. 
35. RFP No. 8 requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the 
Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, 
including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard 
Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation 
that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he 
used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a 
7 
EFTA00184966

W92.401/1 Mmtanneerti t2152132E ifEttiteeedtRLFREE D Ostia eamembaailiDafigik dif 
25 
more favorable plea deal. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. These materials also are needed to establish 
the course of the proceedings in this case, which is necessary in light of the Government's letters 
to the victims (discussed in the next paragraph) concerning the status of the case. 
36. RFP No. 9 requests documents regarding the letters sent to the victims by the FBI on 
January 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 advising them that "this case is currently 
under investigation." These documents are needed to show that these letters were inaccurate or, 
at the very least, highly misleading, because they conveyed the impression that no plea 
arrangement (for example, a non-prosecution agreement) had been negotiated between Epstein 
and the Government. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16. These documents are also needed to respond to the 
Government's "estoppel" defense, as noted in the Court's order DE 189 at 12 n.6. 
37. RFP No. 10 requests documents regarding the victims' allegations that the FBI was led to 
believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution 
and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. The 
Government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case, because the only issue 
is whether the Government misled the victims. But the Government fails to recognize that the 
victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore 
needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the 
case — inaccurate information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office's negotiations with Epstein. 
If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the cases, then they could 
not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case — a central point in the 
victims' argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan —
something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Of course, if the U.S. 
Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same 
scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific 
allegations in the victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-17. 
38. RFP No. 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the Government (including 
FBI agents) had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those 
meetings the Government did not disclose to the victims (or to their attorneys) that a non-
prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein, and even signed with Epstein, that 
related to their cases, allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment 
motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 16-18. 
39. RFP No. 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's 
Office to me (Bradley J. Edwards) to write a letter concerning the need for filing federal charges 
against Epstein and follow-up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this 
request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. 
Thus, just as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived 
as well. See, e.g., DE 48 at 18-19. It is also needed to contradict the Government's apparent 
position that it disclosed the "existence' of the NPA to me and to the victims. See, e..g., Gov't 
Answers to RFA ¶ 13(d) ("The government admits that, when Epstein was pleading guilty to the 
state charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense 
attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution agreement 
confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non-prosecution 
agreement confidential."). 
8 
EFTA00184967

CWeiP 9.1118-m-all1P3B-IICAMI noraummarrit 2M-B2 EliteleidebeFESB0DOrfaideCDMAWLEa6 P 
8 111) 64 
25 
40. RFP No. 13 requests documents regarding how, on or about June 27, 2008, the Government 
learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on or about June 30, 2008. The 
documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in this case and to prove both the 
Government's and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea (and thus 
blocking prosecution of other crimes) without the victims' full knowledge of what was 
happening. See, e.g., DE 48 at 19-20. 
41. 
RFP No. 14 requests documents relating to the Government and Epstein working together 
to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment 
about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court 
became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victims' allegations that 
the Government concealed the NPA from them, see, e.g., DE 48 at 14-18,and to contradict what 
appears to be the Government's position, namely that the victims were aware of the NPA shortly 
after it was negotiated, see, e.g., Gov't Answers to RFA 1 13(b) (claiming that "the USAO had 
communicated with Jane Doe #1 about the non-prosecution agreement prior to Epstein's June 30, 
2008 guilty plea."). These documents are also necessary to contradict the Government's 
apparent claim that the NPA did not bar discussions with crime victims. See, e.g., Gov't 
Answers to RFA 1 I3(d) (Government denying request that it admit that "Epstein's defense 
attorneys had negotiated for a confidentiality provision in the non-prosecution agreement that 
barred conferring with victims about the agreement"). 
42. RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about 
the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a "corrected" 
notification letter on about September 3, 2008 — months after Epstein had pled guilty. These 
documents are needed to demonstrate that the Government had no valid reason for failing to 
provide notice to the victims. It is also needed to demonstrate why the victims at first received 
inaccurate information about the NPA, as well as Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in that 
inaccurate notice. See, e.g., DE 48 at 15-16. 
43. RFP No. 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was 
present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time that the Office negotiated the NPA with 
Epstein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP 
No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non-
public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn 
affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: 
"I never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter." DE 79-1 at 
3 (112). When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me, because Reinhart was 
in close contact with other prosecutors in the Office and would seem likely that he would have 
discussed the high-profile Epstein case with them. Additionally, I learned through public record 
that while still a prosecutor at the Office Mr. Reinhart established his criminal defense office at 
the exact address (and exact Suite number) as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. 
However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, 
however, in answering the victims' Requests for Admissions, the Government has admitted that 
it possesses information that Reinhart learned confidential, non-public information about the 
Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Gov't Answers to 
RFA's 1 15(a) & (b). Of course, this means that the Government has documents that Reinhart 
9 
EFTA00184968

0aane 93093Bmyffill7733B KOMI OD)M111113ffitaa542 Riltrielt1 con FRISTD 
de4t0ffiIllda016 
B5 
"sli p • Dia 
filed a false affidavit with this Court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that, if Reinhart 
was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information 
about the case that is being concealed as well. 
44. Materials about Reinhart are also needed to support the victims' summary judgment motion. 
See, e.g., DE 48 at 22-23 (raising allegations about Reinhart). 
45. Reinhart's affidavit with the Court also states: "Because I did not have any, I did not share 
non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's 
attorneys." DE 79-1 at 4 (1 17). Because the Government has information demonstrating that 
the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is false 
as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address identical to Epstein's business 
address, at a time while he was still working at the US Attorney's Office, and that Mr. Reinhart 
ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators, jet pilots, and staff, during the civil 
litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhart had with the Epstein case while working at the Office is 
highly relevant. 
46. The Government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contacts 
between Bruce Reinhart and persons/entities affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein before Reinhart left 
his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Gov't Answers to RFA's 1 16. As stated above, Reinhart 
left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as 
Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the 
Florida rules of ethics for attorneys. 
47. Information about Reinhart's connections to Epstein is critical to the victims' allegations in 
this case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight into the prosecutions efforts, that would 
provide a motive for Reinhart (and other prosecutors) not to properly notify the victims and not 
to confer with them. 
Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the 
prosecution efforts against him (or lack thereon, that could be highly relevant to the remedies 
stage of this case, in which the victims will ask (among other things) to have the NPA agreement 
invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against 
that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the 
defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the Court may wish to consider, 
in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violations of the NPA. Evidence that Epstein 
was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution efforts against him would be highly 
relevant to that culpability assessment. It is also relevant to the estoppel defense that the 
Government (and perhaps Epstein as well) intend to raise. 
48. Evidence concerning Reinhart's connections, including improper connections, to Epstein is 
also relevant to bias and motive in this case. It would show, for example, the Reinhart had a 
reason to encourage others in the U.S. Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than 
the one he was entitled to. 
49. RFP No. 16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein 
and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any other prosecutors. Of course, if 
the Government possesses such information, it would be highly relevant to the victims' 
allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victims' Requests for Admission, 
the Government admits that it has information about a personal or business relationship between 
Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the Epstein case, Matthew 
Answers 
10 
EFTA00184969

aleare930/8433AbE81V733E KOH Ilkawnenttaaa2 altered am Blain flitadde110)37/1102101126 Rase Muff 
65 
to Requests for Admission at ¶ 20. The Government should be required to disclose all of those 
documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those 
relationships. In my experience, it is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work on a case 
prosecuting someone (such as Jeffrey Epstein) and then, shortly thereafter, leave the employment 
of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being 
prosecuted. 
50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution 
undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in 
Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the 
Justice Department to determine whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the 
negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey 
Epstein. It is apparent from the privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR 
generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See Bates P-
013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein 
prosecution would support the victims' allegations that they were not being properly notified. 
Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in this case —
or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here again, this information would be 
critical to supporting the victims' case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many 
of the precise actions and actors, about which the victims complain in this litigation, and have 
already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could 
probably short-cut this litigation and discovery process. 
51. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a 
year after the victims' request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to 
my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which it stated that it "regret[ted] it could not be of 
assistance" in providing information about the allegations. 
52. RFP No. 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of Florida was "conflicted out" of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. 
This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about 
the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest that has 
been recognized may have to do with the Office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its 
production of documents, and in follow-up correspondence, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by 
the U.S. Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. (It appears that 
this other office is the Middle District of Florida.) This appears to be improbable, because the 
conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victims' discovery 
requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant 
to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the 
victims. 
A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the 
Government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. 
53. RFP No. 19 asks for information supporting allegations made in March 2011, by former 
U.S. Attorney Alexander 
. He sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he 
claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a 
yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." This information is needed to explain 
11 
EFTA00184970

Gamie93(183mY8315733E61OM1 0ltugatmerttafiZa2 EfintweitiormFFUSED0En2alleite92/1331=6 
1123aif 
C35 
why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from the victims about the 
NPA. If the prosecutors were being assaulted, as 
has said they were, then they would 
have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show 
improper behavior by Epstein, which would be relevant at the remedies stage of this case in 
determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear strongly on motive and 
bias. 
54. RFP No. 20 requests documents between the Government and state and local prosecutors 
and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department) regarding the non-
prosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the Department, it is the 
victims understanding that the Government has already turned over all of this information to 
them, as the Court has directed. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of information with 
persons or entities outside the federal government). For the sake of completeness, however, it is 
worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly 
informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for 
crimes committed against them. 
55. 
RFP No. 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. 
Here again, the victims 
understand that the Government is prepared to produce all of this information to them (once the 
stay pending action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted). Again, for the sake of completeness, it is 
worth noting that this correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims' claims that the 
Government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at 
Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information 
that will allow them to argue to the Court in support of their "allegation of a deliberate 
conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the 
pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and 
presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as afait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6. 
56. RFP No. 22 requests information about any considerations that Epstein provided, or offered 
to provide, to any individual within the Government. Here again, the victims understand that this 
information is being provided to them. It is again worth noting, however, that this information is 
highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have properly notified 
the victims about what was happening in their case, an allegation that is at the center of the 
victims' summary judgment motion. See, e.g., DE 48 at 11 (noting allegation that Epstein 
pushed the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the NPA secret from public view to avoid public 
criticism). 
57. RFP No. 23 asks for documents that will assist Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 in 
protecting their rights under the CVRA. This request links to the Government's obligations 
under the CVRA to use its "best efforts" to protect victims' rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). 
The direct connection between this request and the victims' case is self-explanatory. 
58. RFP No. 24 request correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the Government 
had with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it is my understanding that these 
materials have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2 (requiring production of 
information with persons or entities outside the federal government). 
For the sake of 
completeness, this information is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein 
12 
EFTA00184971

(lame S3B3aw 8B1733 4ign 0ftonunerntal5{5-32 Eatteesttl am ITEISDllaimilett0E7/113M01E6 FIrtige1131alf 
64 
investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about event during that 
investigation. 
59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules 
apply, they then receive all materials to which they are entitled. 
60. In June 2013, the victims sent a supplemental request for production, asking the Government 
to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook 
concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in this case, including any FBI, 
grand jury, OPR or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of 
Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would go directly to 
proving the victims' allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of 
Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the Government's "estoppel" 
argument. This information would also show motive and bias. 
Inadequate Privilege Log 
61. The Government has produced a privilege log that violates the Court's order in this case. I 
have been greatly hampered in responding to the Government's assertions of privilege because 
of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to determine whether the 
Government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. 
62. The Court has directed the Government to produce a privilege log that "clearly identifjies] 
each document[] [as to which privilege is asserted] by author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), date, 
and general subject matter . . . ." DE 190 at 2. Many of the entries in the privilege log fail to 
meet this requirement. 
63. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in 
the log, covering Box No. 1 (P-000001 through P-000039), some 39 pages of documents. DE 
Si. 
Yet the only description of these 39 pages is: "File folder entitled 'CORR RE GJ 
SUBPOENAS' containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney 
otl
) handwritten notes." 
64. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of 
the first privilege log, with regard to Box No. 3 (P412362 through P-012451). The Government 
asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 90 
pages is: "File folder entitled `Key Documents' containing correspondence between AUSA and 
case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to 
draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials." 
65. There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of the privilege log which the Court 
will see when it examines it. 
I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the 
government's privilege log, which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as 
well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's privilege log. 
66. The Government has never contacted me or co-counsel about any burdens associated with 
producing a privilege log that complied with the Court's directives. At all times relevant to this 
case, I would have been willing to work with Government counsel to minimize any excessive 
burden from producing an adequate privilege log. The requests for production that I sent to the 
Government specifically invited discussion to avoid any excessive burden. 
Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim 
13 
EFTA00184972

CanBERLIBmx#8107/3161C0MI 0DirmumnittatMg2 EEntr3extlamFFELSICD OndiettC0111161ME6 
08 
" :ea • 
67. Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premises — such as the 
existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that 
relationship. Yet the Government has not provided the factual underpinnings for any of its 
privilege assertions. 
68. An illustration of this problem is found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log WE 
216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013284). The entry here reads: "7/10/08 
emails between J. 
and 
, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to 
Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is 
asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. 
The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings 
of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the Government 
does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product 
claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with 
regard to deliberative process, the Government does not explain what deliberative process was 
involved. 
69. 
There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual 
underpinnings of privilege assertions, which the Court will see when it examines the privilege 
log and the victims responsive log. 
Waiver of Confidentiality 
70. Some of the privileges that the Government has asserted have been waived. Of course, a 
requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been 
circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. 
71. An illustration of waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with 
regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from 
A. 
to A. =, 
J. =, 
Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to 
Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is 
asserting attorney-client privilege regarding these emails. But the emails were not internal to the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to the "FBI." (This is another illustration of the 
inadequacies of the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not 
disclosed.) But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides 
legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by dissemination of 
this e-mail outside the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
72. Mother illustration of waiver is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-
1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013504 to P-013507). The entry here reads: "File 
folder labeled `Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew' containing handwritten notes by 
n
Kenn Starr, of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. 
Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorney-
client privilege. 
73. Another illustration of waiver is found on page 7 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 
216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013644 through P-013653). The entry here 
reads: "File folder entitled "Notes Re Plea Negotiations" containing 9/17/07 e-mail from A. 
Villafafia to J. 
N. 
re status update; undated and typed handwritten 
notes by A. 
re items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, 
14 
EFTA00184973

Cmize921O3ow8H773&61Wall IlitraturnettSE8a2 EEnneeklarnFRLSIDIRaddelt0121MBIE6 FRasfellEctif 
B13 
summary of evidence, guidelines calculations." The Government is asserting attorne -client 
privilege regarding this e-mail. I understand the reference to `=. 
and ' 
' to be 
references to FBI agents — not attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the 
attorney-client privilege would not extend to this e-mail. 
The Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Any Privilege 
74. I am familiar with the caselaw recited in our pleadings regarding a "fiduciary exception" 
(also known as the "Garner exception" in some settings) to privileges. In this case, the 
Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the CVRA rights of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane 
Doe No. 2. 
Specifically, because they were recognized "victims" under the CVRA, the 
Government had obligations to provide them rights under the CVRA, including the right to 
confer, the right to notice, and the right to be treated with fairness. Because of this fiduciary 
duty, an exception applies to many of the Government privilege claims regarding interactions 
with the victims. 
75. The fiduciary duty of the Government to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI 
determined that both Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by 
Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age 
and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexual assaults involved use of 
means of interstate commerce (i.e., a telephone) and travel in interstate commerce. Both Jane 
Does were initially identified through the Palm Beach Police Department's investigation of 
Epstein. 
76. Confirming the fact that the Government had identified Jane Doe No. 1 as a victim in this 
case, on about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 1 a standard CVRA 
victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its 
"best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. I's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to confer with 
the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public 
proceeding in the district court involving . . . plea . 
." The notification further explained that 
"[a]t this time, your case is under investigation." 
77. Similarly, on about August 11, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to Jane Doe No. 2 a standard 
CVRA victim notification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would 
make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. 1's rights, including "[t]he reasonable right to 
confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any 
public proceeding in the district court involving .. . plea . . . ." The notification further explained 
that "[alt this time, your case is under investigation." 
78. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 
meetings with Jane Doe No. 1. Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by counsel that was paid for by 
Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was made through that attorney. These meetings occurred 
because the FBI had obligations to protect the victims' rights under the CVRA. 
79. In October 2007, shortly after the initial non-prosecution agreement was signed between 
Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe No. 1 was 
contacted to be advised regardin the 
vestigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. 
and Jason 
met in person with Jane Doe No. 1 because she was 
recognized as a "victim' of Epstein's crime. 
15 
EFTA00184974

cc ne 931183mmailT7316 WA= Innaurrertt3E153/2 EH-itweld am ITIL53Th ftanariket002/B=1325 Rajfe Dififif 
05 
80. In all of these dealings between the Government and the victims, as well as other dealings of 
a similar nature, the Government had a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of the victims 
under the Crime Victims Rights Act. Accordingly, the Government is precluded from raising 
any privilege claim to which a fiduciary exception applies or, at the very least, any privilege 
assertion would be outweighed by the victims' compelling need for the material. 
81. An illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on page 1 of 
the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard 
iii i•nental buS3 (PSW12 to 
83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. 
to A. M, 
J. 
K. 
Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." 
In 
responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim notification, the U.S. Attorney's 
Office had a statutory duty under the CVRA to protect the victims' interests. Accordingly, the 
Office cannot assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the 
victims have arisen in this case or, at the very least, any privilege assertion would be outweighed 
by the victims' compelling need for the materials. 
82. Another illustration of a situation where the fiduciary duty exception applies is found on 
page 16 of the first privilege log (DE .1), with regard to Box #2 P-010526 to P-010641. The 
entry reads: "File folder entitled 'Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights' containing attorney research, 
handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Leflcowitz." 
Here again, the materials at issue go to the heart of this case — what kind of notifications were 
made to the victims and how did the defense attorneys shape and limit those notifications. 
Moreover, in evaluating victims' rights issues and determining what kind of letter to send, the 
Government was fulfilling legal duties that it owed to the victims. Accordingly, the Office 
cannot now assert privilege when questions about whether it fulfilled its obligations to the 
victims have arisen in this case. 
Communications Facilitatina Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered 
83. I am familiar with the cases cited in our brief regarding an exception to various privileges 
when the communications concern crime, fraud, or government misconduct. Many of the 
important documents about the treatment of the victims to which the Government is asserting 
privilege would fall within that exception. 
84. With regard to fraud and government misconduct, a number of the documents in the 
Government's privilege log concern concealment from the victims of the existence of a non-
prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. I have reviewed a copy of the non-
prosecution agreement signed on about September 24, 2007, by Epstein and his attorneys and a 
representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The text of that agreement bars disclosure of the 
agreement to the victims. 
85. On about January 10, 2008, my clients Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 received letters 
from the FBI advising them that "Whir case is currently under investigation. This can be a 
lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough 
investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive, because it did not reveal 
that the case had previously been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by 
Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify 
Jane Doe No. 1 or Jane Doe No. 2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that 
part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
16 
EFTA00184975

Catiam936183awffig733E6WECOVI 0Thoulunteritaia5312 EarltizosstiomFRaiDaltaddelt0337/111/aCiTh 
05 
Southern District of Florida and that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would resolve the federal 
case completely. (Whether the FBI itself had been properly informed of the non-prosecution 
agreement is also unclear. We are not alleging misconduct by the FBI, but rather that the FBI 
was not properly informed about the case or, in any event, was acting at the direction of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office.) 
86. In about April 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was 
attempting to take her deposition and private investigators were harassing her. Assistant U.S. 
Attorney 
I secured pro bono counsel to represent Jane Doe No. 1 and several 
other identified victims in connection with the criminal investigation. Pro bono counsel was able 
to assist Jane Doe No. 1 in avoiding the improper deposition. AUSA Villafafta secured pro bono 
counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in 
Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. 
Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached in this matter. 
87. On May 30, 2008, another one of my clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, received letters from the FBI advising her that "[tJhis case is currently 
under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while 
we conduct a thorough investigation." The statement in the notification letter was deceptive 
because it did not reveal that the case had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement 
entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in September 2007. 
88. In mid-June 2008, I contacted AUSA Villafafla to inform her that I represented Jane Doe No. 
1 and, later, Jane Doe No. 2. I asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes 
committed by Epstein, hoping to secure a significant federal indictment against Epstein. AUSA 
Villafa0a and I discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed. At the end of the call, 
AUSA Villafafta asked me to send any information that I wanted considered by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office in determining whether to file federal charges. I was not informed that 
previously, in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office had reached an agreement not to file 
federal charges. I was also not informed that any resolution of the criminal matter was imminent 
at that time. Presumably the reason the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld this information from 
me was because of the confidentiality provision that existed in the non-prosecution agreement. 
At this point it is clear that AUSA 
was restricted in what she was being permitted to 
tell me. 
89. On July 3, 2008, I sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. In the letter, I indicated my client's 
desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of 
my clients: "We urge the Attorney General and our United States Attorney to consider the 
fundamental import of the vigorous enforcement of our Federal laws. We urge you to move 
forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes 
Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take the steps necessary to protect our 
children from this very dangerous sexual predator." When I wrote this letter, I was still unaware 
that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached with Epstein — a fact that continued to be 
concealed from me (and the victims) by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I only learned of this fact 
later on. 
90. As alleged in the preceding paragraphs, and elsewhere in this affidavit and in this case, 
deliberate concealment from crime victims and their legal counsel of the existence of a signed 
17 
EFTA00184976

aria:ea:3 09B63,v MCFM6 WA= Ironuntent3132502 EBB W damnRIISThOThialke t0037/110=126 
B8 
lEDaff 
non-prosecution agreement would be a fraud and government misconduct. Documents relating 
to that fraud and misconduct would then fall outside of many of the privileges being asserted. 
91. An illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on this 
basis is found on page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box 
#3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `12/05/07 Starr to 
containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. 
to K. Starr and from J. 
to J. 
Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by 
NEB" Again, these materials are central to the dispute in this case, as they involve 
discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defense attorneys about notifications to 
crime victims. And given the dates of the communications, in all likelihood they would be 
related to the deceptive notifications that the Government made to the victims a few weeks later. 
92. Another illustration of a document to which the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies is 
found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-
013282 to P-013283. The entry reads: "7/9/08 Email from 
to A. =, 
J. 
M
, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification." 
These communications would presumably reflect efforts by the government prosecutors and 
Epstein's defense attorneys (e.g., Goldberger) to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret. 
93. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception would apply is to 
information that the Government possesses that Bruce Reinhart learned private, non-public 
information about the Epstein case. This would show (at the very least) misconduct by Bruce 
Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) 
privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court 
to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are 
covered by the crime-fraud-misconduct exception. 
94. Another illustration of where the crime-fraud-misconduct exception could potential) apply 
is with regard to information that the Government possesses that Matthew 
has a 
personal or business relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Gov't Answers to RFA's ¶ 20. 
This could potentially show misconduct by 
and also potentially a motive to violate the 
victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries 
showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in malcinislecisions related to 
the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE M-1), with regard to 
Box #3 P-011923 to P-011966. The victims have informatitsgesting that immediately after 
leaving his employment with the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
was associated with Epstein-
controlled entities or had some business relationship with him. The documents that the 
Government possesses showing a personal or business relationship between one of its 
prosecutors and the man he was charged with prosecuting should be produced. 
95. The Government has admitted that its internal affairs component — the Office of Professional 
Responsibility — has collected information about possible improper behavior during the 
investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA ¶22 (government admits that "The 
Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities 
have collected information about . . . other government attorney's [apart from Bruce Reinhart's] 
possible improper behavior in the Epstein matter"). The fact that the Government's own 
investigating agencies have collected such information demonstrates that there is a prima facie 
18 
EFTA00184977

Clatw931033e2w8R111316WAD31 Motatunnint3125212 Enteccat 
FRLEIDOEmoideltOlatiJEZW26 IThiTtelaktif 
68 
case of improper behavior, which is enough to trigger the crime-fraud-misconduct exception to 
various privileges. 
Factual Materials Not Privileged 
96. As noted in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not 
covered by the privileges at issue in this case. Many of the materials to which the Government is 
asserting privilege are factual materials. 
Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilege 
97. The Government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet with 
regard to most of these assertions, it is impossible to determine who is the attorney, who is the 
client, whether professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications 
were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly, it is very 
difficult for me to respond to many of the assertions of attorney client privilege and, in any 
event, the Government has failed to carry its burden of showing that the privilege applies. 
98. An illustration of documents at to which attorney-client privilege appears to have been 
improperly asserted or inadequately described is found at page 7 of the first privilege log (DE 
216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013811 to P-013833. The entry for these twenty-two 
pages of documents reads: "File folder entitled `Information Packet Drafts' containing several 
drafts of Informations, and complete draft Information packet." It is impossible from this 
description to see how the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents. I could provide 
many other illustrations of the problem. 
99. The Government's attorney-client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was in a 
fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is limited in now asserting privilege. For 
example, page 3 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) contains an entry concerning 
Sulir 
#3 P-013342 through P-013350, which involves "File folder entitled `12/05/07 Starr 
to 
containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. 
to 
J Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. 
Villafafia." This information goes very directly to the issues involved in this case, as it 
goes directly to "victim notification." Yet the Government has asserted an attorney-client 
privilege to prevent the victims from learning what is in these documents. The fiduciary 
exception to the attorney-client privilege applies in this situation, and limits the government's 
ability to invoke a privilege. This also appears to be shared communications between the 
Government and Epstein's attorneys, and it is unclear how the attorney-client privilege could 
ethically apply to such documents. 
100. As one example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the materials 
described in the preceding paragraph (and other materials like them) is the fact that the Court has 
indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" argument raised by the Government as a 
defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has noted that this argument "implicates a 
fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical factual context of the 
entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense 
victims — including an assecsment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein 
and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between 
Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non-prosecution 
agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 (emphasis added). The materials to 
19 
EFTA00184978

Gine 9301133cavatlYMEWAVII 0rmocurntiettta61532 EErttfwitl con FILLSID 116toud4ffitaaltlica6 
Moth 
Bgi 
which the Government is asserting attorney-client privilege go directly to that "interface" 
between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims have a compelling need for this 
information and the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to permit the 
Court to provide these documents to the victims. 
101. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the 
documents covered by attorney client privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such 
harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged 
harm. 
Deliberative Process Privilese 
102. 
Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the 
deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of 
Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with regard to the Epstein case. This investigation 
was undertaken at the request of the victims in this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, 
Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S. 
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. 
asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and 
how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based on the privilege log that has been 
provided, as well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, that request for 
investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington, D.C. 
103. The ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is clear is that many 
documents are being withheld about that investigation — documents that would go to the central 
issues in this case. Approximately three whole pages of the privilege log — pages 12 through 14 
of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1) — relate to the OPR investigation of how the 
Epstein case was handled and how the victims were treated. 
104. A deliberative process privilege claim can only be asserted with regard to the process of 
reaching a decision, not the ultimate decision itself. The Government here has apparently 
asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the OPR process, but also over the OPR 
decision. It is not clear which document embodies the final OPR decision (or, given the 
inadequacies of the Government's privilege log, whether that fmal decision has been produced). 
Given the limited descriptions of the documents that have been provided, it appears that the OPR 
decision may be reflected in a document found on page 13 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 
216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft 
Leteri_ 
 marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo 
A. =, 
with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there 
any indication as to whether the letter was or was not circulated to other persons. It is also 
noteworthy that this letter is described as a "draft" letter. Nowhere in the privilege log is the 
final version of the letter indicated, raising questions about what was "draft" and what was 
"final." If this is the final embodiment of OPR's conclusions, then this letter would not be 
protected by a "deliberative process" privilege, because the deliberations would have come to an 
end. (It is also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that investigates misconduct by 
federal prosecutors, it would not be providing attorney-client advice to prosecutors and its 
20 
EFTA00184979

Qamie0183awEBTF731610X4011 OCCOmunenttaIR5212 EEterttgeittlarnFRLSIDIThellifit01010MDLO "ear 222arif 
documents would not be attorney-client privileged with regard to, for example, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.) 
105. The fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims raised by Jane Does 1 and 2, 
and were able to gather documents unobstructed by the Government in order to reach its 
conclusion likely means that production of the OPR file to the victims in this case could 
significantly shortcut this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR "needed" 
the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victims' claims, then logically the 
victims share that "need" and have no other means through which to obtain the documents. The 
Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the documents covered 
by deliberative process privilege to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I 
respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. 
Investigative Privilege 
106. The investigative privilege is a qualified privilege, which balances the need of particular 
litigate for access to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing 
process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser 
Rizzo, 59 
F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: 
(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by 
discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact 
upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) 
the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program 
improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is 
factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is 
an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or 
reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police 
investigation has been completed; (7) whether any intradepartmental disciplinary 
proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the 
plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the 
information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; 
and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiffs case. 
On the facts of this case, these factors weigh in favor of disclosing the information the victims 
have requested. 
107. 
With regard to factor (1) (the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental 
prornses by discouraging citizens from giving the government information), I represented four 
victims of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a 
victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well. 
If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing 
information, but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally to attorneys for a 
number of other victims in this case. I have been told that many of these other victims hope that 
Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are successful in their case. 
108. With regard to factor (2) (the impact upon persons who have given information of having 
their identities disclosed), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are not asking for information that 
would identify any particular victim. Accordingly, there will be no effect on other victims. 
Additionally, I am aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims and that information has 
21 
EFTA00184980

Ganeze9)0183o3m833fraiEWMNI ElEatuaunte rttaf25g2 EETIODatttl ant RIM flanottiet MC1E/MEG 
85 
"•ot:• 2223erif 
not been disseminated to the public where those individual victims did not wish for their 
identities to be disseminated. 
109. With regard to factor (3) (the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent 
program improvement will be chilled by disclosure), this is a lawsuit to force the compliance by 
the Government with its CVRA obligations. Accordingly, the Government's "program" of 
providing victims' rights will be directly improved if the victims are able to enforce their rights 
in this lawsuit. 
110. With regard to factor (4) (whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative 
summary), many of the items that the victims seeks are factual summaries. An example of this is 
found at page 18 of the first privilege log (DE M-1), with regard to Box #3 P-011778 to P-
011788. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log' containing chart with 
victim contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and type of contacts." This would 
include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, which would be 
purely factual information. 
111. With regard to factor (5) (whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential 
defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the 
incident in question), Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 are plainly victims of a crime, not 
criminal defendants. Indeed, as the Court is aware, it is the criminal defendant (Jeffrey Epstein) 
who has undertaken several "limited" intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of 
information to the victims. 
112. 
With regard to factor (6) (whether the police investigation has been completed), the 
investigation of Epstein was completed years ago and the Government has not produced in its 
privilege log any information indicating recent investigative activity. 
113. 
With regard to factor (7) (whether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have 
arisen or may arise from the investigation), it appears than OPR investigation has arisen as a 
direct result of the victims' efforts in this case. However, it does not appear that release of any 
information to the victims would hamper any disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, to the extent that 
the victims are able to obtain information about this case and find information about misconduct, 
then they can provide that information to Government and other disciplinary entities as 
appropriate. 
114. With regard to factor (8) (whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good 
faith), it should be clear at this juncture of a five-year long case that the victims have a 
substantial claim that is brought in good faith. 
115. 
With regard to factor (9) (whether the information sought is available through other 
discovery or from other sources), as recounted throughout this affidavit, the victims have no 
other way to obtain the information at issue in this privilege debate, as it involves information 
internal to the Justice Department. 
116. With regard to factor (10) (the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case), 
the information that the victims are seeking is highly important to their case. Indeed, without 
adequate proof, the Court has indicated that it may have to deny the victims' petition. DE 99 at 
11. Throughout this affidavit, I have provided numerous examples and explanations of why the 
victims need the information that they are requesting. The documents to which the Government 
22 
EFTA00184981

Oanife9301BawEffiTalElfati41 lignununterita615a2 EEnterzeilconFRISIDO)mi4eltGEBEGIME6 
64 
• 'ru,:• 
is asserting investigative privilege, for example, bear directly on the Government's alleged 
"estoppel" defense, which the victims need a complete evidentiary record to dispute. 
Work-Product Doctrine 
117. A work product claim can be defeated by a showing of substantial need and undue hardship 
to obtain the materials in other ways. In this affidavit, I have tried to articulate the specific and 
compelling need for all of the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat all of those 
assertions here, but simply note that I stand ready to provide any additional information that the 
Court may require to determine the compelling need that the victims have for the materials they 
have requested as well as the undue hardship (if not actual impossibility) of obtaining the 
materials in other ways. Any balancing of considerations tips decisively in the victims favor. 
118. As one example, the victims have a compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as 
part of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required to talk to 
OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to investigate the claims of misconduct related to 
the Epstein case by getting statements from the attorney's involved. These interviews appear to 
be recorded in materials found at page 14 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with 
regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013956 to P-013846 [sic — apparently should be P-013970, a total of 
14 pages]. Judging from the entry, these notes would be factual statements from Justice 
Department prosecutors about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any misconduct 
occurred during the handling of the case. Those are central issues in this case. There is no other 
way for the victims to obtain information about these subjects, because the Justice Department 
has declined to provide information on this subject. 
119. The victims have established a substantial need for the materials they are requesting in the 
previous paragraphs of this affidavit that review, request-by-request, their document production 
requests numbers 1 through 25 and supplemental request number 1. 
120. As another example of why the victims have established a compelling need for the 
materials is the fact that the Court has indicated that it will be considering an "estoppel" 
argument raised by the Government as a defense in this case. DE 189 at 12 n.6. The Court has 
noted that this argument "implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense which must be considered 
in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial 
authorities and the federal offense victims — including an assessment of the allegation of a 
deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on 
the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and 
presentation of the non-prosecution agreement to them as a fait accompli." DE 189 at 12 n.6 
(emphasis added). The materials to which the Government is asserting work product protection 
go directly to that "interface" between the victims, the Government, and Epstein. The victims 
have no other way of showing what that interface is. The Government will not be harmed if the 
materials are provided to the victims. 
Grand Jury Information 
121. The victims' legal pleading has explained why the Government has not properly asserted 
any grand jury secrecy to the documents at issue. In addition, many of the Government's grand 
jury privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and non-grand jury information. 
Even if the Court allows the Government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it should 
require the Government to sever grand jury materials from non-grand jury materials. 
23 
EFTA00184982

avv8RYPAB WNW 0DImunreritaf2532 EETItorloti con fRaDD 1192mliettaRM02111.126 
e5 
l'srep• YLbcdf 
122. An illustration of this problem comes from page 12 of the first privilege log (DE M-1), 
with regard to Box #2 P-008616 to P-008686. The entry reads: "File folder entitled `FBI 
Summary Charts' containing chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victims names, 
identifying information, summary of activity, and other information relevant to indictment." 
This does not appear to be a document that was ever presented to the grand jury or that directly 
discloses grand jury proceedings. Moreover, to the extent that it involves some kind of limited 
disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that limited disclosure could be redacted and the other 
information provided to the victims. 
123. It does not appear that any of the alleged grand jury materials that the Government is 
asserting privilege involve on-going grand jury issues. Moreover, it does not appear that 
disclosing any of the materials would "tip off" a potential target to a Government investigation. 
Of course, Jeffrey Epstein (and his associates) are well aware of the Government's investigation 
into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes. 
124. The Government has not explained any harm that would come from releasing the 
documents to the victims. If the Government raises any such harm, I respectfully request an 
opportunity to provide additional information on that alleged harm. 
Privacy Rights of Other Victims 
125. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 do not seek confidential or identifying information 
about any other victims. To clarify that fact, on July 31, 2013, I sent a letter to the Government 
stating, in part, that "to avoid any interference with any privacy rights of victims who are not 
parties to this litigation, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are not seeking any identifying 
information about other victims. In any of the documents that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have 
requested the Government produce, the Government should not produce the names of other 
victims or other identifying information (e.g., address or telephone number) but should instead 
redact that information." 
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is 
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. 
1W Bradley J. Edwards 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
Attachments: 
1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 
2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 
3. Victims' Requests for Admissions and Government Answers 
24 
EFTA00184983