Skip to main content
Skip to content
From: Paul Cassell cFrom: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu>
Case File
efta-efta00208567DOJ Data Set 9Other

<brad@pathtojustice.coml

<brad@pathtojustice.coml Cc: "Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS)" <Eduardo.I.Sanchez@usdoj.gov>, "Maria Kelljchian" <maria@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: two questions Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:46:10 +0000 Importance: Normal We are writing in connection with the Government's recent production of various materials pursuant to the Court's order granting Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's motion to compel. We have two questions: 1. We notice, on first review of the materials provided, that it does not appear that any materials from the Middle District of Florida are included. Given that, as we understand it, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida recused on various aspects of this case some time ago, we find it surprising that there are no such responsive documents. For example, if the Middle District of Florida had correspondence on the victims issues or conducted any kind of investigation into the allegations related to this case or to Epstein, that would

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00208567
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity

Summary

<brad@pathtojustice.coml Cc: "Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS)" <Eduardo.I.Sanchez@usdoj.gov>, "Maria Kelljchian" <maria@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: two questions Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:46:10 +0000 Importance: Normal We are writing in connection with the Government's recent production of various materials pursuant to the Court's order granting Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's motion to compel. We have two questions: 1. We notice, on first review of the materials provided, that it does not appear that any materials from the Middle District of Florida are included. Given that, as we understand it, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida recused on various aspects of this case some time ago, we find it surprising that there are no such responsive documents. For example, if the Middle District of Florida had correspondence on the victims issues or conducted any kind of investigation into the allegations related to this case or to Epstein, that would

Persons Referenced (2)

Paul Cassell

“...e would appreciate it. Thanks as always for your assistance. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00208567 EFTA00208568”

Bradley Edwards

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
View on efta.gov
Browse DOJ EFTA Releases (OCR)EFTA 00208567

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
<brad@pathtojustice.coml Cc: "Sanchez, Eduardo (USAFLS)" <Eduardo.I.Sanchez@usdoj.gov>, "Maria Kelljchian" <maria@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: two questions Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:46:10 +0000 Importance: Normal We are writing in connection with the Government's recent production of various materials pursuant to the Court's order granting Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's motion to compel. We have two questions: 1. We notice, on first review of the materials provided, that it does not appear that any materials from the Middle District of Florida are included. Given that, as we understand it, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida recused on various aspects of this case some time ago, we find it surprising that there are no such responsive documents. For example, if the Middle District of Florida had correspondence on the victims issues or conducted any kind of investigation into the allegations related to this case or to Epstein, that would have been included in our requests. We can follow up with the Middle District of Florida or in other ways. But before we did so, we wanted to give you an opportunity to confirm whether your production includes the Middle District of Florida. As you know, our discovery requests specifically included that district, so we were expecting to see such materials. We note production is now due not only for the initial requests sent back in 2011, but also our single, supplemental request sent on June 24, 2013. Under this supplemental request, for example, all investigations or grand juries that convened in the Middle District of Florida would be specifically covered. 2. We are preparing to contest many of the Government's assertions of privilege with regard to the materials submitted to Judge Marra. Under the court's order (doc. #190), we have thirty days to do and are limited, currently, to seven pages followed by a response of seven pages from you. We are preparing a motion asking for the conventional briefing limits to be in place for our motion to reject the government's assertion of privileges. In particular, we think that we should be able to file a 20 page motion, you should then be able to file a 20 page response, and we should be able to file a 10 page reply. (Of course, if in preparing the brief, you were to find that the 20 page limit was too short, you could seek more pages, just as we could do so as well for our reply brief, although right now we do not anticipate any need to do so). We believe that such an approach is appropriate because we do not have any description of the Government's basis for asserting privilege other than the cryptic notations like "investigative privilege" or "attorney- client" and so forth. Accordingly, the first time that we will have a full understanding (we hope) of the basis for the Government's assertion of privilege is in its response brief. Therefore, we need the opportunity to reply. To avoid any delay in the proceedings, we will propose that we file our motion on 8/16; the Government would then have 14 days to respond (the same as the current order, doc. #190); we would then have 7 days to reply. Since our 8/16 motion date is earlier than the current schedule contemplates (7/26 was the date on which your last privilege log was filed, so we would have 30 days from that date to object under the current order), this proposed schedule would not delay the case by extending the time in which the Court would have full briefing on the issue. If you could provide the Government's position on this motion, we would appreciate it. (Also, if you would like to discuss ways to accommodate our concerns, we would be happy to chat.) We need to file our motion quickly, so if you could provide your position by noon tomorrow (Tuesday, 7/30), we would appreciate it. Thanks as always for your assistance. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00208567 EFTA00208568

Technical Artifacts (3)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Emailbrad@pathtojustice.coml
Emaileduardo.i.sanchez@usdoj.gov
Emailmaria@pathtojustice.com

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Brad Edwards

From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:37:07 +0000 Importance: Normal It has been sent. Thanks. On Jun 28, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Paul Cassell" <cassellp@law.utah.edu> wrote: > Could you pass along our pleading to whoever else in the Department is considering how to proceed on Epstein's interlocutory appeal? We believe our pleading makes compelling arguments that the Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction, at this time, over any such appeal. Thanks! > Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 > Paul G. Cassell > Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law > S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah > 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 > Voice: 801-585-5202 Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu > http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesldefault.asp?PersonlD=57&name=Cassell,Paul > You can access my publications on http://ssm.corn/author=30160 > CONFIDENTIAL: This e

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message along with any/all attachments is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

DonateMore ways to support →
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.