Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00209798DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: '

From: ' (USAFLS)" To: ' (USAFLS)" Subject: Re: Jane Does I United States - Redacted Pleadings Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:39:57 +0000 Importance: Normal I was waiting for the order to make the change on the motion to dismiss. Thanks. On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:13 AM, " (USAFLS)" wrote: Hi .— I just read the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It looks good except that the attached Judge Middlebrooks Order has more redactions than the one that I gave to Judge Middlebrooks yesterday. You just need to change that to correspond with what we gave him. I will keep reading and also look for the motions to seal. I think I have them all. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda Jul 03 2013 10:30 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does United States - Redacted Pleadings Attached are the redacted motion to dismiss, motion to stay discovery (with attached unredacted RFP), and reply in support of motion to dismi

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00209798
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

From: ' (USAFLS)" To: ' (USAFLS)" Subject: Re: Jane Does I United States - Redacted Pleadings Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:39:57 +0000 Importance: Normal I was waiting for the order to make the change on the motion to dismiss. Thanks. On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:13 AM, " (USAFLS)" wrote: Hi .— I just read the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It looks good except that the attached Judge Middlebrooks Order has more redactions than the one that I gave to Judge Middlebrooks yesterday. You just need to change that to correspond with what we gave him. I will keep reading and also look for the motions to seal. I think I have them all. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda Jul 03 2013 10:30 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does United States - Redacted Pleadings Attached are the redacted motion to dismiss, motion to stay discovery (with attached unredacted RFP), and reply in support of motion to dismi

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

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.
From: ' (USAFLS)" To: ' (USAFLS)" Subject: Re: Jane Does I United States - Redacted Pleadings Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:39:57 +0000 Importance: Normal I was waiting for the order to make the change on the motion to dismiss. Thanks. On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:13 AM, " (USAFLS)" wrote: Hi .— I just read the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It looks good except that the attached Judge Middlebrooks Order has more redactions than the one that I gave to Judge Middlebrooks yesterday. You just need to change that to correspond with what we gave him. I will keep reading and also look for the motions to seal. I think I have them all. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda Jul 03 2013 10:30 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Jane Does United States - Redacted Pleadings Attached are the redacted motion to dismiss, motion to stay discovery (with attached unredacted RFP), and reply in support of motion to dismiss (plus exhibits). Other than the motions to seal, and the redacted version of Judge Middlebrooks' order (which accompanied all of our filings and which is also attached), I believe that these are the only documents that we are required to file in redacted form. Does anyone disagree? Please take a look and let me know if you think we need to redact any additional language. Given Judge Marra's rulings, what he has already publicly disclosed, and what we are requested from Judge Middlebrooks, it has been a light redaction. I have mostly redacted language that in some way identifies the grand jury as the source of our representations about SDNY and DNJ or that identifies the victims by their initials. Feel free to tell me if you think my approach presents any problem. Does anyone have Word or WordPerfect versions of the motions to seal? EFTA00209798

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11

11p

Forum Discussions

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

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