Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00211234DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: "

From: " To: " Cc: "M, • (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AVILLAFANA> (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:09:26 +0000 Importance: Normal The issue is trying to avoid Judge Marra setting his own schedule with a due date 21 days from now. Why don't you send me a revised and approved letter that I can send to Brad so we can try to resolve this? A. 1411afatia Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursdayuly(17, 2016 7:05 PM To: , M = I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? I think this is not an unreasonable schedule, but I think it will be tight given summer travel schedules, what I recall of their motions and discovery requests, and the other unrelated issues we are all dealing with. Have they actually asked us to set a new briefing schedule? It would be nice to see if we could at least make one more propo

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00211234
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

From: " To: " Cc: "M, • (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AVILLAFANA> (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:09:26 +0000 Importance: Normal The issue is trying to avoid Judge Marra setting his own schedule with a due date 21 days from now. Why don't you send me a revised and approved letter that I can send to Brad so we can try to resolve this? A. 1411afatia Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursdayuly(17, 2016 7:05 PM To: , M = I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? I think this is not an unreasonable schedule, but I think it will be tight given summer travel schedules, what I recall of their motions and discovery requests, and the other unrelated issues we are all dealing with. Have they actually asked us to set a new briefing schedule? It would be nice to see if we could at least make one more propo

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: " To: " Cc: "M, (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=AVILLAFANA> (USAFLS)" (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:09:26 +0000 Importance: Normal The issue is trying to avoid Judge Marra setting his own schedule with a due date 21 days from now. Why don't you send me a revised and approved letter that I can send to Brad so we can try to resolve this? A. 1411afatia Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursdayuly(17, 2016 7:05 PM To: , M = I. (USAFLS); M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? I think this is not an unreasonable schedule, but I think it will be tight given summer travel schedules, what I recall of their motions and discovery requests, and the other unrelated issues we are all dealing with. Have they actually asked us to set a new briefing schedule? It would be nice to see if we could at least make one more proposal concerning the main pending settlement issue (i.e., the letter) and hear their response before proceeding with briefing. I suspect that, because of travel issues (I seem to recall that Brad is traveling this week and next), it will take some time to address any revised proposal concerning the letter. Personally, I have always thought it a bad idea to be working on settlement negotiations and briefing at the same time, and I think any settlement possibility is almost sure to evaporate if we file any substantive response. From: I. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 5:50 PM To: M , (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) < Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? Given everyone's travel schedules, how does 9/30 for us, 10/21 for them, and 11/4 for the reply sound? And I will ask about the discovery responses. To the extent that we have to respond, does 9/30 work for that, too? A. Villafatia EFTA00211234 Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursdayjt(E, 2016 5:43 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? This is the last amended briefing schedule I have, D.E. 356. On February 10, 2016, petitioners filed their motion for summary judgment (D.E. 361). Under the scheduling order, the government had 43 days (March 24, 2016) to file its response to the motion for summary judgment, as well as the government's cross-motion for summary judgment. Petitioners were allowed 19 days (April 12, 2016) to file their reply to the government's response to petitioners' motion for summary judgment, and their response to the government's cross motion for summary judgment. The government was allowed 14 days (April 26, 2016), to file their reply to petitioners' response to the government's motion for summary judgment. Also, we need to establish a new due date for the government's responses to the supplemental discovery requests propounded on December 2, 2015, and December 29, 2015. Some of these may no longer be applicable since the government decided not to assert the Wellcare argument. I am fairly certain Cassell insisted some of the requests for production and for admissions were still relevant. « File: 356_order_amend_sched.pdf » From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:31 PM To: MI (USAFLS) < EL (USAFLS) < > Subject: Proposed briefing schedule for Jane Doe case? Hi and — Can you send me your proposed dates for the briefing schedule so I can send them to Brad? I will be out all next week. And from August 6-11. Thanks. A. Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00211235

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.