EFTA01069394.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff• DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE v. ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Correspondence and Discovery for the reasons set forth below: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT During the underlying litigation, Epstein vigorously sought protection from the Court that these and other documents produced would be used for purposes other than those contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery, i.o., dissemination in the media. His rights to contest this type ofuse were preserved as part of the settlement of these proceedings, which provided for confidentiality of the settlement as well as provisions to bring these matters to a close. Now, the fears that led to Epstein's efforts to seek protection from the court have now come to pass. The intended use of these documents is now leading to more litigation that the settlement of these cases was designed to end. Epstein requests that the court grant protection so that this does not occur. Luas Banat, ItCOUDA 33401 •(961)802.9094 YOWL311 Marl /31)11}14r7, PA. • NICLIPSPOINT - Wen TOWalt, SW= 904771804M* /140Lat Diun,IVirr EFTA01069394 Natalie A. Trompet From: Jacqueline M. Borrero Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:45 PM To: Natalie A. Trompet Subject: LAS login CM/ECF SDFL (LAS) user: a pass: 1 EFTA01069395 Case 9:08-ov-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et aL Tl STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS 1. In July 2010, the Defendant, pursuant to certain discovery orders (D.E. 462 and 572) entered by this court produced correspondence and documentation between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors ("Correspondences). 2. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into settlement agreements in the above-styled matter and in matters of ■ v. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028051 XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County and in El vs. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028058 >OOOCMB AB, filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation, a copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit "1" to govern the use of public disclosure of discovery of the Correspondence. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation. 4, On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of Intent to Use is attached hereto as Exhibit1". 5. The Joint Stipulation provides that if Epstein chooses to serve an objection, the Correspondence will remain confidential until the court has had an adequate opportunity to review the materials and enter a ruling. -2- Pavia WantLam, TA • pmu-os POW • Win Tow" Sin 901,m SOunirim= WIST PAW BUCK.Plank 33401• EFTA01069396 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOIHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. 6. On August 30, 2010, the undersigned's firm requested counsel for the Plaintiff to identify the documents they intend to use so that Epstein would be in a position to prepare an appropriate response, which was rejected. The undersigned's law firm understands that the correspondence in question is in excess of 100 documents. In general, the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney's Office regarding the investigation, negotiation and settlement of potential criminal charges against Mr. Epstein. DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED USE Epstein respectfully submits that a brief description of the proceedings that counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that they intend to use the Correspondence will be helpful to the court: A. Epstein v. Edwards Case No. 502009 CA040800,OOOCMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley Y. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Pon zi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market investments to outside investors in lawsuits brought against Epstein by a number of Plaintiffs, represented by the now defunct Law Firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). Some of the lawsuits were transferred to a newly formed firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ("Farmer Jaffe"). Epstein has alleged and believes that the Defendants and perhaps other former employees of ERA conspired to use the Epstoin/LM litigation before this court and perhaps other ' The claim against LM was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. FUAIDA 77401 • FOWLER WAITE B1111181T, P.A. • PHILLIPS Pcun - Won TOWLE, SUITE 901, 777 Scum 1.)-00in Dove, Wm PAIN BEACH, EFTA01069397 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. litigation to lure investors in to making approximately $13 million dollars worth of investments into phoney settlements by using pending real cases. Counsel for those investors, William Scherer, whose is also a member of the Creditor's Committee in the RRA bankruptcy, represented to the bankruptcy court that a number of his clients and their lawyer went into the ARA conference room and were allowed to go through the LM cast file boxes, approximately 10 of them, and concluded that the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript ofthis bearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-227 On August 13,2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Rayordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of a special master to review in excess of 6,000 electronically stored documents of RRA that relate to Epstein and other litigation to prepare a privilege log in anticipation of production of relevant non-privileged documents. A copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "4". B. In Re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736-Marra/Johnson In 2008, Jane Doe filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S. Code § 3771 on behalf of two alleged victims of the alleged sexual assault by Epstein. Since 2008 there has been little if any activity on that file. The articulated purpose of the use of these documents is in an effort to set aside the "Non Prosecution Agreement" which Epstein entered into 'It is difficult to believe that if what Mr. Scherer has stated is true, that Mr. Edwards was not aware that his case files were being shown to outside investors. -4- Tows; SUITS 901,777 sours BAGIsk DI WEST PALM BnAC11, Matra 33401. (MI) 80240414 WIZ Patna BIJANITT. PA • Faults poNr 'ar EFTA01069398 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Casc No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRADOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. with the federal government. Neither victim has met the requirements of 18 U.S. Code § 3771(d)(5)(A-C), which requires the court to assert her rights before and during the proceeding and to petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus if such right is denied. (See: Docket Entries for Doe v. U.S., 9:08-80736-KAM). It is hard to believe that a case that has been languishing in excess of two years will be revived to invalidate an agreement that the U.S. Attorneys Office entered into with Epstein after the agreement has been fully performed. C. Justice Department Ombudsman and other uses The Code of Federal Regulations has set out the procedures to promote compliance with crime victims' rights. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10. In order to take advantage of this complaint process, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that complaints must be submitted within ninety (90) days of the victim's knowledge of a violation, but not more than one (1) year after the actual violation. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10(c)(3). It is obvious from the inaction of these proceedings and earlier filed pleading that this time frame has expired. Therefore the articulated intended use of the documents in this complaint proceeding is suspect on its face, thus leaving the only other articulated purposes which essentially is to allow the documents to go into the public domain. IV. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The policies behind FRE 408, and 410 provide this court for basis of sustaining Epstein's objections to the production of these documents. The intended use contravenes a critical public policy ofencouniging resolution o f criminal prosecutions without trial. Defendants are considerably Fowusot What B4.9.747T, P.A. • r:MILS POINT Varr rCars., Sun" 901, 777 SWIll PLAGLES DOVE, WM PAW Bncn, PLO.I:DA 33401 • (561)1102.9044 EFTA01069399 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-8089 3-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. more likely to engage in full and frank discussions with the government if they do not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment in other proceedings. More specifically, Rule 408 prohibits the use of any evidence offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of any claim that was disputed. Rule 410 makes inadmissible pleas, plea discussions and related statements. The exceptions under each of these rules do not apply. Evidence of statements made during plea negotiations are also not admissible under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.1720). They are not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer or who conducted the negotiations. Similar provisions in Florida Evidence Code exist. Statements made as part of settlement negotiations are inadmissible. The exception under each of these rules also do not apply. See: §§ 90.408 and 90.410, Fla. Stat (1976). The Florida Rule, like its Federal Rule Counterpart, was adopted to promote plea bargaining by allowing a defendant to negotiate without waiving Fifth Amendment protection. The most significant factor in the rules of adoption was the need for free and open discussion between the prosecution and defense during attempts to reach a compromise United States v. Davis, 617 F. 2d 677, 683 (DC Cir. 1979), cited in Nunes v State of Florida, 988 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). It would obviously present a chilling effect on any settlement discussions if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial or in any other proceeding. Bank Card America, Inc. v. Universal Bank Card Systems, Inc., 203 F. 3d 477, 483 (7m Cir. 2000). One court in the -6 FowaR WanBvvwn, PA -Pxu n Pow • WM Town, Sum 901,777 So M PLAOLNI Days, Wen PA1M Bans,DAMtun 33401 • (561)403.9044 EFTA01069400 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 7 of 10 Jane Doe v, Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRAUOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. federal court system has held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically slated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations...the ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a more efficient, more cost effective, and significantly less burden to the judicial systern...parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts. Goodyear Tire, Id. at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the United States Attorney was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to compensation for his alleged victims. The court ordered discovery of this Correspondence so the Plaintiff could determine if it contained any admissible information that would advance a stand-alone federal civil action. Instead, Epstein submits that the real use of this Correspondence will be to further counsel for the of Plaintiffs legislative, political and philosophical mission to expand victim rights. This kind extrinsic use of such discovery chills and compromises the presumptive confidentiality of written and often frank discussions between counsel. Epstein intended his communications with United States Attorney's Office to be private and protected by FRE 410. The communications from the U.S. POwLiiii MUTE Buvistr, PA,- hoist; Poofr - WAS/ Town, Stun 901.77/Sotrrn ElAaux Dues, Warr PALM BkA I, FLOXIDA 33401 • EFTA01069401 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doc v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CP/-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Attorney to Epstein's counsel reflect these discussions and were also intended to be private. Now, after the fact to allow it to be disseminated to victim's rights advocates to change legislation totally defeats the public policy consideration of encouraging the resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial. V. RELIEF REQUESTED Epstein requests that this Court grantthe Motion forProtective Order by preventing disclosure and order Plaintiffs' counsel to return, without keeping copies, the Correspondence to counsel for Epstein. Alternatively, there aro in excess of 100 documents of Correspondence; and as noted, counsel for Plaintiff has refused to agree to designate which they intend to use. Therefore, in the event this court is inclined to order the release of said correspondence, then Epstein requests an in-camera inspection of which documents Plaintiff intends to use to determine what, if any, documents are related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along the same lines, Epstein requests an in-camera inspection in an effort redact any information that may violate thirdparty privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights and to thither brief these issues. VI. LOCAL RULE 7.1 STATEMENT Pursuant to the above Rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and are unable to resolve this matter. MACH, ?LOAM* 33401._ Fowia Wang BUR.NITT.PA • PavanFiona - War TOwni. sir. 3 901,777 Soy HFuca.. Dula, War PALK EFTA01069402 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 9 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-8089344ARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CNVECF on this 2nd day of September, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. & Lehrman, PL 250 Australian Avenue, South 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 1400 Suite 2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fax Fax Co-counse or Je rey Epstein -9- nosnm 33401. (561)5024044 Swum Wins Ituassrr, P.A. • Muss Pont • War Town, Suns 901,77) SOVIII Pumas Dans, WmPALMBOALW, EFTA01069403 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-Counselfor Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Ackerman. Jr. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 Lilly Ann Sanchez Fla. Bar No. 195677 FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Plagler Drive West Palma Florida 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Co-Counselfor Defendant Affrey Epstein Ml WM0143\1411illt03/444Kso Ox Protado• O.4. WOC Dee vEriskAA(9/2110-/S39) -10- PALM WIACII, FLOML33401 • FOWLS Wens Swarm P.A. • hates POINT • WIWI Town. Ain 901,177 SOWN FLA,Milt Dna, Win EFTA01069404  Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 —MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, • v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation plaintiff, JANE DOB and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epst ein"), hereby file their ed By Jane Doe's attorneys during Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtain discovery, and each state: Edwards, Fistos and 1. In July 2010, the law firm of Palmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Firm"), Paul O. Cassell, Esq. and ents (including content thereof) received through discovery certain correspondence and docum "Corre spondence"). between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors (the e whether the 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagre Correspondence is confidential. da to Settlement 3. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Adden s Bosse n, CASE Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matter ofIlLia, CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 NO. 502008 CA028051 XJQCCMB AB and in pending cases of Bpstein /OOO11133 AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence Jane Does 1 and2, CASE agggsio, CASE NO. 502009CA040800)DCOCMB AO and In Re: 1 FJCHIBIT 1 1 EFTA01069405 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at MIIIIMEMI of their intent to use or provide the Conespondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under sent. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant requests that the Court enter an order on the above stipulation and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Local Rule 7.1 Slattille111 Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and have agreed to same. RespectthIly submitted, BY:J.O31;4Kit D Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 2 EFTA01069406 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM . Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 catfiegaptfiegna I HEREBY CERTIFY &statue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the =mot specified via transmission of Notices of Eeetronio Filing getended by CM/ECP on this 19th day of July, 2010: Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, \Wining, Edwards, Pisan Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. & Lehmaan, PL 250 Australian Avenue South 425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite 1400 Suite #2 FL 33401-5012 Port 33301 Phon • Fax: Co-Counselfir Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Paulo. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Ytce 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake ,UT 84112 Fax unsulor By: /1/ Robert D. Critton. h. ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 la.m raig(a>i;?!*i,Esin MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #611296 mulkoVelotave.corn BU'RMAN, CRITTON, LOTT= & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 FL 33401 Phone Fax for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 3 EFTA01069407 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering joint Stipulation This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of 1._vs, Epstein. CASE vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 riCialvfa AB and NO. 502008 CA028058 )OODCMB AB, Counsel may \Nish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXX3v1B AG and In Re: Jane Does I and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA01069408 Case 9:08-cv-50893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 5 of 2 Case 9:08-cv-80893•KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07119/2010 Page 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critic]; Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at JIMEMEI) of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may tile the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court Is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010. Linnea IL Johnson United States Magistrate Judge Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record EFTA01069409 Case 9:08-cv-80593-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Pig Tun Class taloa Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. Foetal Wuri weenevilkatth Canwerclei lltintbn PATNTOJII STILL . C0M August 26,2010 Robert D. Critton,Jr., Esq. BURMAN. GLUTTON, et at 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Mr. Critton, We are writing to advise you of our intention to use in two pending court cases and a Justice Department complaint process correspondence between Epstein's representatives and federal prosecutors. As we have indicated to you in the past, we do not believe that we are under any restrictions with regard to using these materials in filed court cases and are not aware of any court order restricting our use of this correspondence. You have not directed us to any such court order. Nonetheless, you apparently believe that some sort of restriction exists. Accordingly, we have agreed to give you notice of our intention to use the correspondence so that you can, if you so choose, file an objection. As you know, Epstein recently chose to settle the lawsuit of Doe v. Frmin, Case Na 08- CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, shortly before trial. The settlement he reached followed a few days after he provided to us, as Jane Doe's legal counsel, correspondence between his representatives and the U.S. Attorney's Office in connection with a federal prosecution related to sex offenses against minors that the U.S. Attorney's Office was conducting. That correspondence demonstrates that Epstein was prepared to plead guilty to sexually abusing children. As you also know, Epstein has chosen to ale a lawsuit against one of us (Brad Edwards, Esq.) in which he alleges that civil lawsuits against him for sexually abusing children were trumned up as some sort of a scheme to extort money from him. As you also know, Epstein took the S during his deposition on all relevant questions rather than providing supporting responses for his lawsuit. Finally, as you know, there is currently pending before Judge Mann a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 5 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by 425 North An Suite 2, ale, Florida 33301 office fax EFTA01069410 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 Robert D. Craton,Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 2 allege under the Act. For example, the victims Epstein allege they were deprived of their rights bargain arrangements and an opportunity to plea that there were deprived of notice of pendinglly confer with prosecutors. The correspondence be heard as well as the right to mean ingfu al of their claims, as it demonstrates that feder provided to us is compelling evidence in supportwith Epstein months before they alerted the s prosecutors were conducting plea discussion corre spondence also demonstrates a willful plan to victims to any possible plea barg ain. The discussions. keep the victims in the dark about the plea of this correspondence in the two lawsuits In light of these facts, we intend to make use tion you made to the documents (and we the redac mentioned above. Of course, because of tion of Judge Marra's Order), no actual statements challenged and firmly belie ve was a dear viola federal In the documents — only statements from from Epstein's representatives are disclosed prosecutors. : Our currently planned use includes the following gpstein y: Edwards tless for summary Judgment on Epstein's meri Mr. Jack Scarola, Esq., will file a motion pursuing Edwards' counterclaim for abuse of well as lawsuit against Brad Edwards, Esq., as ally abusing that he was guilty of the crime of sexu motion for process. To dem onstr ate that Epst ein knew of the corre spon denc e as exhi bits to our children, he intends to attach relevant parts purs uing the counterclaim. Mr. Scarola, as Edw ards summary Judg ment and vario us moti ons hip and privi lege, has an attorney clien t relat ions counsel and someone with whom Edwardsthe settlement agreement was reached and is not a received the documents in ques tion befo re we are giving theless, out of an abundance of caution, party to the setdement agreement. None ded use of the documents. you notice of his upcoming additional inten 08-00735-MARRA/IOFINSON Jn lite:Jane Doc, Case No. ional ably resolved, we will shortly be filing addit Now that the civil cases have been favor ask for remedies to protect the victims' rights will pleadings in the CVRA case. These pleadings of the non-prosecution agreement that the U.S. under the CVRA, as well as the inva lidat ing in violation of the CVRA. Attorneys Office entered with Epstein to have a under the CVIZA, we will be seeking Related to these efforts to secure relief so that It better protects victims of sexual abuse A legislative initiative made to modify the CVR effor t, we intend to share the correspondencwho is e with othe r serio us crim es. As part of that Crim e, and the National Center for Victims of Susan Howley, Legislative Director fore aides to Senator Leahy about modifications to the currently in discussions with legislativcorrespondence with Meg Garvin, Fixative Director of CVRA. We hardier intend to share the in Portland, Oregon. As you may know, Ms. Garvin tute the Nadonal Crime Victims Law Insti matter early on. Ms. Garvin is also in contact with work ed with the victi ms in the CVR A also been in congressional staff abou t the need for modifications to the CVRA. She has about the g Office (GAO), which Issue d a repo rt discussions with the General Accountin asing Awareness, Modifying the Compliant Process, effectiveness of the CVRA. See GAO , Incre 425 North Ara Solt* 2,Cislaidalle. Florida 33301 offke MIIMMM fax EFTA01069411  Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 3 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 3 and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring with Improve Implementation of the Act (Dec. 2008). The GAO is continuing to monitor compliance with the Act, and we intend to ask Ma Garvin to share the correspondence with the GAO. As you may know, in the past crime victims groups have succeeded in changing victim's rights' laws and then having those changes applied to currently pending cases. Sec cg.., Paul G. retell Barbarians at the Gates? A Reply co the Critics oftisc Victims' Rights Amendment, 1999 Utah L Rev. 479, 518-19 (discussing remedial legislation passed by Congress to protect victims of the Oklahoma City bombing which Congress intended to apply to pending trials). Justice Department Ombudsman The Justice Department also has a process for considering complaints by mime victims about their treatment in the criminal justice process They have an ombudsman, who will consider specific complaints. We intend to file a complaint with the Ombudsman about the handling of this case, and in doing so plan to share our documents with the Ombudsman and i • seek advice from other attorneys who work in the legal clinics for the National Crime Victims Law Institute about how to most effectively file such a complaint. The uses listed above are examples and are not intended to be exclusive descriptions of our intention to use these documents in judicial and legislative fors Unless we hear from you within seven days that you have initiated legal action to bar us from malting the above-described uses of the correspondence, we will move forward with doing so. •- 425 North An Suite j • e, Florida 33301 office fax