EFTA00086375

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 14 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #2 
P-009126 
Thru 
P-009134 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #9" 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that victim/witness for 
indictment preparation 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
Box #2 
P-009135 
Thru 
P-009141 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe 
#13" containing meta-analysis of all phone, 
travel, and grand jury data related to that 
victim/witness for indictment preparation 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
Box #2 
P-009141A 
Thru 
P-009141C 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe 
#12" containing meta-analysis of all phone, 
travel, and grand jury data related to that 
victim/witness for indictment preparation 
Work product 
. 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not arties to this suit 
Box #2 
P-009142 
Thru 
P-009152 
File folder entitled " 
' 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not 
ies to this suit 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that individual for 
indictment preparation 
Box #2 
P-009153 
Thru 
P-009156 
File folder entitled 
' 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that individual for 
indictment preparation 
Box #2 
P-009157 
Thru 
P-009208 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #1" 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that victim/witness for 
indictment preparation 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
Box #2 
P-009209 
Thru 
P-009213 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #2" 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that victim/witness for 
indictment preparation 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
Page 14 of 23 
EFTA00086435

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 15 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #2 
P-009214 
Thru 
P-009271 
File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #3" 
containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel, and 
grand jury data related to that victim/witness for 
indictment preparation 
Work product 
6(e) 
Investigative privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this suit 
Box #2 
P-009272 
Thru 
P-009354 
File folder entitled "Purpose of Travel faces" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work product 
Box #2 
P-009355 
Thru 
P-009403 
File folder entitled "Interstate Commerce Cases" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work product 
Box #2 
P-009404 
Thru 
P-009536 
File folder entitled "Attorney Conflict Research" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work product 
Box #2 
P-009537 
Thru 
P-009574 
File folder entitled "Mann Act/Travel to Have 
Sex w/Minor containing attorney research and 
handwritten notes 
Work product 
Box #2 
P-009575 
Thru 
P-009603 
File folder entitled "Travel Act" containing 
attorney research and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-009604 
Thru 
P-009711 
File folder entitled "Florida 
Prostitution/Lewdness Statutes" containing 
attorney research and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-009712 
Thru 
P-009819 
Booklet entitled "Attorney General Guidelines for 
Victim and Witness Assistance" [not being 
withheld as privileged — produced to opposing 
counsel) 
Box #2 
P-009820 
Thru 
P-009965 
File folder entitled "Corporate Liability Itsrch" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-009966 
Tim 
P-010096 
File folder entitled "Research re Knowledge of 
Age Unnecessary" containing attorney research 
and handwritten notes and copy of grand jury 
subpoena 
Work Product 
6(e) 
Page 15 of 23 
EFTA00086436

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 16 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #2 
P-010097 
Thru 
P-010276 
File folder entitled "Money Laundering" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010277 
Thru 
P-010394 
File folder entitled "1960 & Aiding/Abetting" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010395 
Thu 
P-010488 
File folder entitled "18 USC § 2255 Cases" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010489 
Thru 
P-010509 
File folder entitled "Research re Overt Acts & 
Witness Testimony" containing attorney research 
and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010510 
Thru 
P-010525 
File folder entitled "Extradition" containing 
attorney research and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010526 
Thru 
P-010641 
File folder entitled "Rsrch re Crime Victims 
Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten 
notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft 
correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz 
(Also contains a November 28 2007 letter from 
Kenneth Starr to 
, and a November 
29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. 
Alexander Acosta (P-010528 thru P-010530 and 
P410556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the 
Court's Order, these will be produced to opposing 
counsel upon lift of stay by 11th Circuit) 
Work Product 
Deliberative Process 
Box #2 
P-010642 
Thru 
P-01650 
File folder entitled "immunity" containing 
attorney research on granting immunity to 
witnesses 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010651 
Thu 
P410659 
File folder entitled "Research re G.J. Transcript" 
containing attorney research and draft pleadings 
re compelling production of grand jury transcript 
with subpoena 
Work Product 
6(e) 
Deliberative process 
Box #2 
P-010660 
Thru 
P-010757 
File folder entitled "Research re O1 Transcript" 
containing grand jury subpoena, 6(e) letters, 
attorney research and correspondence related to 
subpoena 
Work Product 
6(e) 
Page 16 of 23 
EFTA00086437

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 17 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #2 
P-010758 
Thru 
P-010793 
File folder entitled "Original Proposed Ind." 
containing draft indictment 
Work Product 
6(e) 
Deliberative process 
Box #2 
P-010794 
Thru 
P-010829 
File folder entitled "Epstein" containing sample 
indictments and attorney research re potential 
charges with attorney notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010830 
Thru 
P-010853 
File folder entitled "1591 & Money Laundering" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010854 
Thru 
P-010876 
File folder entitled "18 USC 2425" containing 
attorney research and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010877 
Thru 
P-010920 
File folder entitled "Knowledge of Age" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-010921 
Thru 
P-011049 
File folder entitled "2423(b) Constitutionality and 
Purpose of Travel" containing attorney research 
and handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-011050 
Thru 
P-011212 
File folder entitled "Mistake not a 
Defense" containing attorney research and 
handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-011213 
Thru 
P-011237 
File folder entitled "Research re `Pandering'" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-011238 
Thm 
P-011319
File folder entitled "Research re Grand Jury 
Instructions" containing attorney research and 
handwritten notes 
Work Product 
6(e) 
Box #2 
P-011320 
Thru 
P-011361 
File folder entitled "Telephone = Facility of 
Commerce" containing attorney research and 
handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-011362 
Thru 
P-011374 
File folder entitled "Def of Prostitution" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Page 17 of 23 
EFTA00086438

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 18 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #2 
P-011375 
Thru 
P-011456 
File folder entitled "Relevant Florida Statutes" 
containing attorney research and handwritten 
notes 
Work Product 
Box #2 
P-011457 
Thru 
P-011626 
File folder entitled "Unit of Prosecution 
Research" containing attorney research and 
handwritten notes 
Work Product 
Box #3 
P-011627 
Thru 
P-011662 
File folder entitled "Attorney Notes" containing 
attorney handwritten and typed notes 
Work Product 
Box #3 
P-011663 
Thru 
P-011698 and 
P-012189 thru 
P-4112361 
(gap was 
scanning error) 
File folder entitled "Drafts" containing draft 
indictments with attorney handwritten notes, draft 
internal memoranda, relevant witness interview 
reports and grand jury material and attorney 
handwritten notes 
6(e) 
Work Product 
Deliberative Process 
Investigative Privilege 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this 
Box #3 
P-011699 
Thru 
P-011777 
File folder entitled "6/9/09 Signed Indictment" 
containing signed indictment package dated 
6/9/2009 with corrections 
6(e) 
Work product 
Deliberative process 
Box #3 
P-011778 
'Mu 
P-011788 
File folder entitled "6/12/09 Victim Notif. Log" 
containing chart with victim contact information 
and attorney notes regarding dates and type of 
contacts 
Work product 
Box #3 
P-011789 
Thru 
P-011879 
File folder entitled "Breach Memo" containing 
memorandum analyzing breach of Non- 
Prosecution Agreement with attachments 
Work product 
Deliberative process 
Box #3 
P-011880 
ThIll 
P-011922 
File folder entitled "Overt Act Lists" containing 
handwritten notes cross-checking all overt acts 
alleged in draft indictment by victim and typed 
overt act summary charts for indictment 
preparation 
Work product 
Attorney-client privilege 
Deliberative process 
6(e) 
Page 18 of 23 
EFTA00086439

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 19 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #3 
P-011923 
Thru 
P-011966 
Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE 
Counsel" containing: 
Work product 
Deliberative process 
6(e) 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
■ 7/13/2007 letter from 
to 
with handwritten 
attorney (Lourie) notes; 
■ 6/2 /2 
I 
from Gerald Lefcourt 
Matt Menchal 
, 
and 
with 
handwritten attorney 
• 
■ 6/25/2007 email fro 
to 
Matt Menchel and 
entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" 
Handwritten and typed attorney I 
) notes 
regarding main themes raised by Epstein counsel 
Box #3 
P-011967 
Thru 
P-012016 
Composition book entitled "Operation Leap 
Year" containing attorney handwritten notes 
regarding investigation and case strategy 
Work product 
Investigative privilege 
6(e) 
Contains information subject 
to privacy rights of victims 
who are not parties to this 
litigation 
Box #3 
P-012017 
Thru 
P-012055 
Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to 
Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Incorporated 
Memorandum of Law 
6(e) 
Box #3 
P-012056 
Thru 
P-012088 
Affidavit of Roy Black, F-sq. in Support of 
Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to 
Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 
6(e) 
Box #3 
P-012089 
Thru 
P-012129 
United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey 
Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury 
Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 
6(e) 
Box #3 
P-012130 
Thru 
P-012150 
Declaration o i 
6(e) 
Box #3 
P-012151 
Thru 
P-012167 
Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of 
United States' Response to Motion to Quash 
Subpoenas 
6(e) 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains information 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Page 19 of 23 
EFTA00086440

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 20 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Descri i tion 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #3 
P-012168 
Thru 
P-012170 
Ex Parte Declaration Number Two in Support of 
United States' Response to Motion to Quash 
Subpoenas 
6(e) 
Investigative Privilege 
Box #3 
P-012171 
Thru 
P-012173 
Supplement to Ex Parte Declaration Number One 
in Support of United States' Response to Motion 
to Quash Subpoenas 
6(e) 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains information 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-012174 
Thru 
P-012176 
Draft of September 2009 letter from 
to Roy Black regarding breach of Non 
Prosecution Agreement with handwritten attorney 
MEM notes 
Work Product 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
Deliberative Process 
Box #3 
P-012177 
Thru 
P-012178 
Undated handwritten attorney 
I notes 
Work Product 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
Deliberative Process 
regarding negotiations and allegations 
Box #3 
P-012179 
Thru 
P-012188 
File Folder entitled "FBI G.J. Log" containing 
copy of FBI
 jury subpoena log with 
attorney 
handwritten notes 
6(e) 
Work Product 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains information 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-012362 
Thru 
P-012451 
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 material 
6(e) 
Work Product 
Attorney-Client privilege 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains information 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-012451 
That 
P-012452 
File folder entitled "Victim List" containing list 
of victims with dates of birth and age information 
. 
Work Product 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains information 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Page 20 of 23 
EFTA00086441

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 21 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #3 
P-012453 
Thru 
P-012623 
Complete indictment package marked "Originals 
12/12/07" 
- 
Work-product 
Deliberative process 
6(e) 
Also contains documents 
subject to investigative 
privilege 
Also contains documents 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-012624 
Thru 
P-012653 
Folder entitled "(Victims) Additional 302's" 
containing reports of interviews conducted in 
June 2007, October 2007, and March 2008. 
Investigative Privilege 
Also contains documents 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-012654 
Thru 
P-012864 
3-ring binder entitled "Child Molesters: A 
Behavioral Analysis" with attorney mit 
handwritten notes 
Work-product 
Box #3 
P-012865 
Thru 
P-013226 
Indictment preparation binder containing: 
witness/victim list with identifying information, 
sexual activity sumisiephone call summary 
chart, attorney 
handwritten notes, 
3iii
rons of state investigative file, attorney 
typed notes, relevant pieces of grand 
jury materials, telephone records/flight records 
analysis charts, victim/witness photographs, 
DAVID records, NCICs, and related materials for 
persons identified as Jane Does #9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
14 
Work Product 
Deliberative Process 
6(e) 
Also contains documents 
subject to investigative 
privilege 
Also contains documents 
subject to privacy rights of 
victims who are not parties to 
this litigation 
Box #3 
P-013227 
April 23, 2008 Memo from 
to 
Privacy Act 
Office of Professional Responsibility re Self 
Reporting, Corrected Version of the previously 
submitted April 21, 2008 Lett 
Box #3 
P-013226 
Thm 
P-013230 
April 21, 2008 Letter from 
to 
Privacy Act 
Office of Professional Responsibility re Self 
Reporting 
Box #3 
P-013231 
Thru 
P-013239 
April 22, 2008 Letter fro 
to 
Privacy Act 
Office of Professional Responsibility re Self-
Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest 
Page 21 of 23 
EFTA00086442

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 22 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Descriptio 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #3 
P-013240 
Thru 
P-013247 
April 21, 2008 Letter from 
to 
Privacy Act 
Office of Professional Responsibility re Self 
Reporting with attachments 
Box #3 
PM 13248 
Thru 
P-013251 
Emails between 
, Assistant 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
General Counsel, Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys, and 
First 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of 
Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide 
Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated 
August 24 and August 29 2011 
Box #3 
P-013252 
Thru 
P-013253 
Emails between 
, Assistant 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
General Counsel, Executive 
1 
r 
nited 
States Attorneys, and 
First 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of 
Florida, regarding Recusal matter, dated July 28, 
August 3, and August 24 2011 
Box #3 
P-013254 
Thru 
P-013257 
Emails between 
, Assistant 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
General Counsel, Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys, and 
First 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of 
Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide 
Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated 
August 24 and August 29 2011 
Box #3 
P-013258 
Thru 
P-013259 
Emails between 
=, 
Assistant 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
General Counsel, Ex c ' 
c 
r 
nited 
States Attorneys, and 
First 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of 
Florida, regarding Formal Notice of Office-wide 
Recusal of Southern District of Florida dated July 
28 and Au 
Box #3 
P-013260 
Thru 
P-013262 
Email fronl
, Assistant General 
Counsel, Executive Office for United States 
Attorneys, to Wifredo Ferrer (U.S. Attorney, 
D LRobert O'Neill (U.S. Attorney, MDFL), 
(FAUSA, SDFL), we 
(FAUSA, MDFL) regarding Formal 
Notice of Office-wide Recusal of Southern 
District of Florida dated Au 
24 2011. CC's 
AG) 
SAEO), 
(USAEO) 
(USAEO) 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
Page 22 of 23 
EFTA00086443

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 212-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 23 of 
23 
Bates Range 
Description 
Privilege(s) Asserted 
Box #3 
Emails between 
Assistant 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
P-013263 
General Counsel, Exec tve 
ce 
nited 
Deliberative Process
Thru 
States Attorneys, and 
First 
Work Product 
P-013271 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of 
Florida, regarding recusal of Southern District of 
Florida, dated July 29, 2011 with attached 
memorandum from 
to 
summarizing 
Jeffrey 
Epstein Investigation
#3 
Emails between'
Ex 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
P-013272 
for United States Attorneys, and 
Thru 
Southern District of Florida, seeking advice 
P-013278 
regarding office-wide recusal, dated December 16 
and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul 
Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 
2010 
Page 23 of 23 
EFTA00086444

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 1 of 51 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM 
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, 
Petitioners, 
vs. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
OPINION AND ORDER 
This cause is before the Court on various discovery related matters. In response to 
Petitioners' first requests for production, the respondent Government asserted various privileges 
in three privilege logs and submitted nearly 15,000 pages of documents for in camera inspection. 
(DEs 212-1, 216-1, 329-1). Petitioners object to every privilege asserted. (DE 265). 
Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that certain grand jury 
materials should remain secret, and he moves to prevent disclosure of those materials. (DE 263). 
Petitioners filed a response. (DE 271). 
Finally, the Government objects to the relevancy of several of Petitioners' requests for 
production. (DE 260). Petitioners responded (DE 266) and filed a supporting supplement (DEs 
267, 268). 
The Court has conducted its in camera review of materials submitted, has carefully 
considered the materials and the parties' submissions, and is fully advised in the premises. 
GOVERNMENT 
EXHIBIT 
5 
EFTA00086445

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 2 of 51 
I. Background 
This is a case against the United States for allegedly violating the Crime Victims' Rights 
Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated 
victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution 
agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors debate the 
discoverability of documents that show exactly what led to the non-prosecution agreement. 
In March 2011, Petitioners moved "to allow use of correspondence between the U.S. 
Attorney's Office and counsel for Epstein" to prove their CVRA case. (DE 51 at 1). Petitioners 
argued that the correspondence was relevant as it "shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was 
aware of its statutory obligation to inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement," and 
that they should be allowed to use it "as it sheds important light on the events surrounding the 
non-prosecution agreement, which are central to the victims' arguments that the U.S. Attorney's 
Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). The Court granted Petitioners' request and ordered the 
Government to "(p)roduce responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for 
production of documents encompassing any documentary material exchanged by or between the 
federal government and persons or entities outside the federal government (including without 
limitation all correspondence generated by or between the federal government and Epstein's 
attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). The Court also ordered the Government to produce all responsive 
documents "other than communications generated between the federal government and outside 
persons or entities." (K.). If the Government claimed privilege over any of these documents, the 
Court ordered the Government to (1) file "a privilege log clearly identifying each document(' by 
author(s), addressee(s), recipients(s), date, and general subject matter and such other identifying 
2 
EFTA00086446

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 3 of 51 
data," and (2) to "submit all responsive documents withheld on claim of privilege to the court for 
in camera inspection." (Id.). 
The Government produced 1,357 pages of documents to Petitioners, filed three privilege 
logs, and submitted nearly 15,000 pages to the Court for in camera inspection. (See DE 257 at 
2). The Government asserts that the documents submitted for in camera inspection are privileged 
for reasons such as the privacy rights of non-party victims, grand jury secrecy under Federal Rule 
of Criminal Procedure 6(e),' and the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, and 
investigative privileges. (DEs 212-1; 216-1, 329-1). Moreover, with the Court's leave (DE 257 
at 4), the Government objects to the relevancy of several of Petitioners' requests for production 
(DE 260). 
H. Discussion 
District courts have "broad discretion in shaping the scope of discovery under 
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)." Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406, 1415 (11th Cir. 1984). The 
Court will first address matters related to whether a privilege protects the submitted documents 
from discovery and then turn to whether any otherwise non-privileged documents are relevant to 
Petitioners' CVRA case. Specific rulings as to the submitted documents are found in the Table 
appended to this Opinion and Order. 
A. 
Privilege Assertions 
1. Challenge to the Sufficiency of Government's Privilege Assertions 
Petitioners raise several general objections to the Government's privilege logs. They 
In a previous ruling, the Court noted that Plaintiffs formally requested the release of 
grand jury materials, but the Court reserved "ruling as to whether the materials in question are 
protected from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)." (DE 257 at 3). 
3 
EFTA00086447

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLED Docket 07/06/2015 Page 4 of 51 
argue that the Government's logs are inadequate because they do not "clearly identify" the 
documents as ordered by this Court. (DE 265 at 2; DE 190 at 2). The Court has reviewed the 
Government's privilege logs and the documents that they describe, and the Court finds that the 
logs—describing nearly 15,000 pages of documents— are adequate to facilitate a meaningful in 
camera inspection and assessment of the asserted privileges. To the extent inadequacies may be 
present, the Court finds that judicial resources would not be best spent by requiring the 
Government to submit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp. 257 
F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (court may remedy inadequate privilege log by in 
camera inspection of described documents or permitting party another chance to submit a more 
detailed log). 
Petitioners also argue that the Government has failed to provide the factual underpinnings 
necessary to hold that certain privileges apply, specifically the deliberative process privilege, 
investigative privilege, work product privilege, and attorney—client privilege. Discussed in more 
detail below, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider whether the deliberative process and 
investigative privilege apply in this case as other, stronger, privileges are at play, or, as discussed 
further below, many of the documents over which the deliberative process and investigative 
privileges are asserted are irrelevant to this proceeding. Regarding the work product and 
attorney—client privileges, and the Court has considered the materials submitted and the 
Government's arguments, and finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to 
evaluate its claims of privilege. (See DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United 
States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 
253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within 
4 
EFTA00086448

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 5 of 51 
pleading to decide application of work product privilege). The Court will therefore evaluate each 
claim of privilege as it relates to the documents submitted. 
2. Grand Jury Secrecy 
The Government asserts that many of the documents identified in its logs are protected by 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. 
(See DE 212-I; DE 216-1 at 4, 6). These documents include subpoenas issued and documents 
received and prepared during the course of grand jury investigations into whether Epstein 
committed indictable federal offenses. (DE 212-1 at 1). Petitioners argue that the Court can (and 
should) authorize disclosure in this case. (DE 265 at 17). 
"It has long been a policy of the law that grand jury proceedings be kept secret . . . . The 
English rule of grand jury secrecy has been incorporated into our federal common law and 
remains an integral part of our criminal justice system." United States v. Aisenberg 358 F.3d 
1327, 1346 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules 
of Criminal Procedure codifies this secrecy principle and prohibits the disclosure of grand jury 
material except in the limited circumstances provided for in Rule 6(e)(3)." Id. One such 
exception is Rule (6)(e)(3)(E)(i), which permits a court to authorize disclosure "preliminary to or 
in connection with a judicial proceeding." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i). Additionally, a court 
has inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials beyond the literal wording of Rule 6(e)(3) 
in "exceptional circumstances." Aisenberg, 358 F.3d at 1347. "The district court has 
`substantial discretion' in determining whether grand jury materials should be released." Id. at 
1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). 
Whether proceeding under Rule 6(e)(3) or the court's inherent authority, there are well 
5 
EFTA00086449

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 6 of 51 
settled guidelines for determining when grand jury secrecy may be broken. Id. at 1347. 
Specifically, the parties seeking disclosure must show: 
(1) "that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible 
injustice in another judicial proceeding"; 
(2) "that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for 
continued secrecy"; and 
(3) "that their request is structured to cover only material so 
needed." 
Id. at 1348 (citing Douglas Oil Co.,N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). These demanding 
standards apply even after the grand jury has concluded its operations. Id. The burden of 
demonstrating that the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy rests on the party 
seeking disclosure. Id. "In order to carry this burden, the party seeking disclosure of grand jury 
material must show a compelling and particularized need for disclosure." Id. That is, "the 
private party must show circumstances had created certain difficulties peculiar to this case, which 
could be alleviated by access to specific grand jury materials, without doing disproportionate 
harm to the salutary purpose of secrecy embodied in the grand jury process." Id. at 1348-49 
(internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 
Accordingly, the grand jury proceedings at issue are "presumptively secret," see In re 
Subpoena to Testify, 864 F.2d 1559, 1562 (11th Cir. 1989), and Petitioners have the heavy 
burden of overcoming this presumption! Petitioners argue that they have met their burden in 
their response to Epstein's motion to uphold grand jury secrecy. (DE 271 at 3). 
2 Because the burden lies with Petitioners, Petitioners' argument that disclosure is 
appropriate because the Government "has not attempted to defend its invocation of grand jury 
secrecy" is of no moment. (DE 278 at 10). 
6 
EFTA00086450

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 7 of 51 
Regarding whether (1) grand jury materials are "needed to avoid a possible injustice" in 
this case, Petitioners argue that "an injustice may occur" if the materials are not disclosed to 
them. (DE 217 at 4). They argue that the possibility for injustice exists because this Court has 
already recognized that aspects of this case "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 the federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of 
negotiations between Epstein and the federal authorities." (ILI.) (quoting the Court's Order at DE 
189 at 12 n.6). They also argue that injustice may result without the grand jury materials because 
the "critical starting point for the victims' case" is proof that the Government had an "extremely 
strong case against Epstein." (lik). 
The Court concludes that Petitioners have not met their heavy burden of demonstrating a 
compelling and particularized need for the disclosure of grand jury materials pertaining to the 
investigation of Epstein. Materials that the Government presented in secrecy to a grand jury 
relative to a case against Epstein are not part of the "interface" that occurred between Epstein, 
prosecuting authorities, and the victims. As the Court has already explained, the harm in this 
case did not arise out of the Government's failure to secure a grand jury indictment against 
Epstein. (DE 189 at 10) ("The victim's CVRA injury is not the government's failure to 
prosecute Epstein federally—an end within the sole control of the government."). Rather, the 
harm in this case arose from the Government's alleged failure to confer adequately with 
Petitioners before deciding to abandon a federal case against Epstein. (t1.). The Court has 
reviewed the portions of the submitted documents to which grand jury secrecy is invoked, and it 
7 
EFTA00086451

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 8 of 51 
finds that none of the grand jury materials produced has a bearing on the Government's alleged 
failure to confer with Petitioners before electing to forego a federal prosecution. 
The Court also concludes that Petitioner's asserted need to prove that the Government 
had an "extremely strong case against Epstein" does not justify the disclosure of secret grand jury 
materials. Petitioners seek to use the grand jury materials as the means to an improper end—a 
judicial determination that the Government made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided 
not to prosecute Epstein. 
"(T]he Government retains `broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United 
States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that 
Irdothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion" of federal 
prosecutors. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Courts tread lightly where prosecutorial discretion is 
concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte,
470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such 
factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's 
enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan 
are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte,
470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 
(1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions about whom to prosecute because, 
"[lin addition to assessing the strength and importance of a case, prosecutors also must consider 
other tangible and intangible factors, such as government enforcement priorities.") (emphasis 
added). 
Petitioners asserted strategy of demonstrating that the Government had an improper 
8 
EFTA00086452

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 9 of 51 
motive to hide its "extremely strong" case asks the Court to decide (or assume) that the 
Government did in fact have an "extremely strong" case against Epstein. As Petitioners point 
out, the Government has not admitted that it believed it had a "strong case" for prosecution. (DE 
266 at 8)? In light of this refusal to admit the strength of the case, Petitioners seek grand jury 
materials to present to the Court the case for prosecuting Epstein. (14, at 9). Basically, 
Petitioners ask the Court to interject itself in place of the Government and adjudicate whether the 
Government erred, and thus had a motive for hiding its error, when it decided not to prosecute 
Epstein. As the Supreme Court has articulated, "courts are [not] competent to undertake" the 
kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular 
prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 
(1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative 
competence of prosecutors and courts."). Nor is the Court competent to undertake an analysis of 
how strong the Government perceived its case against Epstein at the time it decided not to 
prosecute. Stated plainly, whether the Government had a "strong" case against Epstein was for 
the Government to decide in its sole discretion; the Court will not foray into matters related to 
assessing the strength of the Government's case against Epstein. 
3 In response to Petitioners Request for Admission regarding whether the Government 
had a case for "federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses," (DE 266 at 8), 
the Government responded: 
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. 
(DE 213-1 at 1). 
9 
EFTA00086453

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 10 of 51 
Accordingly, because the Court will not—and cannot—endeavor to assess the strength of 
the Government's case against Epstein at the time it decided to enter into the non-prosecution 
agreement, the Court concludes that Petitioners have not shown that they will suffer an injustice 
in this case if they are denied access to materials that the Government presented to grand juries 
during their investigation into whether Epstein committed federal crimes. Likewise, Petitioners 
have not shown that their need for these materials is compelling or particularized to their asserted 
interests under the CVRA. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioners access to the materials over 
which grand jury secrecy applies under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). 
3. Work Product Doctrine 
The Government asserts that many of the documents submitted are protected by the 
attorney work-product privilege. (DE 212-1 at 1-21; DE 216-1 at 1-14). These documents 
include draft correspondences and indictments, as well as attorney research and handwritten 
notes. (See, e.g. DE 212-1 at 2, 17). Petitioners argue that the work-product privilege is 
unavailable for a number of reasons. (DE 265 at 6, 8, 14-16). 
The work-product doctrine traces its roots to the Supreme Court's recognition that "it is 
essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by 
opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The 
privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): 
Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things 
that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for 
another party or its representative (including the other party's 
attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, 
subject to Rule 26(6)(4), those materials may be discovered if: 
(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and 
10 
EFTA00086454