EFTA00086375

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 11 of 51 
(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to 
prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their 
substantial equivalent by other means. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Although fact-based work product may be disclosed on a showing 
of "substantial need," the court must avoid "disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, 
opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation." 
Id. 26(b)(3)(B). Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be 
discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & 
Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). In the context of government attorneys, the 
"work-product privilege applies to . . . discussions between prosecutors and investigating agents, 
both state and federal." United States v. Zingsheim, 384 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing 
FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983)). 
The work-product privilege extends only to documents that an attorney prepares "in 
anticipation of litigation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A). Petitioners argue that the work-product 
privilege does not apply to the submitted documents because they were not prepared "in 
anticipation of [the instant] CVRA litigation." (DE 265 at 7). Retreating somewhat from this 
initial assertion, Petitioners argue that "[m]any of the documents at issue here were not prepared 
in anticipation of litigation, and certainly not in anticipation of the litigation about the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act." (EL). 
Although "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied 
only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. 
Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that 
documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain protected in a subsequent case fl
11 
EFTA00086455

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 12 of 51 
if they were created by or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. 
Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme 
Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 
26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation or trial as long as they were prepared by or 
for a party to the subsequent litigation." 462 U.S. 19, 25 (1983) (emphasis in original); see also 8 
Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 519 n.47 (3d ed. 2010) (collecting 
cases). Similarly, the work-product doctrine applies regardless of whether litigation actually 
ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the 
prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 530 F.2d 612, 623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding 
that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protected 
work product, regardless of "whether litigation actually ensured"). 
After its in camera review, the Court finds that the majority of work-product documents 
identified by the Government were prepared or obtained by the Government because of the 
reasonable prospect of litigating a criminal case against Epstein. (DE 212-1 at 1-21; DE 216-1 at 
1-12; DE 329-I at 1-18).4 This CVRA litigation and the underlying criminal investigation are 
integrally related, and the work-product doctrine protects from discovery materials prepared in 
anticipation of either in the instant litigation. 
° The Government asserts that the work-product doctrine applies to documents prepared 
by attorneys in the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in 
response to Petitioners' counsel's request for an investigation into the Government's handling of 
the Epstein case. (DE 216-1 at 12-14). Although these documents were prepared by 
Government attorneys, the Government has not demonstrated that they were prepared "in 
anticipation of litigation or for trial" so as to be protected work product. Fed. R. Civ. P. 
26(b)(3)(A). As discussed in the next section, however, the Court has thoroughly reviewed these 
documents and finds that they are not relevant, or likely to lead to materials relevant to the instant 
CVRA litigation. (See infra Sect. B.3.) 
12 
EFTA00086456

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 13 of 51 
Petitioners argue that the work-product doctrine "does not apply" in this case for two 
additional reasons. First, they argue that the doctrine does not apply in a case brought by crime 
victims against the federal prosecutors who were bound to protect their rights under the CVRA. 
(DE 265 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those 
prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments 
unavailing. 
First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced 
by crime victims that federal prosecutors have violated their public responsibilities under the 
Crime Victims' Rights Act." 0,1. at 14). Because the CVRA compels prosecutors to make their 
"best efforts" to notify victims of their rights, Petitioners argue that the Government cannot 
withhold documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (lcl at 15). By way of 
illustration, Petitioners offer the case of  In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the 
Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government 
employees and agencies to favor disclosure over concealment." 112 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir. 
1997). 
A closer inspection of In re Grand Jury Subpoena reveals that it does not stand for the 
categorical rule that the work product doctrine is inapplicable in cases against public prosecutors. 
The statement on which Petitioners rely was made in the context of determining whether to 
recognize a previously undefined privilege: "whether an entity of the federal government may use 
the attorney-client privilege to avoid complying with a subpoena by a federal grand jury." Id. at 
915 (emphasis added); see also id. at 921 ("We believe the strong public interest in honest 
government and in exposing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill-served by recognition of 
13 
EFTA00086457

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 14 of 51 
a governmental attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal proceedings inquiring into the 
actions of public officials."). The Eighth Circuit did not purport to espouse a broad-ranging rule 
that defeated existing, well-defined privileges such as the work product doctrine. This is 
important, as the Supreme Court has recognized that the "work-product doctrine is distinct from 
and broader than the attorney-client privilege." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 
(1975) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at 508). In fact, the Eighth Circuit went on to consider the 
application of the work product doctrine and concluded that it did not apply because the materials 
in question were not prepared in "anticipation of litigation." 112 F.3d at 924-25. It did not find 
the work product doctrine wholly inapplicable based on a goal of public disclosure. 
In light of the well-established bounds of the work product doctrine—which grants public 
prosecutors "near absolute immunity" over their mental impressions in subsequent civil 
litigation—the Court finds that the CVRA's mandate that prosecutors make their "best efforts" to 
accord crime victims their rights does not create a "very rare and extraordinary circumstance" in 
which discovery of protected work product would be allowed. See Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422. 
Second, Petitioners argue that the work product doctrine does not apply because the 
conduct of the Government's attorneys is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). Some lower 
courts have held that disclosure of opinion work product is "justified principally where the 
material is directly at issue, particularly if the lawyer or law firm is a party to the litigation." 8 
Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2026, p. 567 & n.19 (3d ed. 2010) (collecting 
cases). To satisfy this showing, however, the party seeking disclosure of opinion work product 
must make "a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is 
needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 
14 
EFTA00086458

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 
449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under 
crime-fraud exception to work product doctrine, party "must show a greater need for the opinion 
work product material than was necessary in order to obtain the fact work product material"). 
The Court finds that Petitioners have not made the strong showing of necessity and 
unavailability required to disclose the mental impressions of counsel that might be at issue in this 
case. (See DE 265 at 16). Discovery of opinion work product is most often granted in bad-faith 
settlement cases, where "mental impressions [of the underlying counsel] are the pivotal issue in 
the current litigation." Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 
1992). Other than by analogizing to bad-faith actions, Petitioners have not demonstrated how 
delving in to the "mental impressions" of Government attorneys is pivotal to proving their 
allegations that the Government failed to accord them their rights under the CVRA. (See DE 265 
at 15). Insofar as they seek to demonstrate that the attorneys' mental impressions should have led 
them to conclude that prosecution was the best course, such inquiry cannot be allowed for 
reasons discussed above. Elsewhere, Petitioners assert that they can prove their case by 
demonstrating a "conspiracy between the Government and defense counsel to deliberately 
conceal vital information from the victims." (DE 266 at 7). Because of the availability of this 
method of proof, Petitioners lack a compelling need to gain access to internal Government work 
product evidencing its internal mental impressions regarding the Epstein matter. 
Finally, Petitioners argue that any work-product protection available in this case should 
be negated because the Government's communications facilitated "misconduct" by depriving the 
victims of their rights under the CVRA. (DE 265 at 6). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that 
"[t]he crime-fraud exception presents one of the rare and extraordinary circumstances in which 
15 
EFTA00086459

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 16 of 51 
opinion work product is discoverable." Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422. The Eleventh Circuit has not 
indicated whether this "rare and extraordinary" exception extends to instances of "misconduct" 
in the form of violating a civil rights statute, such as the CVRA. Even so, the Court finds that 
such alleged "misconduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the 
work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 
(exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured 
testimony, document destruction, and similar misconduct"); United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 
338, 347 n.14 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that exception applied where litigant "defrauded" public 
defender by submitting false invoices). Petitioners' allegation that the Government failed to 
accord them their full CVRA rights—the allegation at the heart of this case—does not rise to the 
level of conduct sufficiently serious enough to displace the work product privilege. 
Moreover, Petitioners fail to set forth prima facie evidence that the Government in fact 
committed "misconduct" in this case. To invoke the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking 
disclosure must (1) make a prima facie showing that the material was produced in the 
commission of criminal or fraudulent conduct and (2) that it was produced "in furtherance of the 
criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it." Cox 17 F.3d at 1416; see also id. at 
1422 (noting that same "two-part test" applies in context of both attorney client privilege and 
work product doctrine). Petitioners argue that the fact that the OPR "collected information about 
possible improper behavior" establishes a prima facie case of Government misconduct. (DE 265 
at 7). An investigation into wrongdoing does not presuppose that wrongdoing took place. After 
its in camera review, the Court finds that Petitioners have not made a prima facie showing of 
serious misconduct sufficient to negate the protections of the work product doctrine. 
16 
EFTA00086460

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 17 of 51 
Materials constituting the opinion work product of the Government's attorneys shall 
therefore be withheld from Petitioners. Certain documents that the Court considers fact-based 
work product may be produced subject to relevancy considerations discussed below. 
B. 
Relevancy of Requests for Production 
In addition to asserting privileges, the Government responds to Petitioners' first request 
for production by arguing that many of the materials requested are not relevant to the instant 
CVRA litigation. (DE 260). 
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the general scope of discovery as 
follows: 
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense—including the 
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of 
any documents or other tangible things and the identity and 
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. . . . 
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 
admissible evidence. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(6)(1). "Discovery should ordinarily be allowed unless it is clear that the 
information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise 
on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 
(S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts. Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 
34079319, at •2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2001)). 
1. Request No. 1—the FBI File on the Epstein Matter and Indictment Material 
In their first request for production, Petitioners seek the file generated by the FBI in the 
Epstein matter, including all documents "collected as part of its case against and/or investigation 
17 
EFTA00086461

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 18 of 51 
of Epstein." (DE 260 at 2). Petitioners also request that the Government produce all prosecution 
memoranda and draft indictments prepared in the case. (151). The Government argues that such 
materials regarding its decision to prosecute Epstein are irrelevant to the issue of whether they 
denied Petitioners their rights under the CVRA. (ILL). Petitioners disagree. They argue that 
"materials going to the strength of the Government's case against Epstein" are a "vital part" of 
their case against the Government. (DE at 266 at 8). "Those materials would directly 
demonstrate that the Government had an extremely strong case against Epstein, giving the 
Government a motive for needing to keep the victims in the dark about the plea deal." (D. The 
Court concludes that discovery should not extend to these materials. 
First, the Court finds that all prosecution memoranda, research into indictable offenses, 
and draft indictments are protected opinion work product. These documents were created by the 
Government in anticipation of a possible prosecution of Epstein and evince the Government's 
internal mental impressions, legal theories, and strategy concerning the issues presented by a 
possible prosecution. As discussed above, Petitioners have not demonstrated "rare and 
extraordinary circumstances" justifying an exception to this well-established protection. 
Second, the Court finds that the information in the FBI's file regarding its investigation 
into Epstein has no possible bearing on the CVRA claim that is the subject matter of this action. 
Petitioners assert that the relevancy of this material is to "directly demonstrate that the 
Government had an extremely strong case against Epstein." (DE 266 at 8). As discussed above, 
this Court is ill-equipped to decide that the Government did in fact have a "strong case" for 
prosecution and made a hard-to-explain decision to forego a federal prosecution in lieu of a state 
plea. Rather, the inquiry for the Court is whether the Government afforded Petitioners their 
18 
EFTA00086462

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 19 of 51 
rights under the CVRA, which does not turn on its decision whether to initiate a federal 
prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). Materials going to the "strength" of the Government's 
case for prosecution—and whether the Government had a motive to hide an embarrassing 
misstep in failing to prosecute—have no relevance to that inquiry. 
2. Request No. 10—Materials Proving that the FBI was Mislead about Likelihood 
of Prosecution 
Request number 10 requests "[alit documents, correspondence, and other information 
relating to discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of 
the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would 
appropriately be filed against Epstein," and "(41 documents, correspondence, and other 
information relating to the U.S. Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state 
or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled." (DE 274 at 5). The 
Government argues that communications it had with the FBI are irrelevant because the "decision 
on whether to prosecute belongs to the United States Attorney." (DE 260 at 3). Petitioners argue 
that these communications between the United States Attorney's Office and the FBI lie at the 
"heart of this case" because they will prove that the Government mislead the FBI about the 
progress of the Epstein case, and the FBI in turn mislead the victims. (DE 266 at 9). The Court 
concludes that discovery should not extend to these materials. 
First, the vast majority of documents responsive to this request—communications 
between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI—are protected from disclosure under either 
principles of grand jury secrecy, the opinion work product doctrine, or both. (See Table). 
Second, the only portion of FBI materials which the Court has not found to be protected 
19 
EFTA00086463

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 20 of 51 
by either grand jury secrecy or work product protection—the file folder labeled "(Victims) 
Additional 302's," P-012624-012653 (DE 212-1 at 21)—is not responsive to the instant request 
as it does not contain communications from the United States Attorney's Office to the FBI, 
which was then in a position to relay communications to the victims. Rather, these materials 
contain fact-based summaries of statements provided by victims to interviewing FBI agents. 
They are not relevant to this proceeding. 
3. Request No. 16—Materials Proving that Prosecutors had Improper Relationships 
with Persons Close to Epstein 
Request number 16 seeks materials demonstrating that persons inside the United States 
Attorney's Office had improper relationships with persons close to Epstein. (DE 260 at 3). 
Petitioners argue that these documents "show[] that a prosecutor working inside the U.S. 
Attorney's Office when the deal was being arranged left the office shortly thereafter and began 
representing persons close to Epstein (such as his pilots)." (DE 266 at 11). They argue that such 
materials are relevant to their CVRA case because "if one of the prosecutors in the Office was 
not working for the best interests of the United States, but rather for those of Epstein, that would 
be clear evidence of motive to intentionally keep the victims in the dark." (a. at 11). The Court 
concludes that production of such documents should not issue. 
After its in camera review, the Court finds that the documents discussing the issue of 
whether an improper relationship existed between a former prosecutor and Epstein's co-
conspirators are not relevant to this proceeding. The issue of whether a prosecutor violated 
ethical canons by representing persons with close ties to Epstein after his retirement from the 
United States Attorney's Office does not bear on the issue of whether the Government violated 
20 
EFTA00086464

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 21 of 51 
Petitioners' CVRA rights during its negotiations with Epstein. The only impropriety to which 
Petitioners point occurred after the prosecutor's departure from the Government. The 
OPR—which opened an inquiry into the matter at Petitioners' counsel's request—closed their 
inquiry into the matter by noting that the OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of 
misconduct involving only current Department of Justice attorneys. (See P-013937;5 see also P-
0013946). The OPR did not investigate the matter further, and it issued no factual 
determinations on whether a conflict existed before the prosecutor's departure. Any OPR 
correspondence regarding this inquiry that is not otherwise privileged is irrelevant to this CVRA 
litigation. (See Table at P-013944, P-013945). 
In the same vein, correspondence between the United States Attorney's Office and the 
OPR regarding self-reporting of conflicts alleged by Epstein's defense counsel are irrelevant to 
this proceeding.' (DE 212-1 at 21-22); see Table at P-013227-013247). 
4. Request No. 18—Documents Concerning Recusal of the United States Attorney's 
Office for the Southern District of Florida 
Request number 18 seeks information about why the United States Attorney's Office for 
the Southern District of Florida was "'conflicted out' of handing various issues related to the 
Epstein case." (DE 266 at 11). Specifically, it requests "all documents, correspondence, and 
other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department 
discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral that was made to 
5 This is a draft letter addressed to Petitioners' counsel from an OPR attorney. The Court 
assumes Plaintiff's counsel received the final version of this letter explaining the OPR's reasons 
for closing its investigation. 
Ironically, Epstein's counsel raised conflict-of-interest concerns because they believed 
that certain prosecutors were too close to persons associated with the victims. 
21 
EFTA00086465

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 22 of 51 
Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that were transmitted to any other 
District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be investigated." (DE 260 at 4). 
Petitioners argue that such materials are relevant because they "show why the victims did not 
receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States 
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at II). 
The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. 
First, the Court fords that the responsive documents are shielded by governmental 
attorney-client privilege. The responsive documents are internal Department of Justice 
correspondences between attorneys for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); 
see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general 
legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." 
Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, 
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousahnission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The 
internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the provision of legal advice by the Executive 
Office to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida regarding how 
to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These 
communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. 
The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather 
simply advise how to proceed given that allegations of misconduct have been made, i.e., 
allegations that the Government violated the victims' CVRA rights. 
Moreover, the documents related to the recusal determination are not relevant to matters 
22 
EFTA00086466

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 23 of 51 
concerning whether the Government violated Petitioners' CVRA rights several years before. 
Petitioners speculate that the reason that the Southern District recused "may have to do with the 
Office's treatment of the victims." (DE 266 at 12). The Court has reviewed the recussal 
materials, and they do not indicate that the Office had to step away from the Epstein matter 
because of its handling of victims' notifications, but rather because of the perceived conflict that 
would exist if the Office continued to investigate Epstein after the institution of CVRA litigation 
by Petitioners. The recusal materials have no relevancy to anything that occurred prior to the 
institution of the instant litigation by Petitioners. 
5. Request No. 19—Materials Related to Defense's Assault on Prosecution 
In request number 19, Petitioners seek all documents supporting, or contradicting, a 
statement made by a United States Attorney to the media that Epstein launched "a yearlong 
assault on the prosecution and theprosecutors." (DE 260 at 4). After its in camera review, the 
Court has not identified any documents that are responsive to this request that are not otherwise 
protected opinion work product. No production under this request is necessary. 
6. Request No. 25—Initial Disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1) 
Finally, Petitioners request that the Government comply with its obligation to serve initial 
disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Although Petitioners have already 
served their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures (DE 266 at 13), and although this Court has repeatedly 
held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the general course of this proceeding," the 
Government maintains that the rule governing initial disclosures in civil litigation does not apply 
to it in this case. (DE 274 at 8). The Court disagrees. The Government shall serve its Rule 
26(a)(1) disclosures on Petitioners within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. 
23 
EFTA00086467

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 24 of 51 
C. 
Other Considerations 
Before concluding, the Court finds it necessary to address certain aspects of the 
Government's privilege logs. 
As mentioned, the Court previously ordered the Government to provide Petitioners all 
"documentary material exchanged by or between the federal government and persons or entities 
outside the federal government." (DE 190 at 2). Petitioners state that they "have now obtained 
the full text of correspondence between the defense attorneys and the prosecutors." (DE 298 at 
6). The documents produced for in camera review contain correspondence between the 
Government and counsel for both Epstein and Petitioners. Some of the documents were 
• 
inadvertently marked as privileged; some of the documents bear handwritten notes of 
Government attorneys, and some are part of communication chains made up of both internal and 
external communications. The Table at the end of this order indicates instances where such 
communications appear. The Court requests that the Government certify within 14 days that 
Petitioners have been provided with all external communications. 
Additionally, the Court has identified several documents that are asserted "work product," 
but which are nothing more than factual complications of information regarding victim 
identification. The Court finds that Petitioners have a compelling need to know which 
individuals the Government considered to be victims or potential victims at the time it negotiated 
the non-prosecution agreement. As indicated in the Table, the Government should confer with 
Petitioners regarding the names of the individuals identified in these documents. If Petitioners 
have not been previously provided with these names, then Petitioners should have production of 
the indicated documents. The parties should stipulate to an appropriate protective order to 
24 
EFTA00086468

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 25 of 51 
protect the victims' identity. 
III. Conclusion 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government shall 
produce documents consistent with the following Table. It is further ORDERED AND 
ADJUDGED that Intervenor Epstein's Motion for the Court to Protect From Disclosure Grand 
Jury Materials (DE 263) is GRANTED, and Petitioners' Motion to Seal (DE 267) is DENIED in 
light of this Court's Order at DE 326; DE 268 is hereby UNSEALED. 
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 6i° day July, 2015. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United State District Judge 
25 
EFTA00086469

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 
TABLE 
Detail of Privilege and Relevancy Holdings 
Bates Range 
Ruling on Privilege or Relevancy 
Comment (as necessary) 
1:000001-000039' 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:000040-000549 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:000550-000621 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:000622-000693 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:000694-000781 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:000782-000803 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
I :000804-000854 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy.
1:000855-000937 ' Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:000938-000947 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:000948-000982 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:000983-001007 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:001008-001056 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:001057-001959 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:001960-002089 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:002090-002169 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:002170-002246 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:002247-002265 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:002266-002386 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:002387-002769 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
The first digit indicates the box number, with an "S" indicating materials identified in 
the supplemental privilege logs (DEs 216-1, 329-1). The numbers following the colon are page 
ranges. 
26 
EFTA00086470

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 27 of 51 
1:002770-003211 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:003212-003545 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:003546-003552 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003553-003555 
B 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003556-003562 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:003563-003629 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:003630-003633 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003634-003646 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:003647-003651 
Produce victim identities. 
Document bears no indication 
that it was directly related to 
grand jury presentation, and it 
does not exhibit the mental 
impressions of counsel but 
rather the cumulation of facts. 
Petitioners should be provided 
with the victim identities under 
an appropriate protective order. 
1:003664-003678 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003679-003680 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003681-003687 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003688-003693 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:003694-003711 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:003712 
Produce victim identity. 
Contains nothing other than the 
written name of one victim. 
The Court finds that no 
privilege applies, and 
Petitioners should be made 
aware that this victim was 
known to the Government. 
27 
EFTA00086471

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 28 of 51 
1:003713-003746 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:003747-003751 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:003752-004295 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:004296-004350 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy; also 
contains no materials relevant or likely to lead to 
discovery of materials relevant to the instant CVRA 
litigation. 
1:004351-004381 
Protected from discovery by work product privilege. 
1:004382-004478 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:004479-004551 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:004552-004555 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
1:004556-004560 
Production not necessary; not relevant or likely to lead 
to the discovery of materials relevant to the instant 
CVRA litigation. 
Contains factual information 
regarding the employment and 
wage history of Epstein's 
employees, obtained during the 
investigation into Epstein and 
his associates. No bearing on 
victim notification or rights. 
1:004561-004565 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:004566-004716 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:004717-004722 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:004723-004725 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:004726-004819 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:004820-004959 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:004960-005059 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy; also not 
relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of materials 
relevant to the instant CVRA litigation. 
Contains factual information 
regarding the call history of 
Epstein (and associates) to 
victims, obtained during 
investigation into Epstein and 
associates. Contains no 
information bearing on 
Government's obligation to 
crime victims. 
28 
EFTA00086472

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 29 of 51 
1:005060-005081 
Partially protected from discovery by opinion work 
product privilege. 
Attorney handwritten notes arc 
protected from discovery; the 
underlying correspondence is 
not and should be produced. 
The Government Must certify 
that Petitioners have been 
provided the correspondence. 
1:005082-005083 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005108-005193 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005194-005300 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005301-005331 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:005332-005341 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005342-005387 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:005388-005442 
Except P-005420, protected from discovery by grand 
jury secrecy and opinion work product privilege. 
The victims list at P-005420 
bears no indication that it was 
produced to a grand jury and 
bears no attorney mental 
impressions. Petitioners should 
be provided with the victim 
identities under an appropriate 
protective order. 
1:005443-005496 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:005497-005556 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
1:005557-005576 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005578-005583 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
1:005584- 005606 
Except P-005590-005595 and P-005596, protected 
from discovery by grand jury secrecy and opinion work 
product privilege. 
P-005590-005595 and 
P-005596 are correspondence 
documents sent to victim's 
counsel. No privilege applies. 
The Government must certify 
that Petitioners have been 
provided the correspondence. 
2:005607-005914 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
29 
EFTA00086473

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 30 of 51 
2:005915-005977 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:005978-006050 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006051-006065 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006066-006220 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006221-006222 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006223-006522 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006523-006802 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
2:006803-006860 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:006861-007785 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:007786-008120 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:008121-008139 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy. 
2:008140-008298 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:008364-008382 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:08383-008516 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:008536-008542 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
2:008543-008549 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
2:008550-008615 
Protected from discovery by opinion work product 
privilege. 
2:008616-008686 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
2:008687-008776 
Protected from discovery by grand jury secrecy and 
opinion work product privilege. 
30 
EFTA00086474