EFTA00178967

ROY BLACK 
HOWARD M. SREBNICK 
SCOTT A. KORNSPAN 
LARRY A. STUMPF 
MARIA NEYRA 
JACKIE PERCZEK 
MARK A.J. SHAPIRO 
JARED LOPEZ 
BLACK 
SREBNICK 
KORNSPAN 
STUMPF 
PA._. 
July 13, 2007 
VIA FACSIMILE 
AND U.S. MAIL 
Esq. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Office of the United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Re: 
Grand Jury Subpoena - William Riley 
Dear Ms. NM 
CHRISTINE M. NO 
JESSICA FONSECA-NADER 
KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS 
AARON ANTHON 
MARCOS BEATON, JR. 
MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN 
E-Mail: 
I represent Jeffrey Epstein, the target of a pending Grand Jury investigation. 
Prior to the initiation of this federal investigation, I represented Mr. Epstein on a 
Palm Beach Florida State Attorney's Office investigation and subsequently an 
Information, the factual basis of which is identical to, and gave rise to, the federal 
investigation presently underway. 
In connection with my earlier representation of Mr. Epstein, I hired Mr. 
William Riley as a private investigator to act under my direction in anticipation of 
defending Mr. Epstein against possible criminal charges and any litigation which 
may have followed. All his investigations were done as my agent and thus are 
covered by the work product privilege, and all communications to him are 
protected by the attorney client privilege. 
Though we are not conceding the existence of any computers that would be 
responsive to the subpoena served upon Mr. Riley, to the extent there are any 
such computers, they would contain documents that are privileged attorney-client 
communications and attorney work-product. 
Your subpoena also asks for 
materials describing the scope of his investigation and thus they are our work 
product. 
2O1 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 13OO • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178987

, Esq. 
July 13, 2007 
Page 2 
As you know, the United States Attorney's Office Manual, Guidelines for 
Issuing Grand Jury and Thal Subpoenas to Attorneys for Information Relating to 
the Representation of Clients, requires that the attorney client and work-product 
privilieged information sought by the Grand Jury subpoena issued to Mr. Riley 
must first be authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal 
Division before it may issue. 
Therefore, please advise me as to whether the applicable sections of the 
United States Attorney's Office Manual was complied with prior to the issuance 
of the Grand Jury subpoena to Mr. Riley. Please also advise as to the preliminary 
steps taken in advance of the issuance of the subpoena, as required by the 
Manual. Finally, please provide me with the name of the Assistant Attorney 
General of the Criminal Division who undertook the evaluation of the request for 
the Grand Jury subpoena, as required by the same section of the Manual and, if 
an evaluation was made, the basis upon which the Assistant determined that the 
information sought in the subpoena was not protected by a valid claim of privilege. 
Sincerely, 
RB/wg 
Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 
EFTA00178988

11 
: 
M FF 
11 k 
. Richey, P William I.. Richey, P.A. 
TO: 1-, " -820-8777 
PAGE: 002 OP 002 
Wi'LLIAM L. RICHEY, P.A. 
40:: Sou :It Biscayne Boulevard 
Fln x, Miami Center 
Miami, ;bride 33131.4325 
*Igeepl.n: 
:Fa. ziroi e: 
July 9, 2007 
As 3i stant US Attorney 
S00 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
WI !st Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
RE: 
Grand Jury Subpoena 
CASE NO. FGJ 07-103(WPB)/No. OLY-64 
5501 SW Sunshine Farms Way 
Palm City, Florida 34990.5696 
Telephona 
Please Reply To: 
Miami Office 
Via Facsimile No. 1-
Cc ar Ms. 
Please accept this letter that William Riley will be out of the country starting July 
Li, 2007 and returning on July 23, 2007. Also please remember that I am out of the 
co entry from July 21, 2007 through and including July 31, 2007. 
If you wish to schedule anything, please be so kind as to contact my assistant, 
Lb Ida Vasserot and she will be glad to coordinate dates with you. 
Sincerely; 
William L. Richey 
Signed in Mr. Ricliey's absence to avoid del 
Vi _2/ dct 
EFTA00178989

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
GRAND JURY MATTER 
FILED UNDER SEAL 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS ) 
DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO 
) 
FGJ 07-103 (WPB)/No. OLY -64 
WILLIAM RILEY AND 
RILEY KIRALY 
MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH 
GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM 
OF LAW 
Now comes Jeffrey Epstein and respectfully moves this Honorable Court, 
pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), for an Order: 
A. permitting him to intervene in the matter of two grand jury subpoenas 
duces tecum issued to William Riley and Riley Kiraly, respectively, and to move to 
quash said subpoenas; and 
B. quashing the above referenced subpoenas which require Mr. Riley to 
appear before the grand jury and to bring with him: 
1. All computer equipment and electronic storage media 
removed from the residence located at 358 El Brillo 
Way, Palm Beach Florida, including but not limited to 
central processing units ("CPUs"), laptop computers, 
keyboards, printers, modems, routers, hard drives, 
flash drives, thumb drives, CD-Roms, DVDs, floppy 
diskettes, digital cameras, and memory cards. 
Black. SrebnIdc. ICanspanS. 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suitc 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone:
• It 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178990

2. All computer equipment and electronic storage media 
that currently belongs to, or has ever belonged to, 
Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to central 
processing 
units 
("CPUs"), 
laptop 
computers, 
keyboards, printers, modems, routers, hard drives, 
flash drives, thumb drives, CD-Roms, DVDs, floppy 
diskettes, digital cameras, and memory cards. 
3. All documents and information related to the nature of 
the relationship between Mr. William Riley and/or Riley 
Kiraly and Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited 
to, retainer agreements; employment agreements; billing 
statements (whether submitted directly to Mr. Epstein or 
to a third party for reimbursement); records of the dates 
when services were performed and the hours worked; 
telephone logs or records of dates of communications 
with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's 
behalf); appointment calendars/datebooks and the like 
(whether in hard copy or electronic form) for any period 
when work was performed on behalf of Mr. Epstein or 
when any communication was had with Mr. Epstein (or 
with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf); and records 
of fee arrangements and payments received for work 
performed on Mr. Epstein's behalf. 
The baies for the requested relief are as follows: 
A. the compelled production of these items, assuming they exist, would 
violate Mr. Epstein's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution; 
B. such production of these items, assuming they exist, would further violate 
Mr. Epstein's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel as well as 
his attorney-client and work-product privileges; 
2 
Black, Srebnick. Komspan & Slum f 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 
• Fax 
• www.Koyulack.com 
EFTA00178991

C. the subpoenas are unreasonable and oppressive and overbroad and 
unparticularized, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and Fed. R. Crim. 
Proc. 17(c); and 
D. the subpoenas call for purely private papers in violation of the Fifth 
Amendment under Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). 
As further reason therefore, Mr. Epstein refers the Court to the Memorandum of 
Law incorporated herein. 
3 
Black, Srcbnick. Kornspan & Slum 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 
• lax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178992

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
In or about March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department initiated a 
criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein to determine whether he committed any 
criminal acts in connection with allegations that he paid women to provide 
massages to him in his home. According to information obtained by the local 
police, one or more of the women so engaged was under the age of 18 at the 
relevant time. Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq., sworn to July 17,. 2007, annexed 
("Black Aft") 73. Following a 16 month investigation, on July 17, 2006, Mr. 
Epstein was charged under Florida law with one count of soliciting a prostitute, a 
third degree felony. That charge is still pending. Black Aff. 75. 
In the fall of 2005, prior to being charged with any wrongdoing, Mr. Epstein 
retained Roy Black, Esq., to represent him in connection with the then ongoing 
state investigation. Black Aff. ¶3. Mr. Black in turn hired William Riley of Riley 
Kiraly, a private investigation firm, to assist him in his representation of Mr. 
Epstein. Black Aff. 74. 
During the course of the state investigation, law enforcement authorities 
concluded that at some time, one or more computers had been removed from Mr. 
Epstein's home by a private investigator working at the instruction of Mr. 
4 
Black. Srehnick. Kornspan & Slum f 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178993

Epstein's counsel. It is those computers;' the testimony of the private investigator; 
and documents relating to the retention and to the work-product of the investigator 
that are sought by the subpoenas. 
Both prior to the charge being brought and thereafter defense counsel were 
provided with open disclosure of the state's evidence. Black Aff. 16. As a result, 
all or virtually all of the evidence obtained by the state in its investigation has been 
reviewed by the defense. Id. Included in the materials reviewed are the audio 
and/or video taped sworn statements of 18 witnesses, transcripts of all 18 of those 
recorded sworn statements, the transcript of one additional sworn statement, and 
over 125 pages of documents prepared by the Palm Beach Police Department 
which detail every sworn statement obtained by detectives, every interview 
conducted by detectives, all their investigative efforts, and all the evidence 
gathered. 
Id. These documents include the entire police file, as well as the 
probable cause affidavits prepared by Palm Beach detectives and the application 
for a search warrant of Mr. Epstein's home. Id. Reviewing these materials has 
afforded the defense with a thorough understanding of the factual bases for any 
allegations that have been, or could have been, made against Mr. Epstein. Black 
Aff. ¶7. 
We do not concede the existence of any such computers. However, for purposes of this motion, we refer 
herein to "computers" as if one or more computers described in the subpoenas do exist. 
5 
Black. Srebnick. Komspan 
S&
 ni
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178994

In approximately January 2007, a grand jury in the Southern District of 
Florida initiated what was termed a "parallel" investigation to determine whether 
the conduct in which Mr. Epstein had allegedly engaged violated federal laws, 
including violations of 18 U.S.C. §2423 (travel for the purpose of engaging in 
unlawful sexual activity); and 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), use of the Internet or other 
means of interstate communication to persuade, entice or coerce another to engage 
in unlawful sexual activity. Black Aff. 
11. We understood the conduct being 
scrutinized by the federal grand jury was the same as the subject of the state 
prosecution. Black Aff. $8. Indeed, during the course of the federal investigation, 
prosecutors asked for and were provided with copies of the 18 recorded sworn 
witness statements, and further asked for copies of the transcripts of those sworn 
statements. Id. 
That the two investigations examine the same alleged conduct is also clear 
from Palm Beach Police Chief Michael S. Reiter's letter expressing the 
Department's displeasure with the actions of the state grand jury and State 
Attorney's Office, and explaining he was referring the matter to federal authorities 
in order to initiate a federal investigation of the facts. Black Aff. 919, see also 
Black Aff. Exhibit "B". At the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department both 
publicly released copies of its files, including the 87 page police report and 
6 
Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stum f 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178995

probable cause affidavits prepared by its detectives, and publicly announced its 
intentions to bring the investigation to federal authorities due to the Department's 
dissatisfaction with the State Attorney's handling of the matter. Black Aff. 19, see 
also Black Aff. Exhibit "C". 
The discovery provided by state authorities in connection with the state 
prosecution disclosed no allegations or evidence of use of the internet, e-mail or 
computer based pornography or any other way in which a computer could be used 
to commit any of the crimes under investigation. Black Aff. 9112. Nor, did the 
numerous discussions with federal prosecutors. regarding the federal grand jury 
investigation reveal any such evidence. Black Aff. 919110, 12, 13. 
These subpoenas were not issued in a vacuum. They are simply the most 
recent of a series of highly intrusive and unusual attempts to acquire highly 
personal and/or privileged information concerning Mr. Epstein that can have no 
relevance whatever to the investigation, including Mr. Epstein's personal tax 
returns, medical records including treatment notes of Mr. Epstein's treatment by a 
chiropractor, and now, invasion of the defense camp by seeking records of the 
investigative work performed by Mr. Riley on behalf of Mr. Epstein's counsel in 
the very same investigation. 
7 
Black. Srcbnick. Komspan & Stum f 
201S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131. Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178996

The attempt to compel the production of an investigator's "records of dates 
of communication with Mr. Epstein (or with a third party on Mr. Epstein's behalf)" 
and to compel the production of records of investigative work "performed on 
behalf of Mr. Epstein" is an extraordinary invasion of the defense team 
representing Mr. Epstein as both an indicted state criminal defendant and as a 
target of the current federal investigation. 
While the propriety of those other subpoenas is not at issue here, the 
subpoenas to Mr. Riley and to his firm are. When it was pointed out to prosecutors 
that internal Department of Justice rules require, inter-O11a, that issuance of the 
subpoenas be predicated on the pre-approval of the Assistant Attorney General of 
the Criminal Division under the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), §9-
11.255, the question as to whether such approval had been obtained was simply 
ducked in an unilluminating exchange of correspondence. 
Though such 
guidelines create no third party rights, the fact that the required approval evidently 
was not obtained highlights the continuing overreaching of this investigation. 
Moreover, quite apart from whether the required steps were taken internally 
to obtain approval before issuing the subpoenas, as a substantive matter, the 
government could not meet the internal guidelines necessary for issuing a 
subpoena seeking information relating to the representation of a client set forth in 
8 
Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stum f 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178997

USAM §9-13.410, including that "the information sought [be] reasonably needed 
for the successful completion of the investigation." 
The challenged subpoenas call for the production, without limitation, of the 
entire contents of these computers. See Black Aft Exhibit "A". Assuming the 
computers exist, they can be presumed to contain a vast array of data and 
documents, private and business related, none of which has been shown at any time 
to be of any. relevance whatever to the investigation. They would also contain 
information and documents protected by the attorney-client and work-product 
privileges. Black Aff. 9115. 
Compliance with the subpoenas _wo.uld therefore 
necessarily require Mr. Epstein, through the agent of his attorney, to open all 
aspects of his life to government inspection and leave the government free to 
-rummage at will through privileged, private, and business materials which are 
_wholly irrelevant and unrelated to the subject matter of the government's 
investigation.2
First, compliance with the subpoenas by Mr. Riley and/or his firm would 
violate-Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights because the act of production would, 
2 Even a single computer of the type in standard home usage can contain a volume of information many 
orders of magnitude greater than the paper storage capacity or a normal home. For example, hard drives 
sold in 2005 "generally have storage capacities of about eighty gigabytes, roughly the equivalent of forty 
million pages of text — about the information contained in the books on one floor of a typical academic 
library." United States v. Vilar, 2007 WL 1075041 at *35 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2007) (emphasis added); 
accord In re Search of Premises Known as 1406 N. 2nd Ave., 2006 WL 709036 at *3 (W.D. Mich. March 
17, 2006) (home computer can easily hold 40,000 books); see also In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 
F. Supp.2d 953.959 (N.D. Ill. 2004). 
9 
Black. SrebnIck, Komspan & Stum 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131. Phone: 
Fax 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178998

under the teaching of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398 (1976), result in 
compelling testimony from Mr. Epstein himself, in violation of his right against 
self incrimination. Further, it would also result in invasion of the defense camp, 
not only questioning actions taken by counsel to Mr. Epstein, but seeking the 
production of materials to which the government has no possible claim of right — 
materials protected by Mr. Epstein's attorney-client and work product privileges. 
Black Aff. 9[15. 
Moreover, it is simply beyond dispute that no court would uphold a 
subpoena that purports to require a person to produce every letter, every doeument, 
'every bill, every record, every book, every photograph, every page from a 
magazine or newspaper he ever snipped, and every message he ever wrote, in other 
words, every piece of paper that is or has ever been in his home, without limitation 
or particularization. Yet, that is in effect what these subpoenas seek. For this 
reason alone, the subpoenas are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, 
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and Fed.R.Crim.P. Rule 17(c), 
and should be quashed in their entirety. 
Indeed, the fact that there are so many ways in which the subpoenas violate 
Mr. Epstein's fundamental rights may well be underscored by the fact that the 
government has failed to comply wither procedurally or substantively with the 
10 
Black. Srebnick, Kornspan 8iSIrrn 
201 5. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phonc: 
• Faic 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00178999

directives of the Department of Justice regarding issuance of subpoenas calling for 
information relating to legal representation. 
Even if the Court determines that the computers themselves must be 
produced pursuant to the grand jury subpoenas, compelled production does not 
overcome the need for the government both to particularize a subpoena and further 
to demonstrate probable cause to search any particular folder or file that is part of 
the contents of the computer•. Until and unless there is a demonstration that 
probable cause exists to search for and seize particular documents, no search 
should be permitted. 
I. 
MR. EPSTEIN IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENTION AS A MATTER 
OF RIGHT. 
Fed. R. CiV. P. 24(a) grants intervention as a matter of right 
. . avhen the applicant claims an interest relating to the 
property or transaction which is the subject of the action 
and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the 
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the 
applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the 
applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing 
parties. 
- 
Mr. Epstein's interests in protecting materials encompassed within his attorney= 
client and work-product privileges; in preventing the use against him of compelled 
testimony in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; and in protecting his 
11 
Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stum f 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 
Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179000

personal and business documents from wholesale invasion by the government 
amply satisfy this standard. 
Intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 24(a)(2) must be granted if 
it is determined that 
(1) the application to intervene is timely; (2) the applicant 
has an interest relating to the property or transaction 
which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so 
situated that the disposition of the action, as a practical 
matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that 
interest; and (4) the applicant's interest will not be 
represented adequately by the existing parties to the suit. 
Sierra Club v. Leavitt, 2007 WL 1649987 at *3 (11th Cir. June 8, 2007), quoting 
ManaSota-88, Inc. v. Tidwell, 896 F.2d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 1990). As detailed 
below, all four requirements are amply met here. 
First, the application is timely, as it is being filed prior to enforcement of the 
subpoenas. Second, Mr. Epstein plainly has a significant interest in protecting his 
attorney-client and work-product privileges, in asserting his Fifth Amendment 
privilege, and in preventing unwarranted government rummaging through the 
contents of his computers. Third, litigation concerning the enforcdability of the 
subpoenas without Mr. Epstein's participation in the proceedings would leave him 
powerless to protect these vital interests. Fourth, these interests are personal to 
him and cannot be represented adequately by either the government or Mr. Riley. 
12 
Black, Srebnick. Kornspan & Slum f 
201S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179001

Accordingly, Mr. Epstein should be afforded the right to intervene in this 
matter. 
II. 
MR. EPSTEIN'S ACT-OF-PRODUCTION PRIVILEGE PRECLUDES 
THE GOVERNMENT FROM COMPELLING MR. RILEY TO 
PRODUCE THE ITEMS AT ISSUE. 
Compelled production of the items demanded by the subpoenas would 
violate Mr. Epstein's right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, not to be 
compelled to be a witness against himself. Because of the clear testimonial aspects 
that compliance with the subpoenas would require, the "act-of-production" 
privilege precludes the government from demanding that Mr. Riley appear and 
produce these items. 
The Fifth Amendment "protects a person from being compelled to be a 
witness against himself'. Fisher v.- United States, 425 U.S. at 398. The privilege 
extends 
beyond oral testimony 
to embrace all 
compelled 
testimonial 
communications that are potentially incriminating. It specifically includes the act 
of producing documents where such 
production 
itself "communicates" 
information. 
See Fisher, 425 U.S. at _408. 
As the Supreme Court put it: 
"[a]lthough the contents of a document may not be privileged, the act of producing 
the document may be" because "[a] government subpoena compels the holder of 
the document to perform an act that may have testimonial aspects and an 
13 
Black. Srehnick, Komspan&St
ro
un 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• vwov.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179002

incriminating effect". United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); see also 
Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 ("the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . 
. . has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the 
papers produced"). This is so because 
• [c]ompliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the 
existence of the papers demanded and their possession or 
control by the [subpoenaed party]. It would also indicate 
the [subpoenaed party's] belief that the papers are those 
described in the subpoena. 
Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. 
Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the 
documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimony 
inherent in the act of producing those documents"); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 87 
F.3d 1198, 1200 (11th Cir. 1996) ("[t]he production of documents conveys the fact 
that the documents exist, that they were in the possession of the witness, and that 
they were the documents subject to the subpoena. . . . Where these communicative 
acts of production have `testimonial' value and incriminate the witness, the Fifth 
Amendment privilege may be invoked"); accord United States v. Argomaniz, 925 
F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (by producing the documents called for under 
the subpoena, the defendant "would be establishing the existence and authenticity 
of the documents listed in the summons, as well as verifying that these documents 
14 
Black. Srebnlck. KornspanSlim 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• mvw.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179003

were in his possession"); In re Grand Jury Subpoena dated April 9, 1996, 87 F.3d 
1198, 1200 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gecas, 50 F.3d 1549, 1566 (11th Cir. 
1995); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 754 F.2d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 
1985) ("the act of production alone can constitute self-incriminating testimony); In 
re Grand Jury 83-8, 611 F. Supp. 16, 21 (S.D. Fla. 1985) ("the act of producing 
evidence in response to a subpoena . . . does have testimonial aspects of its own, 
wholly apart from the contents of the papers produced"); In re Keller Financial 
Services of Florida, Inc.; 258 B.R. 391, 403 (M.D. Fla. 2000); Federal Savings & 
Loan Ins. Corp. v. Hardee, 686 F. Supp 885, 887 (N.D. Fla. 1988). 
Had the subpoenas been served directly on Mr. Epstein and demanded that 
he produce the items which had at some point allegedly been in his Palm Beach 
home or had ever belonged to him, Mr. Epstein would unquestionably be entitled 
to the protection of the act-of-production privilege. That is so because, as noted 
above, production thereof would inherently admit that the materials exist and that 
they had been in his home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a 
minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United 
States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of 
production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the 
defendant to produce the subpoenaed documents "depends on the fact that the 
15 
Black. Srcbnick. Kornspan & Stum 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 
• Fax: 
• www.RoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179004

documents were produced by [defendant] from his files; [c]learly such an act of 
production is testimonial, and may not be compelled"); United States v. Bell, 217 
F.R.D. 335 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (where government lacks knowledge of specific 
documents, party's production of the subpoenaed documents would testify to their 
existence and his possession of them). 
Even if the government is correct in its belief that the items listed in Ts 1 
and 2 of the subpoenas are presently in the possession of Mr. Riley and/or his firm, 
Mr. Riley's possession of the items would not lessen Mr. Epstein's right to the 
protection of the act-of-production privilege. Mr. Riley is an investigator retained 
to assist counsel in representing Mr. Epstein in the very matter under investigation 
by the federal grand jury that issued the subpoenas. As such, Mr. Riley stands in 
the same relationship to Mr. Epstein as counsel himself. See, e.g., Linde Thomson 
Langworthy Kohn & Van Dyke, P.C. v. Resolutions Trust Corp.r5 F.3d 1508, 1514 
(D.C.Cir.1993); In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 936-38 (8th Cir. 1994); 
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1424 (3d Cir. 
1991); United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 144 (8th Cir. 1972); Uni 
Judson, 322 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Kovel, 2 
922 (2d Cir. 1961); Burlington Indus. v. Rossville Yarn, Inc., No. CI 
0401-H, 1997 AWL 404319, at 3 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 1997); see also Uni 
16 
Black. Srebnick. Komspan 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33B1. Phone: 
• Fat 
• vmm.RoyBlackcom 
EFTA00179005

Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir. 1989). In short, the investigator in turn 
stands in the shoes of his client. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 404. 
Since production of the subpoenaed items by Mr. Epstein's legal team 
would, therefore, be the equivalent of production by Mr. Epstein, and the 
testimonial communication inherent in that production is the same as if it were Mr. 
Epstein himself appearing before the grand jury, the full protection of the act-of-
production privilege applies here, and the subpoenas must be quashed in their 
entirety. 
III. THE SUBPOENAS VIOLATE MR. EPSTEIN'S RIGHT TO 
COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO 
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. 
As drafted, in addition to his Fourth Amendment rights, the subpoenas 
violate the work-product doctrine, as well as Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment right 
to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 
329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the modern work-
product doctrine, holding that: 
[lin performing his various duties, however, it is essential 
that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free 
from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their 
counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands 
that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be 
the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal 
17 
Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 
• www.FtoyBlack.com 
EFTA00179006