EFTA00178967

in footnote 3 of Intervenor Epstein's Reply, counsel asserts that, if "the Court were to sustain the 
government's standing objection as to Epstein, Riley and Riley Kiraly would file a motion to quash 
the subpoenas." (Epstein Reply at 5 n.3.) The United States would oppose such a motion on 
timeliness grounds. 
2. 
In the Reply filed by Intervenor Epstein, counsel asserts that "simple possession of 
the physical containers [the computers] is not the government's real object here. What the 
government actually wants is unfettered access to the entire contents of Epstein's computers . . ." 
(Epstein Reply at 2.) Epstein is mistaken. The grand jury has subpoenaed the computersthe items 
as they were removed from Mr. Epstein's home. The grand jury probably has the authority to 
subpoena the contents of those computers, but, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned's general 
policy is to seek a search warrant for the contents of a computer once it is securely in custody, and 
that is the United States' intended approach in this case, as well. This procedure will allow the Court 
to decide whether adequate probable cause exists for the search of the computers' contents without 
prematurely exposing to the target matters occurring before the grand jury, and will allow the target 
to challenge the probable cause for the search on a Motion to Suppress. 
3. 
Epstein argues that he has no obligation to show that the computers (or the production 
of those computers) arc incriminating before he can assert the act of production privilege. (Epstein 
Reply at 6.) This is not the case; if it were, every person could assert the act of production privilege 
to refuse to produce anything in response to a subpoena.2 Instead, a target must address the act of 
production privilege on a document by document basis explaining how the production of that 
2Fol lowing Epstein's logic, if a person were subpoenaed to produce her mother's coffee cake 
recipe, she could assert the act of production privilege because the production would be a "compelled 
communication that the item produced is the item called for in the subpoena." (Epstein Reply at 6.) 
-2-
EFTA00179087

document would tend to incriminate the target. See, e.g., United States v. Grable, 98 F.3d 251, 255, 
257 (6 11' Cir. 1996) ("The existence of `substantial and real hazards of self-incrimination' is a 
prerequisite to the proper assertion of the 'act of production' privilege.") (citations omitted); In re 
Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated January 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 
1999) (The act of production privilege applies only where the act is "(1) compelled, (2) testimonial, 
and (3) incriminating.") (citing United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612-14 (1984)); In re Three 
Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated January 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024, 1028 (2d Cir. 1988) (subpoenaed 
party must produce subpoenaed audiotape to Court to allow Court to conduct in camera inspection 
to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Bell; 217 F.R.D. 335, 
339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth 
Amendment, an act of production privilege can.be asserted, but only when "it meets two conditions: 
the evidence must be both (I) testimonial and (2) incriminating."). Later in his Reply, in order to 
avoid the clear similarity between this case and United States v. Hunter, Epstein goes out of his way 
to assert that the computers are not incriminating. Epstein argues: "Unlike a murder weapon or bank 
robbery proceeds, the computers are not themselves evidence of a crime;" and "Therefore, even were 
the computers 'incriminating evidence' — which they manifestly are not — Hunter in no way 
undermines Epstein's challenges to the subpoena." (Epstein Reply at 8, 9 (emphasis in original).) 
Epstein simply cannot have it both ways. Either he is able to show that the production of the 
'Bell also discusses the "foregone conclusion" rationale, that is, that an act of production 
privilege exists only where the subpoenaed party's "production of the documents will exclusively 
establish their existence, authenticity, as well as [the party's] possession of them." Id. at 340 
(emphasis in original). The United States relies upon the arguments in its Response to Intervenor 
Epstein's Motion to Quash and the information contained in the Ex Parte Affidavits to show the 
other methods of establishing the existence, authenticity, and Epstein's possession of the computers. 
-3-
EFTA00179088

computers would incriminate him, or he cannot assert the act of production privilege. 
4. 
Lastly, Epstein has still failed to provide a privilege log, saying that he not done so 
because he hopes that the subpoenas will be quashed in their entirety and, if not, a privilege log will 
then be produced. (Epstein Reply at 10.) This effort to put the onus on the Court, ("The 
Court 
should not enforce the subpoenas without affording counsel an opportunity to exclude privileged 
materials from the production." (id.)), turns the law of attorney-client privilege on its head and 
disregards binding precedent requiring a subpoenaed party to produce such a log at the time of filing 
its motion. The objections related to billing records are demonstrative of the untenability of this 
position. In civil cases, issues related to attorney's fees are regularly litigated and billing records 
must be produced to the opposing party. If a party objects to that production, it must produced a 
redacted version of the documents with an accompanying privilege/wOrk product log. After that, the 
issues are defined for the Court. Counsel complains that the United States has wrongly characterized 
their motion as a blanket assertion of privilege, but there is no other basis for a failure to produce 
anything. Epstein has not asserted that the production of the billing records is overly burdensome. 
Furthermore, Riley Kiraly is the owner of those documents and is best suited to make such a claim, 
if warranted. Riley Kiraly's failure to do so before the time for production waives such a claim. 
-4-
EFTA00179089

CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the United States' Response to 
the Motion to Quash, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Quash 
and order the prompt compliance with the subpoenas. 
Respectfully submitted, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
Assistant Unit 
Attorney 
Florida Bar Nair 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. 
401 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-mail: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August  ? a 2007, the foregoing document was served via 
Federal Express on Attorney Roy Black and Attorney William Richey. This document was not 
filed using CIvI/ECF because it is being filed under seal. 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
-5-
EFTA00179090

SERVICE LIST 
In re Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas No. OIL-63 and OLY-64 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
U.S. Attorney's Office 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney for United States 
-6-
William L. Richey, Esq. 
William L. Richey P.A. 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33131 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney for Subpoenaed Parties Riley 
Kiraly and William Riley 
Service via U.S. Mail 
Roy Black, Esq. 
Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 
Miami, FL 33131 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 
Service via U.S. Mail 
EFTA00179091

(Rev. 06/2035)Sealed Document Tracking Form 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Florida 
Number: FGJ 07-103 (WPB) 
In Re 
Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum 
Numbers OLY-63 and OLY-64 
UNITED STATES' MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EX PARTE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO MOTION 
TO QUASH 
SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM 
Party Filing Matter Under Seal 
On behalf of (select one): 
Name: JIM=
 u.S. Attorneys Office 
Address: 500 S. Australian Ave: Suite 400, Wesl Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Telephone: 
0 Plaintiff 
O Defendant 
Date sealed document filed: 8/31/2007 
If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. Grim. P. 6(e) (Grand Jury Material)
If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number:  
The matter should remain sealed until: 
O Conclusion of Trial 
O Arrest of First Defendant 
Case Closing 
O Conclusion of Direct Appeal 
O Other:  
O Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order: 
The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): 
O Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file 
O Destroyed 
0 
Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above 
A`tancy for: United Stales of Vifierica 
EFTA00179092

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
DUCES TECUM NUMBERS 
OLY-64 AND OLY-64 
FGJ 07-103 (WPB) 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EX PARTE DECLARATION IN 
SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH 
UNDER SEAL 
EFTA00179093

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
DUCES TECUM NUMBERS 
OLY-64 AND OLY-64 
FGJ 07-103 (WPB) 
UNDER SEAL 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EX PARTE DECLARATION 
IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO OUASH 
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 
Attorney, hereby asks for permission to file a Supplemental ex parte Declaration in support 
of its Response to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Intervene and to Quash Subpoenas and Cross-
Motion to Compel. 
In support thereof, the United States states the following: 
1. 
The Declaration contains additional information relating to an ongoing grand 
jury investigation; thus, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6), all records and orders related 
to the grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary 
to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand jury. 
2. 
The Declaration is being filed ex parte because disclosing them to the target 
would jeopardize the criminal investigation, and undermine the function of the grand jury. 
3. 
As the Supreme Court has held, "[r]equiring the Government to explain in too 
much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise `the 
indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings." United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 
498 U.S. 292, 299 (1991) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). 
"The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand jury investigation is of paramount 
EFTA00179094

importance." In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1576 
(1 1 th Cir. 1983) (extensive citations omitted). 
4. 
The issues raised by Intervenor Epstein's Motion to Quash require the United 
States to provide information obtained through the Grand Jury's investigation. Due to the 
pendency of the investigation, and the requirements of Grand Jury secrecy, the United States 
asks that the Court allow the United States to file a Supplemental Ex Parte declaration, which 
further addresses the factual issues raised by Intervenor Epstein, without being forced to 
disclose the status of the grand jury investigation and the matters occurring before the grand 
jury to Epstein. 
Prior to its initial Motion to File Ex Parte Affidavits, Rules, the undersigned conferred 
with counsel for Intervenor Epstein, who advised that he opposes the granting of this motion. 
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that it be allowed to file its 
Supplemental Declaration Ex Parte in support of its Response to the Motion to Quash. 
Respectfully submitted, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 111111t_ 
Florida Bar No. 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm 
1 
Telephone; 
Facsimile: 
EFTA00179095

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August30, 2007, the foregoing document was served 
via Federal Express on Attorney William Richey and Attorney Roy Black. This document 
was not filed using CM/ECF because it is being filed under seal. 
ssistant U.a. Attorney 
SERVICE LIST 
In re Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas No. OLY-63 and OLY-64 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
. Attorney's Office 
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach. 
33401 
33401 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney 
William L. Richey, Esq.
William L. Richey Y.A. 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33131 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney or 
 Parties 
and 
Roy Black, Esq. 
brebmck, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 
Miami, FL 33131 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorney or n eryenor effrey Epstein 
EFTA00179096

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
DUCES TECUM NUMBERS 
OLY-63 and OLY-64 
FGJ 07-103(WPB) 
UNDER SEAL 
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the United States of America's Motion for 
Permission to File a supplemental Ex Parte Affidavit in support of its Response to the Motion to 
Quash. 
Upon review of the motion, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that good cause has 
been shown and the United States of America's motion is GRANTED. 
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this 
day of 
, 2007, 
at West Palm Beach, Florida. 
cc: 
AUSA 
Roy Black, Esq. 
William Richey, Esq. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
West Palm Beach 
EFTA00179097

(Rev. 06/2005)Seakd Document Tracking Form 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Florida 
Number: FGJ 07-103 (WPB) 
In Re 
Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum 
Numbers OLY-63 and OLY-64 
UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH 
Party Filing Matter Under Seal 
On behalf of (select one): 
SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM 
Name: 
U.S. Attorneys Office 
" - AG 031ii 
Address: 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Telephone: 
0 
Plaintiff 
K Defendant 
Date sealed document filed: 7/31/2007 
If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. Cram. P. 6(e) (Grand Jury Material) 
If sealed pursuant to previously entered protective order, date of order and docket entry number: 
The matter should remain sealed until: 
K 
❑+ 
K 
Conclusion of Trial 
Case Closing 
Other: 
K 
K 
Arrest of First Defendant 
Conclusion of Direct Appeal 
K Permanently. Specify the authorizing law, rule, court order: 
The moving party requests that when the sealing period expires, the filed matter should be (select one): 
K Unsealed and placed in the public portion of the court file 
K Destroyed 
0 
Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above 
%..••••••-
Attorney for: Movant Uni 
tales of America 
EFTA00179098

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
DUCES TECUM NUMBERS 
OLY-63 and OLY-64 
FGJ 07-103(WPB) 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
TO INTERVENE AND TO OUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL 
UNDER SEAL 
EFTA00179099

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
DUCES TECUM NUMBERS 
OLY-63 and OLY-64 
UNDER SEAL 
FGJ 07-103(WPB) 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
TO INTERVENE AND TO OUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS 
AND CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL 
The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 
Attorney, hereby files its response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to intervene and to quash two grand 
jury subpoenas issued to William Riley (Subpoena No. OLY-63) and to the Custodian of Records 
for Riley Kiraly (Subpoena No. OLY-64).' The subpoenas originally called for the witnesses to 
appear on July 10, 2007, but pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the appearance was 
moved to July 17, 2007. Neither Mr. Riley nor the records custodian appeared, and counsel for 
Jeffrey Epstein filed the instant motion on July 17, 2007, shortly before the 4:00 p.m. appearance 
time. The United States did not excuse the witnesses' appearances and an assertion of the attorney-
client or Fifth Amendment privilege does not excuse a witness' appearance from a judicial 
proceeding, it only excuses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses 
covered by the privilege. See Roe v. Slotnick, 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay v. C.I.R., 886 
F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses 
to appear before the grand jury on the next available date. 
'Riley Kiraly is the firm that employs William Riley. For purposes of this Response, they 
will be referred to jointly as "Riley." Riley Kiraly and William Riley are represented by William 
Richey, Esq. Mr. Richey has not filed any motions on behalf of his clients. 
EFTA00179100

Epstein's counsel argues first that his client should be allowed to intervene as a matter of 
right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Assuming that the Court grants that request, Epstein 
raises six arguments against the enforceability of the two grand jury subpoenas: first, that Epstein's 
Fifth Amendment privilege bars the subpoenas to Riley and Riley Kiraly; second, that the subpoenas 
violate Epstein's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights; third, that the subpoenas are 
unreasonable because they seek items "unconnected to any crime under investigation," fourth, that 
the subpoenas are unreasonable because they are "oppressive, overbroad, and unparticularized;" 
fifth, that the subpoenaed items contain information and documents protected by the attorney-client 
and work product privileges; and sixth, that the subpoena of "purely private papers violates the Fifth 
Amendment under Boyd." 
In response, as an initial matter, the United States does not object to the motion to intervene 
to allow Epstein to assert his claim that enforcement of the subpoenas would violate the attorney-
client and/or work product privileges. However, Epstein does not have standing to assert the 
remaining challenges to the subpoenas. As to the motion to quash, Epstein has no Fifth Amendment 
privilege to keep Riley from responding to the subpoenas and he has failed to carry his burden to 
establish that the subpoenas seek information covered by the attorney-client or work product 
privileges. Even if Epstein had standing to assert these challenges, the subpoenas are not 
unreasonable and do not violate any act of production privilege. For these reasons, the United States 
asks the Court to deny the Motion to Quash and to order the prompt production of the requested 
items and the witnesses' appearances before the Grand Jury. 
-2-
EFTA00179101

BACKGROUND 
Contrary to the assertions of Epstein's counsel, he is not fully apprised of the scope of the 
federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal 
investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms 
of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified' Epstein's counsel is correct, 
however, in asserting that Epstein's criminal conduct first came to the attention of the FBI when the 
City of Palm Beach Police Department became concerned about the manner in which the Palm 
Beach County State Attorney's Office was handling the state prosecution. The investigation of the 
Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") revealed multiple instances of minor females traveling 
to Epstein's home to engage in lewd and lascivious conduce in exchange for money. 
PBPD's investigation was presented to the State Attorney's Office for further investigation. 
Soon thereafter, Epstein's team of attomeys began approaching the State Attorney's Office, applying 
'Due to the rules governing Grand Jury secrecy, the full details of the Grand Jury's 
investigation cannot be disclosed except in camera. The facts contained herein relate to public 
information regarding the State's investigation and information disclosed as part of that investigation 
or information related to the FBI's investigation. A motion to file ex parte affidavits that contain 
information regarding the Grand Jury investigation is filed simultaneously with this motion. 
'Epstein's counsel refers to these as "massages." The conduct involved asking girls to 
partially or fully disrobe and to "massage" Epstein, including straddling him and pinching his 
nipples, while he masturbated. Epstein would fondle the girls, becoming more sexually aggressive 
with each visit, graduating to digital penetration of the girls' vaginas, using a massager/vibrator on 
the outside of their vaginas, having the girl engage in a sexual performance with Epstein's adult 
girlfriend, and engaging in vaginal intercourse. With the possible exception of one girl, none of the 
minors had any training in massage therapy, and, as shown by Attachment E to the Black Affidavit, 
Epstein was receiving professional chiropractic services from a licensed chiropractor, Dr. Thomas 
Rofrano. 
Epstein's counsel misstates the state charges pending against his client. The state grand jury 
returned a three-count indictment. Each count charges solicitation of a prostitute. Under Florida 
law, the first two counts are classified as misdemeanors. A third solicitation offense is a felony. 
-3-
EFTA00179102

pressure against prosecuting the case. The team of attorneys included Mr. Black and his firm, Jack 
Goldberger, Gerald Lefcourt, and Professor Alan Dershowitz.' 
As explained in the Declaration of 
Epstein knew of the state investigation 
by the first week of October, 2005. On October 18, 2005, a search warrant was applied for and 
executed. The search warrant called for the seizure of: 
(1) 
Computers, including any electronic magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or 
other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage 
functions; data storage facilities such as magnetic tape, hard disk, floppy disk or 
drum, or cd rom; communications facilities directly relating to or operating in 
conjunction with such device; devices for printing records of data; and such records 
or data produced in various forms; manuals, documents, or instructional material 
relating to such devices. 
(2) 
Computer, personal computers, computer peripherals, modems, computer 
printers, floppy disk drives, hard disk drives, diskettes, tapes, computer printouts, 
software, computer programs and applications, computer manuals, system 
documentation. 
At the time of the execution, several items were conspicuously missing, including three 
computers.$ One of the officers who executed the search warrant had previously visited Epstein's 
'Since the start of the federal investigation the team has grown to include former Southern 
District of Florida U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and former Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien. 
SThe wires and peripheral devices were present but the central processing units ("CPUs") 
were gone. 
-4-
EFTA00179103

home (at Epstein's invitation) and had observed the three computers, one in the pool cabana, one 
in an area he refers to as Epstein's office, and one in an area he refers to as =Moffice.
6
The removed computers are believed to be in the custody of William Riley and/or Riley 
Kiraly, the subpoenaed parties. 
The United States has sought the whereabouts of those computers since the start of the 
investigation. When Guy Lewis stated that Mr. Epstein was willing to assist in the federal 
investigation and to turn over any requested items, the United States prepared the letter that appears 
as Exhibit D to Mr. Black's affidavit. To date, none of the items mentioned in requests 1, 2, 4, 5; 
6 (the computer equipment), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 13 have been provided. The items in request 12 were 
provided in response to subpoenas directed to the corporations that own the aircrafts. 
Since Epstein was not, in fact, willing to cooperate with the federal investigation, grand jury 
subpoenas have been issued to obtain the necessary information. The subpoenas at issue here are 
narrowly tailored and seek only two things: first, the physical computers removed from Epstein's 
residence in advance of the execution of the search warrant; second, the unprivileged material 
related to Epstein's hiring of William Riley's firm. Neither William Riley nor his firm has filed any 
motions to quash or modify, but the witnesses also have failed to appear as commanded. 
Accordingly, the United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel 
the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 
'Sarah 
is one of Epstein's personal assistants. 
-5-
EFTA00179104

ARGUMENT
I. 
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO 
INTERVENE, IN PART. 
The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a target of a grand jury investigation should be allowed 
to intervene once the claim of attorney-client privilege between the subpoenaed witness and target 
surfaces. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (1 1 th Cir. 
1983) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine), 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). 
See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of 
attorney-client and work product privilege qualify as sufficient interests to ground intervention as 
of right.") (citation omitted). As explained below, Mr. Riley is not an attorney; Riley Kiraly is not 
a law firm; and the information sought does not fall within the attorney-client privilege. However, 
the United States recognizes that Epstein has asserted claims that he has an attorney-client privilege 
in the subpoenaed items, and that is the issue presented for the Court's determination. Accordingly, 
the United States does not oppose the motion to intervene in so far as Epstein wishes to assert the 
attorney-client and work product privileges. However, Epstein has not cited any authority and the 
United States has found none that allows a non-subpoenaed party to assert challenges to the 
reasonableness or oppressiveness of a subpoena. Accordingly, the United States opposes Epstein's 
motion to intervene to assert those claims.' 
'As stated above, neither of the subpoenaed parties has raised any objection to the subpoenas 
and the time for production has passed. Thus, these objections have been waived. 
-6-
EFTA00179105

H. 
BLANKET 
ASSERTIONS 
OF 
THE 
FIFTH AMENDMENT, 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT, AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES ARE 
UNENFORCEABLE; THE COURT MUST BE ALLOWED TO JUDGE EACH 
ASSERTION ON ITS FACTS. 
Although Epstcin's motion is painted in broad strokes, most of his arguments relate only to 
the demand for the production of the computer equipment removed from his home prior to the 
execution of the search warrant. Accordingly, the United States first discusses the claims of 
privilege regarding the computers, and then addresses the demand for general billing records. 
As to both categories, however, Epstein's motion should be denied for failure to provide 
detailed and specific assertions as to which privilege he claims applies to which documents. 
In his motion, Epstein asserts that all of the items called for by the subpoenas will violate 
his Fifth Amendment privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine. He also 
implicitly asserts that every question addressed to the witnesses would violate these privileges and, 
therefore, the witnesses cannot be compelled to appear before the grand jury.° These blanket 
assertions are not authorized and undermine the Court's ability to make an independent evaluation 
of the applicability of the privileges. 
With respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the protection does 
not cover every instance where the target of an investigation is called to testify or produce 
documents. Instead, the protection of the Fifth Amendment is confined to instances where the 
witness "has reasonable cause to apprehend danger" of criminal prosecution. Hoffinan v. United 
States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). "The central standard for the . . . application of the Fifth 
°The government uses the word "implicitly" because Epstein's motion to quash does not 
mention witness testimony and the witnesses themselves have not filed a motion to quash; they 
simply failed to appear before the grand jury. 
-7-
EFTA00179106