Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-02682606DOJ Data Set 11Other

EFTA02682606

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02682606
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: Warwick Wicksman Sent: Wednesday, JanuaryM ilil To: Jeffrey Epstein; Gary Kerney Cc: Doug Schoettle; Tom Sze; Bryan Oakes Subject: Plan Version G-6 Sketches Attachments: G-6 Section Studies 1-26-11.PDF; G-6 Plan Study 1-26-11.PDF; G-6 Mezz. Study A 1-26-11.PDF; G-6 Mezz. Study B 1-26-11.PDF Hi Jeffrey, Updated sketches attached.<=:p> &=bsp; Plan Study: R=vised ground floor plan, omitting fireplace, changing windows and doors pe= Santa Fe, and showing where we would step down 2' IF we need to. Also shows an area where we could add back a gallery space, if d=sired. &=bsp; Section Studies:&nb=p; Two options, with 18' ceilings to bottoms of beams. "=" is the heights if we keep the living room at +59'. ="B" is if we drop it to +57'. Right now the pool level works well with access f=om the roadway, so we would leave it at +38'. If we drop t=e living room level, the mezzanine and pool clearances are a little less.<=:p> &=bsp; Mezz Study A: =original layout with stair moved. Note, we do not have room for a de=ent width stairs from the mezzanine down to the pool level, if we keep the deck at 7'-6" as shown. They would have to b= about 3' wide (see note "A"). Tom recommended we =ove that stair south, per note "B". &=bsp; Mezz Study B: =Similar to Study A, but based on the Paris Ritz images you sent. We =o not have room for the open, centered formal stair shown in the images, unless we really lengthen pool deck and shift it all east. Please send us your comment=. We need to set the floor height issue, so we can start preparing s=me exterior elevation sketches for your to review. Thanks,</=> Warwick</=> = = &n=sp; Warwick Wicksman, AIA Principal &nbs=; &nbs=; &=bsp; &nbs=; Gensler </=pan> 2500 Broadway Suite 300 Santa Monica, California 90404 USA 1 EFTA_R1_01997696 EFTA02682606 http://www.Gensler.com <http://www.gensle=.comk Click here to view Gensler'= 2010 Annual Report. <http://www.gensle=.com/uploads/documents/AR_2010_10_22_2010.pdf> 2 EFTA_R1_01997697 EFTA02682607

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA02016959

0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00014068

0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02414102

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including: a) involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney liklimenvolvement in and/or awareness of the Government's interest."( witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, including Sarah Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff, Haley Robson, Louella Ruboyo, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by m Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science

1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02351991

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. I. Background The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows: From betw

33p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.