Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00088189DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 7

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00088189
Pages
7
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 7 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: STEVEN J. KOCHEVAR Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Tel.: Fax: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. 20 Civ. 833 (PAE) ANSWER Defendant the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), by its attorney, Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, hereby answers the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) of Plaintiff the New York Times Company on information and belief as follows: COMPLAINT! 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint consists of Plaintiff's characterization of this action, to which no response is required. 2. The first sentence of Paragraph 2 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, and BOP resp

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 7 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: STEVEN J. KOCHEVAR Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Tel.: Fax: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant. 20 Civ. 833 (PAE) ANSWER Defendant the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), by its attorney, Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, hereby answers the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) of Plaintiff the New York Times Company on information and belief as follows: COMPLAINT! 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint consists of Plaintiff's characterization of this action, to which no response is required. 2. The first sentence of Paragraph 2 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. To the extent a further response is required, BOP admits that Jeffrey Epstein died at the Metropolitan Defendant replicates the headings from Plaintiffs' Complaint solely for ease of reference, without admitting any allegations set forth thereunder. EFTA00088189 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 7 Correctional Center ("MCC") on August 10, 2019, and respectfully refers the Court to the indictment entered in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-CRIM-00490 (S.D.N.Y.). BOP denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 2. PARTIES 3. BOP denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. BOP denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admits that it is an agency of the United States. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction, to which no response is required. 6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions regarding venue, to which no response is required. 7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. 8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegation that it has failed to comply with any applicable statutory deadlines. FACTS The August 12. 2019 Requests 9. Denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. EFTA00088190 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 7 10. Paragraph 10 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 11. Paragraph 11 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 12. Paragraph 12 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 13. Paragraph 13 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 14. Paragraph 14 consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 15. Admits that BOP assigned Plaintiffs August 13, 2019 requests Number 2019- 05665 and sent Plaintiff a response letter dated September 23, 2019. BOP respectfully refers the Court to its response letter dated September 23, 2019, for an accurate statement of its contents. BOP otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 15, including to the extent they fail to reflect or accurately characterize BOP's September 23, 2019 response letter. 16. BOP denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and avers that on October 7, 2019, BOP's Office of Information Policy received a letter from Plaintiff seeking review of BOP's decision on Plaintiff's FOIA request. With respect to the last 3 EFTA00088191 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 7 sentence of Paragraph 16, BOP admits that it sent Plaintiff an e-mail on October 9, 2019, and respectfully refers the Court to GOP's October 9, 2019 e-mail for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. Paragraph 16 otherwise consists of Plaintiff's characterization of its FOIA appeal; BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA appeal for a complete and accurate statement of its contents and denies the allegations to the extent they fail to reflect or accurately characterize Plaintiff's FOIA appeal. 17. BOP denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. The December 12, 2019 Request 19. Paragraph 19 consists of Plaintiffs characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 20. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and respectfully refers the Court to GOP's letter to Plaintiff dated December 16, 2019 for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegation that it has failed to comply with any applicable statutory deadlines. The January 2, 2020 Request 22. BOP admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 22 consists of Plaintiffs characterization of its FOIA request, and BOP respectfully refers the Court to Plaintiff's FOIA request for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 4 EFTA00088192 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 7 23. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 23, and respectfully refers the Court to GOP's letter to Plaintiff dated January 9, 2020, for a complete and accurate statement of its contents. 24. Paragraph 24 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegation that it has failed to comply with any applicable statutory deadlines. COUNT ONE 25. BOP realleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully set forth herein. 26. Paragraph 26 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. 27. Paragraph 27 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegation that it has failed to comply with any applicable statutory deadlines. 28. Paragraph 28 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Paragraph 29 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. REQUEST FOR RELIEF The remainder of the Complaint, Paragraphs 30 through 33, sets forth Plaintiff's requested relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, BOP denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought, or to any relief whatsoever from Defendant. 5 EFTA00088193 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 6 of 7 DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE Some or all of the requested records are not agency records subject to FOIA, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). THIRD DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of records protected from disclosure by any applicable FOIA exemption, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). FOURTH DEFENSE The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' requests for relief that exceed the relief authorized under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552. FIFTH DEFENSE Plaintiff's FOIA request does not reasonably describe the records sought. SIXTH DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to have this action expedited under 28 U.S.C. § 1657. SEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). BOP may have additional defenses that are presently unknown but may be ascertained at a later time. Defendant reserves the right to assert each and every affirmative or other defense that may be available, including any defenses available pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12. 6 EFTA00088194 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 7 of 7 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court: (1) dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; (2) enter judgment in favor of BOP; and (3) grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Date: New York, New York March 4, 2020 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America By: Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Tel.: Fax: 7 EFTA00088195

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

LBUCmaxl

120 LBUCmaxl UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Before: 20 CR 330 (AJN) Jury Trial New York, N.Y. November 30, 2021 8:50 a.m. HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, APPEARANCES DAMIAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: Assistant United States Attorneys HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL LAURA A. MENNINGER -and- BOBBI C. STERNHEIM -and- RENATO STABILE Also Present: District Judge , FBI NYPD Sunny Drescher, Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office Ann Lundberg, Paralegal, Haddon Morgan and Foreman SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00068582 121 LBUCmaxl 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Jury not present) THE COURT: Looks like we have everybody. Matt

287p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

AO 93 (Rev. 5/85) Search Warrant

AO 93 (Rev. 5/85) Search Warrant United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF In the Matter of the Search of (Name, address or brief description of property Of premises to be searched) One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMAITOOCB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation TO: Ej States: FLORIDA SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER 08 8068-LRJ FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , and any Authorized Officer of the United Af I idavit(s) having been made before me by E. believe that who has reason to Affiant r] on the person of or [Xi on the premises known as insole, description and/or locahon) One PNY Technologies 128 Megabyte CompactFlash memory card, marked THNCF128MMAITOOCB) 999223 TAIWAN 0247 in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida in the SOUTHERN District of concealed a certain person or property, namely Idescobo ine pers

19p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject:

From: To: Subject: - u is airs ews ne Ing e nes ay, u y 29, 2020 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:25:50 +0000 c Importan e: Normal Mobile version and searchable archives available at fbi.bulletinintelligence.com. 1B1 News Briefing TO: THE DIRECTOR AND SENIOR STAFF DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020 6:30 AM EDT TODAY'S TABLE OF CONTENTS LEADING THE NEWS • Barr Spars With Democrats At Contentious House Hearing. • Barr Says Democrats Have Tried To "Discredit" Him. • Barr Says Bash Investigating "High Number Of Unmaskings" During Obama Administration. PROTESTS • Memo Reveals Federal Agents Sought Role In Suppressing Protests Since Start. • New Mexico Governor Addresses Concerns About Federal Agents In Albuquerque. • Report: US, Oregon In Talks About Pulling Agents From Portland. • Portland Fines Federal Government For Unpermitted Fence Outside Courthouse. • US Park Police Head: Decision To Clear Protesters Not Linked To Trump "Photo Op." • Hundreds Of Cases Involving LAPD Off

47p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant

239p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Westlaw.

Westlaw. Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13-12923. April 18, 2014. Background: Alleged minor victims of federal sex crimes brought action against the United States alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ( CVRA) re- lated to the United States Attorney Office's execution of non-prosecution agree- ment with alleged perpetrator. After the victims moved for disclosure of corres- pondence concerning the non-prosecution agreement, the alleged perpetrator and his criminal defense attorneys intervened to assert privilege to prevent the disclos- ure of their plea negotiations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- v

16p

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.