Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00205177DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Paul Cassell <MIII

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00205177
Pages
2
Persons
5
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: Paul Cassell <MIII > To: "M=I (USAFLS)" Cc: , Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Doe I USAO Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:34:11 +0000 Importance: Normal Hey and =, I. As you may know, Brad is buried in a three-week jury trial, so I have not been able to consult with him at any length about the pending motion to dismiss and to stay. I also have another brief due on next Wednesday, as well as long-scheduled vacation the week of Thanksgiving. In light of all this, I am writing to inquire about the Government's position concerning a ten-day extension of the due date to respond to the motion to dismiss until December 5. 2. I noticed that you have filed two pleadings entirely under seal - your motion to dismiss and your motion to stay. And yet the vast bulk of both motions do not involve any secret grand jury material and thus (in my view) there is little reason for the vast bulk of the pleadings to be under seal. Are you willing to file redacted pleadings in the public court file?

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.
From: Paul Cassell <MIII > To: "M=I (USAFLS)" Cc: , Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Doe I USAO Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:34:11 +0000 Importance: Normal Hey and =, I. As you may know, Brad is buried in a three-week jury trial, so I have not been able to consult with him at any length about the pending motion to dismiss and to stay. I also have another brief due on next Wednesday, as well as long-scheduled vacation the week of Thanksgiving. In light of all this, I am writing to inquire about the Government's position concerning a ten-day extension of the due date to respond to the motion to dismiss until December 5. 2. I noticed that you have filed two pleadings entirely under seal - your motion to dismiss and your motion to stay. And yet the vast bulk of both motions do not involve any secret grand jury material and thus (in my view) there is little reason for the vast bulk of the pleadings to be under seal. Are you willing to file redacted pleadings in the public court file? 3. If the answer to question 2 is no, what is your position on a motion from the victims asking for the court to direct the Government to file redacted pleadings in the public court file, redacting only the secret grand jury information? 4. It is our view that a bland motion for extension of time would not need to be filed under seal, because it would not disclose any grand jury materials. Here is the draft of our motion for extension of time, which we are not planning to file under seal. Please advise if you have any concerns. JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 10-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Government's motion to dismiss and motion to stay proceedings. The victims' response to these two motions is currently due on Friday, November 25, 2011 - the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving. One of the victims' counsel, Bradley J. Edwards, has been in (and continues to be in) a three-week jury trial that has prevented him from turning to the pending motion. The other of the victims' counsel, Paul G. Cassell, has a brief due in the Fifth Circuit on November 23, 2011, and also long- scheduled vacation the week of Thanksgiving. Accordingly, victims counsel seek a 10-day extension to Monday, December 5, 2011, to file their responses to the Government's two pending motions. Counsel have conferred and the Government does not oppose the motion. 5. I notice in the court file that the Court entered two orders on November 9, 2011. These are sealed orders and we have not received notice of the orders. We are assuming that these are court orders granting your motion to file under seal. If they are something else, we would of course be concerned about ex parte motion practice. If they are granting the motions to file under seal, I wonder why we didn't consult about the extent of the sealing on the phone last week -- it does seem like the Government has gone overboard on sealing here, but I am hopeful that you will agree to filing redacted pleadings and obviate any problem. Thanks for your help on these questions/issues. Paul Casssell Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 EFTA00205177 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=578cname assell,Paul CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. EFTA00205178

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Fw: Word version of privilege log

Subject: Fw: Word version of privilege log Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:49:44 +0000 Importance: Normal I am out of the office for the afternoon. Can you send Paul the log in Word format? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 01:22 PM Subject: RE: Word version of privilege log Would you be willing to extend us a small favor? It would be helpful if we had a Word / Wordperfect version (or native PDF version) of your two privilege logs, so that we can "cut and paste" responses etc. Would you be willing to provide that to us? Thanks in advance for any help you are willing to extend. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell From: Paul Cassell Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:03 AM Subject: RE: other victims Please see attached information about the victims' requests for production. If this allows the Government to provide us any more information, please let us know promptly. Thanks for your

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' (USAFLS)" czi To: (USAFL$)" ctl - - Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?l Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:17:00 +0000 Importance: Normal I will be at courthouse. Please call me on my cell. I have a plea that starts at 2:00. Assistant U.S. Attorne From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, January 11 2012 11:27 AM To: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?I Let's shoot for 1:30. Are you available then, (USAFLS) From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesda January 11, 2012 11:22 AM To: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?' (USAFLS) I have calendar call at 1:00 p.m. I should be back by 1:30. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:20 AM To: I. (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?' Sorry, first thing in the morning did not work out. Do you want to talk briefly now, or perhaps at 1:30? Alternatively, I can also call in after my doctor's appointment. Given the waits I often encounter th

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Paul Cassell •ci

From: Paul Cassell •ci To: "IN (USAFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:56 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: ORDER-omnibus-wrapup.pdf [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have gone out] Dear We haven't seen the sealed order granting the Government's motion for stay either. (Have you?). But, in any event, Judge Marra's order on June 19, 2013 (DE 190) specifically stated that "The petitioners' motion to compel discovery from the Government [DE 130] is GRANTED. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of entry of this order, the Government shall . . . [produce various discovery]." For your convenience, I attach a copy of DE 190 ordering the Government to produce discovery within 30 days. So we are expecting to see you produce the bulk of our discovery on July 19, 2013, as specifically directed in DE 190 which granted our mo

2p
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

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com>

From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com> To: Paul Cassell <cassell law.utah.edu> ow mgw att.ent <[email protected]>, "Maria Kelljchian (maria®pathtojustice.com)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Brad Edwards ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Marvin Simeon" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Epstein's Request for Prospective Intervention -- no conference among the parties Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:43:47 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi Paul, Thanks for reaching out to me. Because it is 5:41 p.m. here in Miami, I am not able to get back to you today but will get back to you tomorrow. Jackie From: Paul Cassell [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:40 PM To: Jackie Perczek; [email protected]; Maria Kelljchian ([email protected]) Cc: Brad Edwards ([email protected]); Marvin Simeon Subject: Epstein's Request for Prospective Intervention -- no conference among the parties Dear Jackie, We read with interest Epstein's recent

2p

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.