rad Edwards

rad Edwards pat tojustice.com> Subject: RE: Government's position on limited prospective intervention by Epstein Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:55:50 +0000 Importance: Normal You will have seen Epstein's latest (and belated) motion for limited prospective intervention. We are writing on behalf of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 to invoke their right to confer on this motion with the Government. We would like to know your position on the motion. Please let us know when it would be convenient to confer. Sincerely, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? It has been nearly two weeks since we sent this request to you, and we haven't heard anything back from you. Are you going to confer with us about this? And what is the government's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial question" about whether the denial of a motion for a protective order is immediately appealable under Mohawk — which is exactly the argument we believe it would be in the Government's interest to endorse. Sincerely, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209562 From: Paul Ca II Sent: Thursday. June 27. 2013 7:16 AM rad Edwards Subject: RE: Government Position on an Interlocutory Appeal by Epstein - no jurisdictional basis for such an appeal We noticed in the Epstein's recently filed motion for a stay that the Government did not object to that stay pending appeal. We are writing to confirm that you will be ultimately moving to dismiss his appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. Our understanding of DOD's position on interlocutory appeals is that they are not permissible in these circumstances, particularly in light of Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.C.t. 599 (2009) (affirming 11th Circuit decision that an attorney-client rivilege order is not immediately appealable). As you probably know, Epstein plans to rely in United States' Perlman as the basis for an interlocutory appeal. Our understanding is that the Justice Department has long sought to give a narrow construction to Perlman. Indeed, it is our understanding that the Justice Department in other Courts of Appeals outside the Eleventh Circuit has argued that Mohawk implicitly narrows Perlman substantially. Penman is most commonly used by criminals who are targets of federal grand jury investigations, who seek to thwart and delay the Justice Department's investigations into their criminal activities. If Epstein is allowed by the Eleventh Circuit to take an interlocutory appeal in this case under Perlman, I am sure that this precedent will be used against the Department in countless grand jury investigations down the road. We are just writing to see what your position is on Epstein's attempt to take such an appeal. We invoke our right to confer to ask: Is the Justice Department really going to allow to agree to such a thing here? Thanks in advance for clarifying your position. We hope that you will confirm that you intend to move to dismiss Epstein's appeal. (We will be so moving.) If you are not going to make such a motion, we may want to press the issue with the U.S. Attorney in your Office and/or the Criminal Appeals Section of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. We believe that the Department's standard litigating position against interlocutory appeals under Perlman will support our motion to dismiss Epstein's appeal here. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209563 error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you. From: Paul Cassell Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 6:46 PM Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims' Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have gone out] 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 motion to compel. Looking forward to moving the case towards a resolution. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell 1111111111message is intended only for the use of the addressee. imunication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you. Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 5:24 PM rad Edwards Subject: RE: One additional discovery request in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. U.S., No. 08-80736 Paul, You have addressed your additional discovery request to the correct person. In the Court's order denying the government's motion to dismiss, the Court referenced "[t]he stay of discovery pending ruling on the government's motion to dismiss entered November 8, 2011 [DE #123] is LIFTED." I checked back into my CM/ECF notifications on Outlook, and did not find any for D.E. 123. I checked the docket sheet, which indicates a sealed order being entered on November 9, 2011, which is D.E. # 123. I was under the impression the Court had not ruled on the government's motion to stay. On December 6, 2012, the petitioners filed their Motion for Prompt Ruling Denying Government's Motion to Stay (D.E. 179), in which the petitioners noted that, "[t]he government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other EFTA00209564 motions) the Court has yet to rule on this particular motion." From this, it appears petitioners also believed the Court had not ruled on the government's motion for stay. In any event, your e-mail states that "you look forward to receiving the discovery materials that the Court has ordered you to produce on the schedule that the Court has ordered them produced." What is your view as to the schedule that the Court has ordered the documents produced? Is that contained in D.E. 123? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [rnailto:cassellpalaw.utah.edu] USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: One additional discovery request in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. U.S., No. 08-80736 I am writing to confirm that you remain the person that we should be contacted with regard to the above-captioned case. If not, please advise as to who the appropriate contact person is (and please forward this message to that person). In light of the Court lifting the stay on discovery, we are writing send one additional discovery request. Of course, this request is in ADDITION to the requests previously sent. It should not be viewed as replacing the other discovery requests or extending the deadline for producing the materials covered by the other discovery requests. We look forward to receiving the discovery materials that the Court has ordered you to produce on the schedule that the Court has ordered them produced. Please let us know if you have any questions. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209565