Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00215522DOJ Data Set 9Other

To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)"

From: To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" Cc: Subject: Jane Doe - Conference Call Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:51:15 +0000 Importance: Normal ■ and Jeff, The conference call with Judge Marra lasted approximately 40 minutes. Brad Edwards and Paul Casell appeared for the victims. Edwards advised the court that the parties were in agreement that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. He stated the victims had a right to see the contents of the "plea agreement" in order to determine how to proceed in the instant litigation. Edwards grudgingly agreed that the non-prosecution agreement could be disclosed by the government, pursuant to a protective order restricting further dissemination, but he argued the public interest favored full disclosure. I told the court that the non-prosecution agreement did contain a confidentiality provision, and the government was not able to voluntarily disclose it. I also advised that the government informed Epstein of the pending motion for the produc

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00215522
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

From: To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" Cc: Subject: Jane Doe - Conference Call Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:51:15 +0000 Importance: Normal ■ and Jeff, The conference call with Judge Marra lasted approximately 40 minutes. Brad Edwards and Paul Casell appeared for the victims. Edwards advised the court that the parties were in agreement that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. He stated the victims had a right to see the contents of the "plea agreement" in order to determine how to proceed in the instant litigation. Edwards grudgingly agreed that the non-prosecution agreement could be disclosed by the government, pursuant to a protective order restricting further dissemination, but he argued the public interest favored full disclosure. I told the court that the non-prosecution agreement did contain a confidentiality provision, and the government was not able to voluntarily disclose it. I also advised that the government informed Epstein of the pending motion for the produc

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: To: "Acosta, Alex (USAFLS)" Cc: Subject: Jane Doe - Conference Call Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:51:15 +0000 Importance: Normal and Jeff, The conference call with Judge Marra lasted approximately 40 minutes. Brad Edwards and Paul Casell appeared for the victims. Edwards advised the court that the parties were in agreement that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. He stated the victims had a right to see the contents of the "plea agreement" in order to determine how to proceed in the instant litigation. Edwards grudgingly agreed that the non-prosecution agreement could be disclosed by the government, pursuant to a protective order restricting further dissemination, but he argued the public interest favored full disclosure. I told the court that the non-prosecution agreement did contain a confidentiality provision, and the government was not able to voluntarily disclose it. I also advised that the government informed Epstein of the pending motion for the production of the agreement, and Epstein objected to a public disclosure. Epstein's preference was for a disclosure pursuant to a protective order. When Edwards argued that they were entitled to see the agreement, without any restrictions on disclosure, since they were in litigation with Epstein, I told the court that Edwards could seek access to the agreement in the context of that litigation, where Epstein was a party and could raise his own objections. Judge Marra asked if there was any issue with the victims (Jane Doe 1 and 2) seeing the agreement, and I said no. When the Judge asked about the other identified victims, I said there was no issue but we were also concerned that the other victims might publicly disseminate the non-prosecution agreement. =added that there were some Fed.R.Cr.P. 6(e) concerns, since the agreement contained the names of individuals who had been investigated by the federal government. We advised the court that the agreement provided that these individuals would also not be prosecuted in federal court. At that point, Edwards claimed he needed to know these names since they could be important witnesses in the civil litigation. We explained to the court that there were three parts of the agreement, and that there was a current dispute with Epstein over which parts actually constituted the agreement Judge Marra then ordered disclosure of the agreement to Edwards, subject to a protective order preventing disclosure to persons other than the victims and their counsel in the instant case. Judge Marra also provided that the agreement be available to the other victims, but they were also subject to the protective order, and had to agree to be bound by it. asked if the Judge was ordering the government to disclose the agreement to the other victims. Judge Marra said he was not ordering us to do so, but would leave it to the government to decide whether notice was required under the Crime Victims Rights Act. is preparing a draft protective order which we will send to Edwards. Once an agreement is reached on the language of the order, we will submit it to the court for review and approval. EFTA00215522

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. I. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I have represented Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I have also represented other girls who were sexually abused by Epstein. As a result of that representation, I have become familiar with many aspects of the criminal investigation against Epstein and have reviewed discovery and correspondence connected with the criminal investigation. I have also spoken to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 at length about the criminal investigation and their involvement in it, as well enforcement (or lack their of) of their rights as crime victims in the investigation. I also represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the pen

12p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell 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, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02726140

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Brad Edwards

From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg

3p
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

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.