Employee

Employee Flb - Serial Charge Out FD-5 (Rev. 10-13-89) Date /.0/2-Di 3 - pile / Z1O2- Class. Office of dein Case No. Last Serial 0 Pending 0 Closed Date Serial No. • Description of Serial Char rog Pbv PA gg..2, 1e,- ,5 P r) Egh k‘h9Liel.5 /9 -7-neL4L51 9(7 - I topm nencm9IL-f000^-i Employee RECHARGE Date To From O Location Date charged FPIRBK EFTA00277521 BOI ES SCHI LLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE I200. FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301-2211• PH. 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022 Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Email: February 26, 2015 Via Federal Express Federal Bureau of Investigation Attn: FOI/PA Request Reeord/Information Dissemination Section Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice RE: FOL4 Request for pictures, videos and documents relating toy Dear FOIA Officer, I represent and pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. §552, we are requesting the copies of materials relating to Specifically, was interviewed by the FBI on March 17, 2011. A FD-302 report was entered on July 5, 2013. See Exhibit A. During the interview process, the FBI agents informed t they had retrieved from Jeffrey E stein's homes, video to es, CDs and DVDs, pictures an documents, that include video tapes of d documents (including but not limited to e-mails and other records discussin It is our understanding that these images include naked images of alto was a minor at the time, being forced to engage in sexual acts with adults and other minors. We are requesting copies of these materials. It is our understanding that the materials were collected from the following residences owned by Jeffrey Epstein. 1) 358 El Brillo Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480 2) Little St. James 6100 Red Hook Quarters, Suite B3 St. Thomas. Virgin Islands 00802 WWW.EISFLI.P.COM vr-rot-hocod -0755 EFTA00277522 • • BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Letter to Federal Bureau of Investigation February 26, 2015 Page 2 3) 9 E. 71g Street New York, NY 10021-4102 4) 49 Zorro Ranch Rd. Stanley, New Mexico 87056 5) This request covers the time period of June 1999 to December 2002. We agree to pay reasonable duplication fees for the processing of this request in an amount not to exceed $5000, without prior authorization. If our request is denied in whole or in part, we ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions in the act. We will also expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. We of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information. We have included in our submission a Certification of Identity from our client Virginia Roberts, such that records can be released to Sigrid McCawley, her attorney. Sincerely, SSM Enclosures Sigrid S. McCawley EFTA00277523 EXHIBIT A EFTA00277524 ( RAW (Rev. 5-840) a -1 of 12 - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Social Security Account Number Australian Permanent Resident, residence was interviewed at the United States Consulate in Sydney, Australia. was advised of the identity of interviewing agents and purpose of the interview. Present during the interview was Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Dateofemry 07/05/[ADDRESS REDACTED]ates Citizen and United States Attorney) following information: the (and via telephone, Assistant provided the was born in Sacramento, California to parents) I 'date of birth) currently resides in and date of birth currently resides in moved to Palm Beach County, Florida with her parents when she was four years old and returned to California at age 11. She returned to Florida at age 13 and was placed in a rehabilitation or foster care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. an away from the rehabilitation facility when she was approximately 14 years old, and while living on the streets in Miami, Florida, she met) Iwas training 'gave to be an escort) a life off of the streets which made her feel Investigation on 03/17/2011 at Sydney, Australia (In Person) Fuel 31E—MM-108062 br I Date drafted 07/05/2013 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the propcny of the FBI and is loaned to your agency. it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C EFTA00277525 r. _______ Pr/ Abatovosas.m 31E—MM-108062 ConimatinOT0.3Wk0 a AI, 03/17/2011 p a 2 of 12 like she was locked into the relationship.) 'gavel pharmaceutical drugs toward the end of their relationship. relationship with ended while she was at a private ranch near Ocala, Florida. telephonically contacted a childhood friend,' from a telephone at the ranch. knew' 'from elementary school and called him at the home telephone of his parents r 'she was very lonely, an ked her why she did not leave telephone conversation with 'the recreational vehicle as staying in at the rancho not strike her) 'pack her belongings and told her she was going to live with another man. H felt that she was sent to specifics of the arrangement. engaged in sexual ac 'who was described as a white male approximately one or two weeks before the police located her and her to her parents. parents were Florida. stayed with was interviewed by a male detective. still married at the time and lived near believed there was She never saw again after 1 b6 b7C b6 b7c b6 ut did not know to b7c h stated LNU for returned an FBI investigation related to In approximately June 1998 or 1999 began wo ing at Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florid lwas emplo baby sitter and later as a locker club. therapist. approached In byl father her gain room attendant at the tarted studying for her GED and wanted to become a massage August, was reading an anatomy/massage book and land help her get her masseuse accreditation.' I was I consulted her father about the opportunity and at approximately 5:00 p.m. the same day, her father drove her to a residence at b6 b7C EFTA00277526 r • 202.2(Rsv. 05-08•)0) a I 31E—MM-106062 Continuation of F0.702 of O, 03/17/2011 flir 3 of 12 Florida. spoke with father and told him it was a wonderful opportunity for met lalso known asl upstairs' as led Once upstairs in 'instructed beginning the massage The massage bega techniques to to wash her hands prior to demonstrated massage b6 b7C b6 b7C During the course of the massage" uestioned b6 about her past, including her time as a runaway. was also b7C asked if she took birth control. was given instruction and began kissing At the conclusion' clothes. One wash cloth second was' describe4 and instructed was used to clean o obtain two warm wash to help him relax en moved to the steam room and shower where with soap and a loofah in the shower. At the conclusion of the shower, went downstairs and ssaged Arrangements were made for Mto return to the house the following day after work. cellular phone number was given t4 b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C EFTA00277527 ke:nRcv 05-08-10) 31E -MM -108062 e l Commusuon of FD-302 of 1 On 03/17/2011 .104, 4 of 12 The same routine and pattern of massages and sexual activity between land ontinued for between one and two weeks. At times, Job at Mar-A-Lago and travel was also discussion be paid $200.00 per 'offered the option to quit her There massage training. as to da ijill el and $200.00 per hour for massages. Early in her relationship with' lamed land was introduced asl 'assistant. b6 b7C b6 b7C soon began traveling For the initial six months, traveled 'around the United States and Caribbean, b6 including California, New York City, New Mexico, and various business b7C trips. During those trips,) Six to nine months after began working for' introduced t4 IM0,1 'Florida. Was I in at the time. met the couple at a condominium next to the' la 'The condominium was bought' land was a provided a normal massage t NU. Shortly provided an and cleaned paid cash paid years old at the tim advised ed that still function doing with eight pills per In the condominium, thereafter' LNU erotic massage to I S M She was In add tion, Xanax was 16 introduced her to the drug Xanax. helped her escape from reality but allowed her to normally. Xanax helped her go forward with what she was and others. Her habit went from two pills per day up to day. second client was an academic of some sort described as an older American male' 'sent from Miami International Airport to' I lby commercial airline. was picked up at the airport byl land then taken to the island by boat. b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C of eceiving EFTA00277528 contract prevented period. informatio µ64(RO' OS-OS-ICJ 31E-MM-108062 (Conumailon of FD-302 of pointed .on 03/17/2011 page 5 of 12 . b6 b7c out that' 'instructed I o entertain the client' I I land wanted to ride jet skis and participate in other island activities[ two days pent on the island with the client. assumes t e c lent also traveled commercially. During, thi following several months, Prior to her traveling abroad getting her passport. provided them t traveled internationally ssisted GIUFFRE in of passport photographs of herself and he remaining paperwork was taken care of by IIIIIIIIIItraveled to Paris, France, the France, London, England, Africa, and Spain. While in Paris, recalled staying at a hotel overlooking the Champs-Elysees. While travelingr traveled on a black plane. During the international travel, times, would' At 'Rarely a day would pass' and wanted to talk to (contacted through abou land offered a contract. agreed to the contract for her story and was paid S140,000 for the story, $10,000 when the article was printed, and another $10,000 to be wired into account in May 2011. The from talking to any other press for a specified advised that sheprovided' 1ith detailed I b6 b7C b6 b7c b6 b7C b6 b7c EFTA00277529 atuattv 05-0840) 31E -MM - ( Conttnuation of It -302 of o n 03/17/2011 ppm, 6 of 12 met; lAt age 16, approximately the same age. believed she and 'were I would dress I -----lexplained provided an An unknown ind described' saw' when she arrived at had' said that day was a low stage in her relationship because she could not believe never b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C b6 b7C EFTA00277530 pr ..111I ,;:01a (Rcv 05-08-10) A 31E-MM-108062 Coniinuation of FD-302 0 o, 03/17/2011 FaB0 7 of 12 saw believed the girls may have been' I b6 I but b7c b6 b7C was not certain had a picture ofF 'involvement. of herself she wanted to give' described some of the unique interior areas of 'which IIIIIIIIreferred to which was where stayed. While in New York, also stayed at an apartment on 66th street was aware of 'additional apartments in the same building. According to he apartment building on 66th street was owned byl advised that she had a photo raph of the interior of the 66th f apartment among other photos Street advised that some of her photographs that were provided to her civil attorneys by her family were not returned. One of the missing photos depicted wearing a pink dress while seated on a quad bike. was' (female that formerly lived inl b6 b7C b6 b7c b6 b7C EFTA00277531 jaiRre 05-08.8” 31E-MM-108062 Commumion of FD-302 o. LNU toys, On 03/17/2011 .Page 8 of 12 went shopping together and purchased clothing and sex explained that 1 used a cellular telephone' 'She believed a New York City number but could not recall the number. andF did not unsuccessfully to gets recalled could only remember faces' 'not their names. but she did try t was not recall the wording. advised b6 b7C b6 b7C but she could b6 ILNU. b7C p New Orleans, Louisiana. Orleans. York, Kingdom. traveled' to a self-help conference at a hotel in The hotel s near the H rd Rock Café in New GIUFFRE traveled the worlw 'ncluding the USVI, New Santa Fe, Palm Beach, France, Africa, Spain and the United recalled visiting Alhambra Castle in Spain I eventually traveled to the United Kingdom and b6 b7C b6 b7C EFTA00277532 Ao(Rey.05-0840 • 31E-MM-108062 COnttnation of FD-302 0 03/17/2012 pPar 9 of 12 while there' 'approached in a very excited manner and told her they had to go shopping to pick out a dress because would be dancing with) and' Burberr ba . The items an returned' instructed to get ready. When came down after gettin ready, she was introduced to' went shopping and purchased makeup, clothin , and a were purchased with) danced traveled to CLUB TRAM 'at CLUB TRAMP' 'stayed at CLUB TRAMP for an hour or hour and a half and drank a couple of cocktails before returning to' had not received any direction from After returning toj requested' Ito take a photograph of her' advised that she still had the original photograph in her possession and would provide it to the interviewing agents. proceeded with_ J Approximately two months lateruett I recalled LNU, I recalled 'joking about trading in because she was getting too old. b6 b7c 126 b7C b6 b7c EFTA00277533 4023 (Rei 05-08-10) 31E—MM-108062 Continuation of FD402 a On 03/17/2011 pag, 10 of 12 recalled meeting' and her recollection was not clear. on the island that did not speak English had an unknown accent. as using Xanax heavily at the time, b6 b7C She remembered there were many models along with a modeling person who I I I id not have a problem with using prescription drugs. 'was described by as a I (TRUE NAME UNKNOWN) la ranch employee In, (but could not recall his name. She did have a photograph of the ranch employee. aca emits, p , 1 and oliticians b6 b7C b6 Inc b6 b7c met numerous famous peopl kncluding !and 1 H b6 b7c She me r eceived many gifts! lincludinq jewelry, watches, bags, shoes, make up, clot ina, and home furnishings./ 6IIIIIIM left all of the items behind when she traveled to Thailand to receive massage training. In August 2002, traveled by commercial airline to Bangkok, Thailand and began her massage training at International Training Massage School(ITM) where she receivedt hpr magRAae certification. She stayed at the Princess Hotel in Thailand' I 1 /but never did. stet her future husband,/ 1 during her visit to Thailand. contacted! 'telephonically and i mnld him she had fallen in love with someone. I I b6 b7C b6 b7c and celebrities. EFTA00277534 4,0023 (Rev 05-08-I0) • 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 had not heard from O, 03/17/2011 .ftg, 11 of 12 received a telephone call from[ During that call' stated he was an FBI agent. He was trying to determine what she knew about 1 She did not tell 'anything about her knowledge of She also received another telephone call from a person that indicated he was an FBI agent. She did not tell that individual anything either. She also received a call from an attorney that was trying to determine if she had spoken with anyone or was willing to speak to anyone' 'She explained that she was receiving telephone calls from people whom she did not know and that she was uncomfortable telling them anything over the telephone. One or two weeks later, an unknown attorney and' (contacted telephonically] nor her carrier was using a cellular telephone belonging to her husband. She husband could recall the telephone number but advised that the was OPTUS telephone company. b6 b7C b6 b7C reviewed the following: a series of photographs of individuals and identified Page 1, number 1, LNU, a.k.a b6 b7C Page 1, number 2, Page 2, number 1, Page 2, number 6, Page 3, number 2, Page 4, number 3, LNU Page 4, number 7, Page 4, number 8, Page 5, number 1, advised that the following were familiar to her, but she could not recall their names or her association to them: EFTA00277535 ANxammcvos.osdo 31E-MM-108062 Continuaiion of FD-302 of l Page 1, number 4 Page 2, numbers 7 and 8 Page 3, number 8 Page 4, number 1 Page 5, numbers 5 and 8 The images reviewed by file. O, 03/17/2011 i p ast 12 of 12 were placed in a lA envelope of the case When questioned about United States Customs and Border (CBP) Patrol records of her entries into the United States, advised that her January 2001 record was the return from her London, England trip 'The April 2001 CBP sj record was her return to the United uld not recall her travel from March and May 2001 CPB records advised that her United States Passport was turned over to the United States Consulate in Sydney, Australia. On March 18, 2011, writer, SA) land traveled to residence where she provided 20 photographs and her ITM massage sc oo certification. FD-597 Receipts for Property were executed for the items and a copy was provided to It is noted that the receipts were dated based on the United States Eastern Standard Time Zone date. The photographs, certification and original FD-597s were placed in a lA envelopes of case file. b6 b7C b6 b7C EFTA00277536 r • • 9W' FORM APPROVED OMB NO. Irk; 0016 EXPIRES 03,3 Privacy Act Statement. In accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.41 Kt) personal data sufficient to identify the individuals submitting requests by mail under the Privacy Act of 1974.5 U.S.C. Section 5523. is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals who are the subject of U.S. Department of Justice systems of records are not wrongfully disclosed by the Department. Requests will not be processed if this information is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under IS L'.S.C. Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 5523031. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Office of Management and Budget. Public Use Reports Project (1103-0016), Washington. DC 20503. Full Name of Requester Citizenship Status 2 LX * ; 4'...2-. en. Social Security Number 3 Current Addres Date of Birth , ‘_r Place of Birth S t,Icitn;e 4, OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person This form is also to he canoleted by a mower who is authorizing information relating to himself or herself to be released to another person. Further. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section $52atbl. l authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to: r 6 one. (\No C el s cc . Print or Type Name i declare under penalty of perjury exam the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. and that I am the person lamed above. and I underst. and dot arry fainfactrice of this statement is punishable under the provisions of IS I...S.C. Section 1001 by of tot more than 510,000 or by imprisonment of not mere than five years or both and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false netenses is punishable under the prcrrisions e5 LtS.C. 5$2ari a3) by a foe of not more than 55.000. signature 4 Date w2 1 i • i Name of individual who is the subject of the revard(st, sought Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of )974 moat be either - a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully shouted for permanent residence." pursuant to 5 U S C Section 5523(02). Requests will be processed as Freedom of Information Act equests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests. for individuals who arc not United States citizens or aliens awfully admitted for pennanent residence. 3 Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security number only to facilitate the icntiticetion of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records enaining to you. Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought. LT1P•I CVMI 11.11 EFTA[ADDRESS REDACTED] CRIMINAL DIVISION P.O. Box 2906 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-2906 SHARON R. BOCK Clerk & Comptroller Palm Beach County I III !ill Ili' 'Ili ill a I ill in $2 FIRST C EFTA[ADDRESS REDACTED] REPORTING WITNESS LOG CASE NO. )- - Page • .47 - • • ' of ITNESS = DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS REDIRECT CONTINUED RE-CROSS CONTINUED END TTL ) 1 • a' 18 /41;/,'!',.:::?-s) ',;CA ,!,,.. I:_:---.v :47 / 0:5g:.---2,<3 /Pi/ '42- if . 31' Ii iite=7- . . '1'21- (24 - . zo:./x.:cz:, ii:34:aci .7:_54:47,--- ,y :56:64e /2:;4:56, ewva•-ifroic+ .,fAa),71".e,e7.2)/ 771,74-5 .2)472F2) 4-/g5/0A. —,4•5A : Alof,o1 I 0 y /INN ZeideszfN 1.17:22 /:3•1:.51 Defense A torneylsi: Asst. State ADM: 4444//zak4ow A E A-14.cy Abov .2>/eS1,4A/ EFTA[ADDRESS REDACTED] REPORTING WITNESS LOG STATE V. CASE NO. _ ______ __ - - -- -.- DAT __ E ST WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RE-CROSS REDIRECT or CONTIA'UEL DES 7.49 /CZ> 7f I:14: LC3 1O:620:.28 7/min it inn .. 15" 7404- " • .. 7/141/40/ 71 9:21: 124C 7/19/01. i / I:34:er 7/9/04 1T ;1 :64:M CeMbinty .(2.:".//h3V.(2, -rzemiA ..774Py2)//Cre:7216 2)41-2C7) .4/,2_4,/.0 7494A TT , i . B: Bench Conference Defense Attorney's': *: Motion to Strike Asst. State Atty[s]: 411A/NA 45302.0111AVEK .thipy•flivAtabekviliN Forms:Witness Log - 2005 EFTA00277540 Jy -71/4O, gel/4: Ig 46:o6 „ 21 . 16:01.. 16: j7:16 17: 37. /8: 09 . 5b 2e): 25 9.21: 2z:20... 22: 2q... 2,3.30... 2 (.; Z- 29115.. 21:23 36:62_ 3::I E3 S- I: /3 1,/ .\c.-iSee..A. ay etthaehra47e. tedeadoc440,474Vat.) 77. one- tat doie/t (dee otifrx Ieed/ze fradi /dee ne:, Mee- k/de) edlit e&irze. /5. tie/se9,4 'it ayyszy# aided Ake) tc.ee bric cde/d/inz /fr tOi 1 5/Se.4 ./aeari- -t2 t‘& -Z 6/fi(ttz frr /emit ofeA viet) <7, •:;;A.c7ribry dv.c. . ,ettfr Lwict " 01.142 (Gt . /9O EFTA00277541 a -749 / ( 713 9t/9._ .55: /6 33: I'5 34:a5 35:38 zz) 37: se,. 28: 1L# Ao 40: / .3 .49 40: 3b 4Z o& 42:12 zialteet (est heir:ed ,reefr 9 /$07 4e/cher_ atzfotd.7.4todor_J ,Efrie:e/ desS.,ze z:;9/ vie az /8 fize Ana. SP-zy - it+ ditheefiek‘o 6aeS Iwz die tat de-di adwzbe) ae ileSezzdzailw6e 7i1E 43:52 a -Ad& 4i: /9 i-rente -zero Or see) 44:57. . ea "the atAcade( 46:77.. 6d e-af-ez aredeAdvsei 17: 0 8 at 1" yzet,e.24L.E., 17: 22* zyied, tett, 14: /5 .0r: 223 EFTA00277542 e 1••-• 7.heLL- 7 datpesece _ "frixtelacr ,,#‘Zw, A-2,c)-Aseati 52:00 oh/adz adi-e145 Sae -tan-hi/0d 52: 5g AAA >irtaayagee.- .oe . de. 53: 55 lie 5c 40 ..vatzegadtheeel aye *zio e..idelokleaff#_2po.eze./ .5.5; ¢ 7 .%: 0 Z d 012.1-7,1/ Ad si 25-4 ge2e) • -air a ?ere-12 f:510.3 __raft; _ ST: 55 _ 9iffet 4: ,5g: 2i _zat fot zee2 zgatz. Se: 4,5 49/fiey : 59:00z lietr .54:/7 *efe : 10:66 0 P 17e6Ree (a.-ta: 24e *cold no: 7-8 _nit (89 7 p So gitA&%/Naftli-x_., oz:,k9 feniAfrad 0:77 2 ye e 7,742 03:1 2_ ail> lieg te__ et 0 5 - 9/z /4.5 ✓Ct/aLa2~1i~,' i%"'ad/a filf,4 d5 .5* O: 2_61 reCl 6:5: /0/34  Aek **G`45 Allage / - EFTA00277543 /z727: 50, agived 9 f : 23 10:27 .„5- ‘C • il /61/12‘ ./PlefrX ziI& dfaZ iitay metz4 ate. adiricoe _thdr y deLeadc ._13: /O azd -tag. . 14; 0 5.- aareneed. S200 Zie ;&% 2e Aida 0 -A. atZ daSzed eZZ fkiage4A-&1 *axed( . bee)a(atiakj diezwadazt34gregete# ist heec.)gtee .. Al), - wL/,SeavA ze) joeir izatie 4:37 /5:3O /‘: Zeg 11:LS /5 : O5 is: 30 41<e Se." ali4e / 7>. /970 Ate& Z/:03.. 3 23:3O# Ve 211-04z Z6' &C * 27143. . dee& /6) Z1: 51 :Z¢ • ziewidhet?bitty-egz -zazedz,43- ,ftsetowt- Leda* krAidazii :CAL ale./1t2--Levedy /42d 71 /b ati th /7 EFTA00277544 tty 5 -7/e OA „brit de brnezilata2,406i/ 3/: 05* 6kd .t2,4vieegz /7 • : 5.9794, is,/ ,7).". /9 3Z . . af.),"1-xed 4W G E taelgi-xiept ▪ o o .33:34 .31. 22 _Sea: 22 37:2e 4/: /5 frk ionc&A (fr-eaci are& r.oeiti_) vice icifilowed zal ztitea,,e Jew() 77/zesre--, frr. icaffoieZ _a)zed 47: 47* thitarteecead geesee grA Asivize- ?it duoa ow frseeadayzate a? a siedzeitmaite 42:5£3_. It yeleadadeekatilfr .15. O 042 nese,/ / • 43: 54 Pier eigagezz,z)w.itfrela AC r5 , _dr rta 4:2¢ *tr ti.5: oa re / .95: 3 5 • 15: /17: 0 a_177 47 /S / 2- /c; EFTA00277545 lb: ±5 ie dd. neatsaa." aide- 19:38 Age-latetOdia4i2 /LI 20:.¢3 (eze 20: , dieldattzi / :9 /0.s. do •Cdr: 50: 44 .5/:40f ..5/: se). 62: /2 52:2g 53:20. .53: .52 .50": 52 /2 ¢7 ..5Z; 40 .5732 .58/_3 V: 59, Zg //71: /0 It//:/ ERIE= tel'45'F2), lb: 02 9iitest CC zzaci Jeic , a6a iageZ ee EFTA00277546 nal/Atte es-ore, • /123: 22 ZPV/ayt 23: 3 // " dad) 2¢: 10 fieedit.ed aVllyievavera - 40freti-, 26:14, at-z" heafrhi.laYa/z 25: Sg day#L9 /1 / 9ea6/2-ge&-ti 27:20 gar 1", ze: 4 a _Ina 29: 00 9eler 29:1S__ 7Gay 4: 24: .53 91/44 ; 1/31: 5a_ ax Awed 11:32.; 07 _ "YealEZ //-32. (21t A ) ed-a.w / 1,910 Odd fri)Aii,a /64ice. ase/Afem.Z zaizie-zate-Zio-46)---4442:d i .3t-..o 3 :O2: eno 11:39. 29 35 0' 37: 4is oe 563:3c1 20 a--x_ Aga/ jiff/ 'ieeezaz- atetZo, /64ic See' ?rr orz_ /azz :44/4, efegis ze ri jay 7-ez4f:A/ ezz-d_ g61 azi/eZ- heze "wee /at tzco, EFTA00277547 ird0 /5 40:418X 4/:20A 4z:47. 13:/0 4#:27 5-6,31.t 45. 40 17:07 47: 3,alc 47. 5S 59 50:31 5z 7 -7 52/8 52: 32. 53:39 I:51: 4 z 7:55:3z 57:¢0 57:06 7GY: ,9 if4y g 17' 9/a 6 ntig (ene, .) s ze-zee_, azi)7,-)ei kti#frecsreed_ GL led na a> frazey 9,- te*.eiekdai6ziact Ate ea atitzegeei 52(44ey iL dam. rezeJAegeiredidd AtaY/xiezed /2-407,6e7 :Za-e5e-Z 5keyc L ite-diedfa9.4 eack-atiee,aai,5_flgiezec, 57//47 1: /4a.41 sky #1.4/7 ,aflfroi 7 .n ..-eiddide c ,Y9i6eZ afe,;Pdizt, .zedte ) ,.;vesta.a.ti A,tr,t4say 1_94atiere.six_ EFTA00277548 id* (.7 7Ailee /2a :s lledied>6e/m kekaczz)die2e- 051.3( 77/4 .1 Aide<Wx itaild,j440% SI/dee c - died 07:2e) age I/id ;brae esectee4, adz nyeas/z4v.../ as:29 9,41.7 De: 57 I alias.: ceaer atlayediati-idedx-yrih,trAZAset : iaszia 7ze lie fr edees.i./ 7/O: /0 9ey /0: 2q tyear :622. _9a/er : /2: 3o (10, /3: 20 rey e: 5491 t /1: /5 lay 1: /11:34_ cleat 1 : 10/4: 56._ keeled Ateta/7? --. (2-5/: 4f_S .06Z -39I g 4 -25/ob - 4: thaindlel Fal.e.etc) 7 77: /7 ; ;T. 22 ?Ida/ea ade ¢ Sa aweet:**,i EFTA00277549 scdejezt(eiesci•••-) /: 151:00 l&tricel eke., /t. 20 " P /9: 24 e-ti /rier-eiixt, oiee , • 2/ :/,4 ae) 21: 3 z .41/ %ft , azetie, aid eie;o/ n:00 ke en?.. a 06 ith /Q44,144. al [fia4efivocitt,t.t 24: 10 /mei) (de/ 'tat/bait -4s 27: 52 .5fr/e2‘ fugac./fiefre 2,9: 0 a _ efrix/cilee2thek ak e Atize-e/d4/ 29:55-* /friv,ted /CatieVe.6 N1/4 /251- 6/27/04_ . _ : b4 tali 25 en , 7erzez Sc 15 38 44' ixideigAideetnernei 3/2oM 44211 X55/24 .311:17 g et a _./d a ,_ a fitede iefread 4,_ *deed 35:58 /4t /Ai ;-/c . 2 r /dile Sal) ...54,: /7 X : itake Se xix-edit)2,_Seat--/ A 96:•/-7 tall 1: bdirdzea jr,/a 64-6-- " e 37: S-' • _ IT te, oZ) faty ge: ‘Pk',a17-/redelegiet ;/,;e0f4,c,lyea.e, 5g: al 9l49 5/ if 3,w/a EFTA00277550 UU/U0, ,CUU0 ZU:41 rAA 001OULII01 UbAU Orb ty trJUUZ U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida September 6, 2006 DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Denise Coffman, Esq. Counsel to the Clerk of Court and Comptroller 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida West Palm Beach, Florida Re: Federal Grand Jury Subpoena Dear Ms. Coffman: Thank you for your agreement to accept service of the attached subpoena by facsimile. As I discussed with Kim Collins, the Clerk of Court is the custodian of the transcripts' of the state grand jury proceedings. Ms. Collins asked me to inform you that the transcripts are kept in the Circuit's Criminal Department. Florida Statute Sections 905.17(1) and 905.27 discuss the disclosure of state grand jury transcripts. Pursuant to those statutes, a transcript can be released upon an order of "a court." The statutes do not require that the order be issued by the Palm Beach County Court. I have attached two cases regarding the procedures for obtaining state grand jury transcripts for use in federal grand jury investigations. The cases that I have enclosed suggest that the appropriate way is to issue a federal grand jury subpoena to the party currently in possession of the tapes and/or transcripts of the proceedings. The cases that I have enclosed both involve orders issued by a federal court that compel the production of the transcripts. If the Clerk of Court feels that she cannot comply with the grand jury subpoena absent an order from the United States District Court compelling the production, then you must file a motion to quash the grand jury subpoena before the United States District Judge who empaneled the federal grand jury. Alternatively, if you like, you can state in writing your inability to produce the transcript absent a court order, and I can proceed before the United States District Judge by filing a motion to II do not know whether the grand jury proceedings have yet been transcribed. The enclosed subpoena calls for the tapes or the transcripts. If you would prefer to produce the tapes to be transcribed by one of our grand jury stenographers, that would satisfy the subpoena. If the Clerk of Court would prefer to have one of the state court stenographers do the transcription. production of the transcripts also would suffice. EFTA00277551 U9/Ub/ZUUb ZU:4Z FAA D010041/6( USA° nro FL 14,1 Qua DENnECtolauuskEsQ. SerrEABER6.2006 PAGE 2 compel with a proposed order for the United States District Judge to sign. If you prefer to file your own motion, I can assist in notifying the Court of the motion, which should be filed ex parte and under seal in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(5) and (6). The subpoena calls for the production of the tape(s) OT transcripts by September 15, 2006. If you need any additional time, please let me know. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Special Agent By: Sincerely, Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00277552 UU/U6/ZUUb ZU:4Z !AA Obl4UZII4/ USAU nre I-I. V.J 0.0V United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS Clerk of Court and Comptroller 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-17 SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT[S] YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury ofthe United States District Court at the place, date and time specified below. PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse Juvenile Courts Building 205 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (Temporary location for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) ROOM: Room 4-A DATE AND TIME: August 18, 2006 9:00am YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): Tapes or transcripts of any and all proceedings before the Grand Jury on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, referring or relating to Jeffrey Epstein and/or Sarah Kellen, including but not limited to witness testimony, statements made by any member of the State Attorney's Office, and instructions given by any member of the State Attorney's Office. Please coordinate your compliance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance with Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: (561) 822-5946. Please sec additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. CLERK This subpoena is issued upon application September 6, 2006 Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00277553 UN/VD/LOUD ZU:4C rAA 0010V41JOI VaAv tiff, IL, 832 F.2d 554 832 F.2d 554, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Sm. 275 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554) H United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS—Subpoena to State Attorney's Office. Thomas H. Greene, Dawson A. McQuaig, Jake Godbold, Don McClure, Intervenors- Appellants. Nos. 87-3228, 87-3[SSN REDACTED], and 87-3472. Oct. 26, 1987. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 10, 1987. Persons whose state grand jury testimony had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury appealed from order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Nos. MISC-J-86-183-14, MISC-J-86.183- 4, Susan H. Black, J., which denied motions to suppress subpoenas. The Court of Appeals, Tjoflat, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) appellants could appeal denial of the motions to the extent that they asserted a privilege, but (2) Florida statute imposing secrecy on grand jury does not create evidentiary privilege. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. West Headnotes [1) Criminal Law C=01023(3) 110k1023(3) Grand jury proceeding is not a "civil action" for purposes of statute permitting interlocutory appeals in civil actions with respect to controlling questions of law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b). [2) Criminal Law (C 1023(3) 1101c1023(3) Persons whose state grand jury testimony had been subpoenaed by federal grand jury could appeal the denial of their motions to quash the subpoenas to the extent that they asserted a privilege as to the material, but could not raise issues of procedural violations or federal-state comity on appeal. [3) Criminal Law e8=1023(3) 110k1023(3) When party has been subpoenaed to testify or produce records for grand jury and third-party merely fears that privileged material may be disclosed along with other, nonprivileged material, Page 1 the case is not ripe for appellate review until the subpoenaed party has actually been asked to reveal specific material covered by the assertive privilege. (4) Grand Jury C=D36.9(2) 193k36.9(2) Federal common-law presumption of grand jury secrecy cannot be asserted in the form of a privilege by those seeking to prevent disclosure to a federal grand jury of their state grand jury testimony. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 6(e). 18 U.S.C.A. [5) Grand Jury C=,41.10 193k41.10 [5] Witnesses C=184(1) 410k184(1) Florida statute imposing secrecy on proceedings does not create an privilege. West's F.S.A. § 905.27; Evid.Rule 501, 28 U.S.C.A. *555 Lamar Winegeark III, Arnold. Booth, Jacksonville, Fla., for Greene. grand jury evidentiary Fed.Rules Stratford & Elizabeth L. White, Sheppard & White, William Sheppard, Jacksonville, Fla., for McQuaig. Lacy Mahon, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla.. for appellants. Robert W. Mettle, Curtis S. FaLipner, M. Alan Ccballos, Assk U.S. Attys., U.S. Attorney's Office. Jacksonville, Ha., for appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Before TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Appellants appeal from an order of the district court denying their motion to quash a federal grand jury subpoena directing a state prosecutor to produce transcripts of their testimony before a state grand jury. We affirm. I. In 1985, the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida initiated a grand jury investigation into allegations of improper C 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277554 88/66/2086 20:43 FAX [PHONE REDACTED] tISA0 UPS FL 1j006 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, *555) influence peddling by certain public officials of the City of Jacksonville. Witnesses appearing before the state grand jury included the four appellants in this case: Jake Godbold, then the mayor of Jacksonville. Don McClure, Godbold's chief administrative aide, Dawson McQuaig, a former general counsel for the city, and Thomas Greene, a practicing attorney and an associate of Godbold's. Each of these witnesses appeared and testified voluntarily. No criminal charges resulted from the state grand jury investigation. In August 1985, however, the state grand jury issued a report that identified several instances in *556 which 'political favors and game-playing for friends" had infected the City's process of awarding contracts for professional services. Godbold. McClure, McQuaig, and Greene each waived his right under Fla.Stat. § 905.28(1) (1985) to suppress the report. The report, however, did not contain the substance of their testimony. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors had initiated a federal grand jury investigation into substantially the same matters investigated by the state grand jury. Godbold. McQuaig, McClure, and Greene each indicated that he would assert the fifth amendment if subpoenaed to testify before the federal grand jury. Relying on the disclosure provisions of Fla.Stat. §n905.27(1)(c) (1985). [FNI) the United States in August 1985 petitioned a state to order the StateAttomev_to_nim over tnjhe federal grand jury the appellants' state grand jury testimony. The United States made no factual submission in support of its petition. Jle_state tiigerefagegij i, characterizing the effort to obtain the testimony as a -fishing FNI. Undo this provision, a cowl may order disclosure of grand jury testimony for the purpose of 'fflurthering justice." In October 1986, the federal nand jury issued_a_ subpoena duces tecum ordering the State Attorney to produce appellants' state grand jury testimony. The State Attorney moved the federal district court to juash the subpoena, arguing that disclosure of grand jury transcripts was unlawful under Florida SP law, that the United States had not demonstrated sufficient need for the transcripts, and that comity required the district court to honor the state court's Page 2 ruling against disclosure. Greene and McQuaig then moved the court to permit them to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 and to file similar motions to quash. In his motion to intervene, McQuaig asserted that prior to testifying before the state grand jury, he had received assurances from the State Attorney that Florida law prohibited any disclosure of his grand jury testimony. Greene did not allege in his motion that he had received similar assurances, bui stated that he was entitled to intervene because "state grand jury proceedings (are) secret and confidential by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 905 of the Florida Statutes.' The district court granted the motions to intervene, and subsequently permitted Godbold and McClure _} to intervene as well. [FN2) F/42. Godbold and McClure also based their motions to intervene on the Florida grand jury secrecy requirement. The substance of the privilege that appellants assert is discussed in Part Eft infra. In November 1986, the district court entered an order inviting the United States to make an ex pane factual submission showing why, it needed the state grand jury transcripts. The government declined to accept the invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to co. quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nonhwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667. 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a sufficient need for the testimony. Twenty-eight days after the court panted the motions to quash, the United States filed a " for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order" along with an ex pane affidavit identifying facts supporting the grand jury's need for the testimony. The district court questioned the procedural correctness of the government's motion for reconsideration, and stated that under ordinary circumstances it would not consider the motion. In the court's view, however, denial of the motion would not prevent the United States from obtaining the testimony: the United States could simply reissue the subpoena and defeat any motion to quash on the strength of the information contained in the ex pane affidavit. The court concluded that the most efficient' solution was to consider the newly submitted information in the context of the government's motion for reconsideration. After O 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277555 U*14.$0, LUVO LV.40 fAA JOAOULLIOI VJAV OfD fL wjvul 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, *556) considering the new information in camera, the district court entered an amended order in which it reversed its original order denying the motion to quash. The district court certified its amended order for interlocutory *557 appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1982 & Supp. 11 1984), and this court granted permission to appeal. The four intervenors appealed, although the State Attorney did not. Appellants make two arguments before this court. First, they argue that the government's motion for reconsideration was untimely and that the district court therefore had no authority to hear it. According to appellants, the applicable time limit for the motion was the ten-day limit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). not, as the government contends, the thirty-day limit of 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1982 & Supp. 11 1984). Second, appellants argue that the district court's amended order was in error for the following reasons: (1) the government had failed to demonstrate a sufficient need for appellants' grand jury testimony, and (2) comity required the court to give greater deference to the state judge's decision against releasing the testimony. Because of the nature of our ruling today, we do not reach the merits of these arguments. n. We first address the threshold issue whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Although this court granted the intervenors permission to appeal pursuant to section 1292(b), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v, Tanner. 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11 th Cir.1986), cen. denied. 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Q. 1979, 95 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(b), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final order entered in a civil action if the court is of the opinion that the order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion" and that resolution of the question 'may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." By its terms, section 1292(b) applies only to orders in civil actions, and has no application to appeals in criminal cases. See United States v. Doucer, 461 P.2d 1095 (5th Cir.1972); United States v. Lowe. 433 F.2d 349 (5th Cir.1970). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to section 1292(b) unless the district court's order Page 3 denying the motion to quash can be considered an order entered in a "civil action." (1) We hold that a grand jury proceeding is not a "civil action' for purposes of section 1292(b). Just in terms of the plain meaning of words, it seems self-evident that an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena issued by a grand jury investigating possible criminal violations is not part of a "civil action.' We base our conclusion on more than a mechanical labeling of the proceedings below, however. By expressly limiting section 1292(b)'s application to "controlling question[s] of law" in "civil' cases, Congress clearly indicated its intent not to disturb well-established precedent forbidding piecemeal review of grand jury proceedings. In Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), decided eighteen years before Congress enacted section 1292(b), the Supreme Court held that a district court's denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena was not an appealable final decision within the meaning of the predecessor section of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). Noting that the Constitution itself makes the grand jury part of the criminal process, the Court concluded that "(i)t is no less important to safeguard against undue interruption the inquiry instituted by a grand jury than to protect from delay the progress of the trial after an indictment has been found." Id. at 327, 60 5.Q. at 542; see also Di Bella v. United States. 369 U.S. 121, 124, 82 S.Q. 654, 656-57, 7 L.P.d.2d 614 (1962) ("This insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice, particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases."). Although Cobbledick was based on the principle of finality found in section 1291, that same principle finds expression in section 1292(b). We are unable to conclude that Congress, by authorizing permissive interlocutory appeals of 'controlling question(sj of law' in "civil" actions, intended to undermine the strong policy against permitting appellate interruption of grand jury *558 proceedings. Accord In re April 1977 Grand Jury Subpoenas. 584 F.2d 1366, 1369 (6th Cir.1978) ("(Section 1292(b) ] limits interim review of • a controlling question of law' to civil cases only and, therefore, should not be read to allow interlocutory review of grand jury proceedings."), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 934, 99 S.Ct. 1277, 59 L.E1.26 492 (1979). O 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277556 u US 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, '558) [2] We next examine whether there is a separate basis for appellate jurisdiction in this case. As we have already indicated, orders denying motions to quash grand jury subpoenas are ordinarily not appealable final orders under section 1291. The subpoenaed party can obtain review by refusing to comply with the subpoena and then contesting a contempt citation, which is immediately appealable. See United Stares v. Ryan. 402 U.S. 530, 532-33, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 1582, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971). The contempt route for obtaining review, however, is not open to a third party who claims a privilege of nondisclosure with respect to materials in the custody of the subpoenaed party. In such a case, the putative privilege-bolder has no power to compel the subpoenaed party to incur a contempt citation. And the subpoenaed party, unless he has either a particularly close relationship to the putative privilege-holder or a personal interest in nondisclosure of the material, is unlikely to risk a contempt citation simply to vindicate the rights of the third party. In this situation, the order denying the motion to quash is indeed final with respect to the putative privilege-bolder, for any prejudice be suffers as a result of disclosure will remain forever unredressed unless appeal is permitted. Accordingly, this circuit follows the so-called Perlman exception to the general rule prohibiting interlocutory appeal of orders denying motions to quash grand jury subpoenas. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Twist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United Smiles. 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), and confirmed in United Suites V. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), permits an order denying a motion to quash to be 'considered final as to the injured third party who is otherwise powerless to prevent the revelation." Fine, 641 F.2d at 202. [3) The circumstances supporting application of the Perlman exception are present in this case. Relying on the Florida grand jury secrecy requirement, appellants in essence assert a privilege of nondisclosure. The material with respect to which they assert the privilege—transcripts of their state grand jury testimony—is in the custody of the Page 4 State Attorney. The State Attorney has indicated his intention to produce the transcripts. in light of these circumstances, the order denying the motion to quash is a final order as far as appellants are concerned. We therefore have jurisdiction to hear their appeal. [FN3] FN3. We note that the only material sought from the subpoenaed party in this case is material that falls squarely within the privilege asserted by the third parties. This is not a a then, where a party has been subpoenaed to testify or produce records and a third party moray fears that privileged material may be disclosed along with other, 000privilcgal material. In the latter situation. the case is not ripe for appellate review until the subpoenaed party has actually been asked to reveal specific material covered by the asserted privilege See in re Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe ). 831 F.2d 222 (11th Cir.1987). In deciding that the narrow Perlman exception applies in this case, we have also necessarily defined the scope of the matters properly before us for review. Appellants raise several objections to disclosure, including procedural objections and objections based on comity considerations and the need to protect da Liitatai oulaikaida.-grand jury system. However, the only matter that the Perlman exceptionjives us jurisdiction to review is the appellants' _claim_ of prix ece to prevent — disclosure of their state grand jury testimony. *559 The rationale of the Perlman exception extends only to appeals based on privileges personal to the third party seeking review: if the subpoenaed parry has a direct or primary interest in the right or privilege in question, the concerns giving rise to the Perlman exception simply are not present. Here, to the extent that their objections to disclosure are based .on concerns relating to comity and the integrity of the Florida grand jury, appellants cannot argue that the subpoenaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party—the State of c.rrimseaaad-by Cr" . Attorney— had ants p.. actizttemst theprotection its jury system. Accordingly, the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review the appellants' arguments concerning comity and the need to preserve the integrity of the Florida grand jury. [FN4) Nor does it give us jurisdiction to review their procedural argwrimus. Thus, we do not pass upon the district court's disposition of 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277557 utni 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, *559) those matters and we turn to appellants' claims of privilege. FN4. We should emphasize that this discussion relates only to appellants' right to appeal wider the Perlman exception. It does not relate to their standing to raise these claims before the district court. The appellants' motions to intervene in the district court proceedings reveal the nature of the privilege they assert. Appellant McQuaig's motion stated that "[p)rior to appearing before the [state) Grand Jury, Mr. McQuaig was advised by the State Attorney that pursuant to Section 905.27, Fla.Stat. (1985): a) none of the testimony he provided to the Grand Jury was disclosable under the law; and b) any disclosure of said testimony was a crime." Appellant Green's motion stated that "[the) state grand jury proceedings were secret and confidential by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 905 of the Florida Statutes." Appellant Godbold's motion stated that "testimony was provided with the understanding on the part of Jake Godbold that pursuant to § 905.27 of the Florida Statures. his testimony would not and could not be disclosed under the law." Finally, appellant McClure's motion stated that "[Ole substantial interest of Don McClure is equal to or greater than that of the two other parties previously allowed to intervene? In etc/nine, then, appellants derive the privilege they assert from the Florida statutory grand jury secrecy requirement. The statute imposing that requirement provides as follows: (I) A grand juror, state attorney, assistant state attorney, reporter, stenographer, interpreter, or any other person appearing before the grand jury shall not disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it except when required by a court to disclose the testimony for the purpose of: (a) Ascertaining whether it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of perjury: or (c) Furthering justice. Fla.Stat. § 905.27 (1985). [FN5) F145. The remainder of section 905.27 provides as follows: (2) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, - or Communicate to any other person, or knowingly to Page 5 cause or permit to be published. broadcast. disclosed, divulged, or communicated to any other person. in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand juty. or the Content. gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding. When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a criminal case, it may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney of the court in which such criminal case is pending, and by him to his assistants, legal associates, and employees, and to. the defendant and his attorney, and by the laner to his legal associates and employees. disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to• subsection (I) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the ease and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. (3) NOM* in this section shall affect the attorney diem relationship. A client shall have the right to communicate to his attorney any testimony given by the client to the grad jury, any matters implying the client discussed in the client's presence before the grand jury, 2nd any evidence involving the client received by or proffered to the grand jury in the client's presence. (4) Persons convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided is s. 775.083, or by fine not exceeding $5,000. or both. (5) A violation of this section shall constitute criminal contempt of court. [4] Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that privileges in federal court pros. wsings " 1560 shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." The privilege appellants assert, as stated in their motions to intervene, is based solely on state law. [FN6) We acicnowledge that some federal courts have recognized state law evidentiary privileges in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Flitch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert has an independent basis in the federal common law presumption of grand jury secrecy. That presumption, which is codified it. O 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277558 tj.J.L.1 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 Fad 554,'560) Fed.R.Crim.12. 6(e). relates to disclosure of federal grand jury records. It cannot be asserted in the form of a privilege by appellants. who seek to prevent disclosure of their stare grand jury testimony. [5] We need not apply any such balancing test here, however, because we find that the privilege asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that It)he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses before the grand jury. but for that of the grand jurors, and in furtherance of the public justice. A witness before the grand jury has no privilege of having his testimony there treated as a confidential communication.... Stare a rel. Brown v. Dave11, 167 So. 687, 690 (Fla.1936). Florida case law directly construing section 905.27 fails to provide a contrary interpretation of the relationship between the secrecy requirement and the rights of grand jury wimesses. (FN7j Accordingly, we conclude that Page 6 appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law. A federal court will not selectively reach into a state code and fashion evidentiary privileges merely to suit the purposes of the parties before it. R47. Some Florida cases refer to the "privilege of a grand jury witness, but only with reference to the general principle wider Florida law that a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation mien. See, e.g.. Sae v. Tiller, 111 So.24 716 (FLi.Dist.O.App.1959). IV. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's order denying their motion to quash. Because we must observe the limitations on our appellate jurisdiction discussed above, we dismiss their appeal to the extent that it is based on other objections to disclosure. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 832 F.2d 554, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Sent. 275 END OF DOCUMENT (7 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277559 824 F.Supp. 330 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330) C United States District Court. W.D. New York. In the Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to the Honorable Kevin M. DILLON, District Attorney of Erie County. Civ. No. 92-13A. Feb. 20, 1992. State district attorney moved to quash subpoena duces return issued by federal grand jury seeking production of state grand jury records as part of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcata, J., held that federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police officers. Motion to quash denied. West Headnotes [1] Grand Jury C=025 193k25 Grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. [2) Grand Jury C=36.4(2) 1931136.4(2) Federal grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive. it may not violate constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 17(c), 18 U.S.C.A. (3) Grand Jury C=036.9(2) 193k36.9(2) Federal grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and party seeking to quash subpoena bears burden of showing that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 17(c), 18 U.S.C.A. [4] Grand Jury €36.4(2) 193k36.4(2) Federal grand jury was entitled to subpoena transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of police officers as part of investigation to determine whether officers violated federal criminal civil rights laws during or after arrests; disputed testimony was relevant and neceseary to federal Page 11 grand jury investigation after police officers refused to cooperate, subpoena was definite and did not call for production of unreasonable amount of documents, United States bad strong interest in insuring just enforcement of its criminal laws, and privacy limitations on federal grand jury documents limited potential harm from disclosure. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rules 6(e), 17, 18 U.S.C.A.: N.Y.MnICinney's CPL § 190.25, subd. 4. (5) Grand Jury C=, 36.3(I) 193)66.3(1) (51 States €18.63 360k18.63 State statutes which preclude disclosure of state grand jury records to general public cannot be used to prevent federal grand juries from obtaining records through subpoena. (61 Grand Jury C=36.4(1) 193k36.4(1) Custodian of records, who is proper party for service of federal grand jury subpoena, is person or entity who is in actual possession of documents at time subpoena is issued. N.Y.McKinney's CPL § 190.25, subd. 4. [7] Grand Jury C=.4110 193k41.10 Basic purposes of New York grand jury secrecy laws are: to prevent accused from escaping before being indicted; to prevent tampering with wirntects; and to protect accused person who is not indicted from unwarranted exposure. N.Y.McKinney's CPL § 190.25, subd. 4. [8] Witnesses €184(1) 410k184(1) Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special relationships from disclosure and are generally disfavored in that privileges impede search for truth. (9J Grand Jury C=36.3(2) 193106.3(2) When faced with claim that grand jury should be denied evidence because of privilege, reviewing court must weigh potential harm from disclosure against benefits of disclosure. 62 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277560 .tJ VA 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, *331) *331 John J. DeFranks. J. Michael Marion, Asst. Erie County Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel). Buffalo. NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum. pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 17, filed by Kevin M. Dillon. District Attorney for Erie County, New York. The District Attorney's motion seeks an order from this Court quashing a federal grand jury subpoena for state grand jury records. The parties were given an opportunity to brief and argue their respective positions. After reviewing the submissions of the parties and hearing argument from counsel, the Court denies the District Attorney's motion to quash the subpoena. BACKGROUND A federal grand jury investigation is currently being conducted regarding an incident which occurred on March S, 1990 in the Main Place Mall, Buffalo, New York, involving the arrest of Mark Aiken and Steven Johnson by officers of the Buffalo Police Department. Specifically, a federal grand jury is investigating allegations that certain officers of the Buffalo Police Department violated federal criminal civil tights laws during and after the arrest of Mr. Aiken and Mr. Johnson. [FN I) FNI. The background and focus of the federal grand jury investigation is set forth in greater detail in an in COMM submission of facts surrounding the federal grand jury investigation submitted by the United States. The District Anorney's Office prosecuted Mr. Aileen and Mr. Johnson on numerous state misdemeanor charges arising from this incident. During the state trial, only two of the six or more officers who were either involved in or witnessed the incident in question actually testified. Consequently, the state trial shed little light on the officers' versions of the allegations that are the focus of the federal criminal civil rights investigation. Page 12 Following the conclusion of the state trial, the District Attorney's Office presented the case to an Erie County grand jury that considered whether the officers' actions during and after the arrest of Mr. Aiken and Mr. Johnson constituted violations of state law. The United States, which was then conducting *332 its own investigation, delayed taking any action in the matter in order to prevent interference with the state investigation The Pai<_ cChlungtSinia—airilini- es against any of the police_cifficers. As a result, the-state investigation into the police officers' conduct concluded in approximately November, 1990. When the District Attorney's Office concluded its investigation, the United States conducted an independent review of the matter and concluded that a fedenlgord_ After further investigation, evidence was presented to a federal grand jury in October, 1991. The United States claims that the federal grand jury investigation has reached a logjam because of the refusal of the police officers to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Moreover, none of the officers who are most seriously implicated in the investigation submitted any written reports regarding the alleged incident, nor did most of the officers who were present and should have witnessed the incident. Thus, the United States argues that reviewing the transcripts and tapes of the state grand jury testimony of the police officers is the only way that it will be able to learn the officers' versions of what happened. The United States initially attempted to obtain the state grand jury material through informal means. When thesesfforts failed a iury su was issued to the District_Attomev's Office nn October-25, 1991 for the production of the jury transcripts or tapes o all witnesses who testified in this matter before the Erie County grand jury. At the request of the District Attorney's Office, the return date was delayed until January 8, 1992, in an effort to facilitate the resolution of this matter. When further efforts to resolve the matter failed, the District Attorney filed the present motion to quash, raising four objections to the production of the state grand jury material. First, the District Attorney argues that compliance would be 9 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277561 UOAV no rL i21 UIJ 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as; 824 F.Supp. 330, *332) unreasonable because it would force him to violate state law relating to grand jury secrecy. Second, he argues that the subpoena was served upon the wrong parry. Third, the District Attorney contends that compliance would be unreasonable because it would violate policies of comity. Finally, he contends that the subpoenaed grand jury records are privileged. DISCUSSION [1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292. 297-98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). "A grand jury investigation 'is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.' " Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701, 92 2646, 2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205. 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1974) (quoting Stone. 429 F.2d at 140). In accordance with its broad mandate to investigate possible criminal activity, a federal grand jury has few limitations placed on its subpoena powers. R. Enters.. 498 U.S. at 297-98, 111 S.Ct. at 726. "A grand jury 'may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials.' " id. (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 343, 94 S.Ct. at 617). The only restrictions that have been placed upon the j grand jury concern reasonablenecc and privileges. A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 68S, 92 S.Ct. at 2660; Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the party seeking to quash the subpoena bears the burden of showing that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 300-02, 111 S.C. at 728. '333 In this case, the District Attorney contends that compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable. in order to meet his heavy burden of showing that compliance with the subpoena Page 13 would be unreasonable or oppressive, the District Attorney must prove that (1) "there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury's investigation;" or (2) the subpoena is too indefinite; or (3) compliance would be overly burdensome. Id. After applying these tests to the instant case, the Court finds that the District Attorney is unable to rebut the presumption that the federal grand jury subpoena is reasonable. 14) Regarding the relevancy question, the United States has set forth in some detail, both in its motion papers and in its in camera submission, the reasons underlying the need for the state grand jury records. The United States has been unable to obtain the information contained in the grand jury records from other sources because the police officers have been unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the statements of the police officers and other witnesses who testified before the state grand jury are relevant and necessary to the federal grand jury investigation. It does not appear that the District Attorney challenges the subpoena as being too indefinite or overly burdensome. The Court notes that the subpoena is discreet and calls for the production of speed& material stemming from a particular state grand jury investigation. Thus, the subpoena is sufficiently definite. Flutter, the subpoena does not call for the production of an unreasonable amount of documents. Consequently, producing the requested material would require minimal effort on the part of the District Attorney's Office and therefore would not be overly burdensome. The District Attorney argues that compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable because it would place him in a position where he would be violating state law provisions relating to grand jury secrecy. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 190.25, subd. 4. requires that state grand jury materials be kept secret and therefore prohibits him from turning over the subpoenaed grand jury records to the United States. Be contends that the only way the United States can gait access to these materials is to file a motion in state court pursuant to NN-Crkn-Proc 1-2V/ §_1941,-IS,subd.--4. The Court finds this argument without merit. e 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277562 LIMA 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, *333) (5) Federal courts have consistently held that state statutes which preclude disclosure of records to the general public cannot be used to prevent federal grand juries from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York Stare Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed. 607 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1979). and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.1974). are particularly relevant to the ease at band. Both cases involved federal grand jury subpoenas issued to officials of the New York State Department of Taxation for the production of certain tax records. The petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that compliance would be in violation of certain secrecy provisions of New York State tax laws. These laws are very similar to N.Y.CrimProc.Law § 190.25, subd. 4, which the District Attorney relies on in his motion. The courts in these cases explicitly rejected the argument that compliance was unreasonable because it would force the state officials to violate state law provisions. The courts ruled that the Supremacy Clause must prevail over the state nondisclosure provisions. As the court in In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records stated: The Supreme Court has several times indicated that, by virtue of the supremacy clause, state legislation must yield whenever it comes into conflict with an Act of Congress or the superior authority of the Constitution. Thus, inasmuch as the federal *334 grand jury is a product of the Fifth Amendment and its powers, as a result of its long history and specific Congressional attention. the conflict between stare confidentiality provisions and Congressional or constitutional investigatory powers has resulted in enforcement of federal grand jury subpoenas despite state statutes which would otherwise prohibit compliance. In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax, 468 F.Supp. at 577 (citations omitted). Courts in other Circuits, relying on the Supremacy Clause, have similarly rejected claims from state officials that compliance with a federal subpoena would force them to violate stare confidentiality laws. See, e.g., In re Special April 1977 Grand Jury. 581 F.24 589, 593 n. 3 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1046, 99 S.Ct. 721, 58 L.Ed.2d 705 (1978); Can. v. Monroe Mfg. Co., 431 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1970), cen. denied, 400 U.S. Page 14 1000. 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); In re 1980 United Slates Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Team, 502 F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); United States v. Grand Jury Investi anon F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976). Thus, the case law dearly establishes that state law provisions relating to grand jury secrecy do not preclude a federal grand jury from obtaining stale grand jury records pursuant to a subpoena. IQ The District Attorney further argues that the grand jury subpoena was not served upon the proper parry. Specifically, the District Attorney contends that pursuant to the state grand jury secrecy law, N.Y.Crim.P.Law § 190.25, subd. 4, the state court has the ultimate and exclusive control over the subpoenaed grand jury material and, therefore, is the actual custodian of the grand jury records. Thus, the District Attorney argues that the grand jury subpoena should have been served on the presiding state court judge rather than the District Attorney. The Court disagrees. A custodian of records is the person or entity who is in actual possession of the documents at the time the subpoena is issued. In re Grand Jury Impaneled Jan. 21. 1975, 541 F.24 373, 377 (3d Cir.1976) (citations omitted). In order to testify competently as a records custodian, a witness must be able to verify the authenticity and completeness of the requested documents. In this case, the District Attorney does not dispute the fact that his office poscnses the requested grand jury material, nor does he deny that the grand jury materials were generated as a result of an investigation conducted by his office. Accordingly, the District Attorney's office is the sole entity that can competently testify as to the authenticity' and completeness of the requested material. The presiding stare court judge does not possess the subpoenaed materials nor would he or she have any knowledge concerning the authenticity or completeness of the grand jury records. Thus, the Court finds that the District Attorney's Office is the custodian of the state grand jury records and is therefore the proper party to be served with the subpoena. The District Attorney also contends that compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena would be unreasonable because it would violate policies of comity. Specifically, the District Attorney 4O 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277563 yJ L.1.1 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, •334) contends that, just as the federal government has an interest in protecting the secrecy of federal grand jury material, the state has an interest in protecting state grand jury material from disclosure. Thus, the District Attorney argues that, in order to show proper deference to the State's interest in the confidentiality of the grand jury records, the United States should be required to move initially for disclosure before the presiding state court judge. The Court finds that no such requirement exists. [7] The Court recognizes that "policies of comity and federalism require some deference to the objective sought to be achieved by state confidentiality provisions." In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records. 468 F.Supp. at 577. The basic purposes of the stale grand jury secrecy laws in question are: (1) to prevent an accused from escaping before he is indicted: (2) to prevent tampering with witnesses; and (3) to protect an accused person who is not indicted from unwarranted exposure. People v. McAdoo, 45 Misc.2d 664, 257 N.Y.S.2d 763, ord. 51 Misc.24 263, 272 *335 N.Y.S.2d 412, ctn. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), will adequately ensure that none of the purposes of the stare grand jury secrecy laws are undermined by compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena. See In re New York Grand Jury Subpoena for Stare Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. at 577-78: see also United States v. Field, 532 F.2d 404, 407-08 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.O. 354, 50 L.Ed.2d 309; In re Grand Jury Empaneled Jan. 21, 1975, 541 F.2d at 377-78. Moreover, it is important to note that comity is a policy which must be balanced against "the necessity of thorough grand jury investigations into violations of federal law." In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York Stare Income Tax Records. 46S F.Supp. at 577. In this case, the subpoenaed documents are necessary to the federal grand jury investigation. Thus, the policy of comity must yield to the constitutional right and duty of the federal grand jury to conduct a broad investigation. Page 15 Id. 468 F.Supp. at 578. Finally, the District Attorney contends that the motion to quash should be granted because the subpoenaed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and are therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. Unked States, 445 U.S. 40, 50. 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v, Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United Stares v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 5.O. 3090, 3108- 09, 41 L.Ed.24 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil:, Dressler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986). and privileges, "whatever their origins ... [should) not [be) lightly created or expansively construed." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710. 94 S.Ct. at 3109. [9] When faced with a claim that a grand jury should be denied evidence !rause of privilege, the reviewing court must weigh the potential harm from disclosure against the benefits of disclosure. American Civil Liberties Union of Miss.. Inc. v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1343 (5th Cir.1981). In this case, the federal grand jury is investigating possible violations of federal criminal civil rights laws by police officers of the Buffalo Police Department. As fully explained in the United States' in camera statement of facts, the subpoenaed documents are vital tai the grand jury investigation and arc not simply needed to assess credibility of potential witnesses. In addition, the information sought to be obtained from the subpoenaed material is not otherwise available since the police officers are unwilling to talk to the FBI. Thus, the grand jury may not be able to learn the truth of the allegations without the subpoenaed material. On the other side of the scale, the potential harm from disclosure of the state grand jury material is minimal. Because Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) limits disclosure of federal grand jury material, the © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277564 824 F.Supp. 330 (Cite as; 824 F.Supp. 330, '335) secrecy of the subpoenaed documents would be closely guarded. Thus. since the benefits of disclosure in this case substantially outweigh the potential harm from disclosure, the Court finds that the state grand jury records are not privileged as a matter of federal common law. See Matter of Special April 1977 Grand Jury. 581 F.2d at 592-93; In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 563 F.2d 577, 582-85 (3d Cir.1977); In re Grand Jury Empanekd January 21, 1975, 541 F.2d at 382-83. In sum, the United States has a strong interest in ensuring the just enforcement of its criminal laws. Public policy has long favored giving the grand jury broad powers of investigation. The District Attorney, who has the burden of proving that the subpoena should be quashed, has failed to establish *336 that the subpoena is unreasonable or that it Page 16 violates any recognized privilege. Furthermore, because of the secrecy provisions of the federal grand jury, little or no prejudice would result to the state from compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Court denies the District Attorney's motion to quash the federal grand jury subpoena. This Decision and Order and the entire file are to be filed under seal. It is so ordered. 824 F.Supp. 330 END OF DOCUMENT © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277565 CD-R lx-52x 100MB, 80 min rie04. EFTA00277566