Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00101890DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: 'a

From: 'a To: Ma Cc: Min alMIE > Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:12:30 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-31,_GM,_siped_protective_orderjdocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 28,_govemment_letter re_protective_order (docketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,_memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a couple issues. First, as we've previously talked about (though not for some time), now that there is a protective order entered in the Maxwell case, we expect to begin making discovery productions to the defense this coming week. As you know, defense counsel argued that they should be able to publicly identify victims in certain circumstances, which we vigorously opposed, and ultimately the judge ruled in our favor. The protective order is exceptionally strong, and is attached along with the Government's letter on this issue and the Court's opinion. As you would expect, some of the discovery we will begin to produce will include

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00101890
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

From: 'a To: Ma Cc: Min alMIE > Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:12:30 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-31,_GM,_siped_protective_orderjdocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 28,_govemment_letter re_protective_order (docketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,_memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a couple issues. First, as we've previously talked about (though not for some time), now that there is a protective order entered in the Maxwell case, we expect to begin making discovery productions to the defense this coming week. As you know, defense counsel argued that they should be able to publicly identify victims in certain circumstances, which we vigorously opposed, and ultimately the judge ruled in our favor. The protective order is exceptionally strong, and is attached along with the Government's letter on this issue and the Court's opinion. As you would expect, some of the discovery we will begin to produce will include

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: 'a To: Ma Cc: Min alMIE > Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:12:30 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-31,_GM,_siped_protective_orderjdocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 28,_govemment_letter re_protective_order (docketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,_memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a couple issues. First, as we've previously talked about (though not for some time), now that there is a protective order entered in the Maxwell case, we expect to begin making discovery productions to the defense this coming week. As you know, defense counsel argued that they should be able to publicly identify victims in certain circumstances, which we vigorously opposed, and ultimately the judge ruled in our favor. The protective order is exceptionally strong, and is attached along with the Government's letter on this issue and the Court's opinion. As you would expect, some of the discovery we will begin to produce will include information about your clients, including in particular your client who is identified as Victim-2 in the indictment. Those materials may include information such as her name and date of birth, in connection with documents we have gathered, and which require production. Consistent with the protective order, defense counsel may not disclose or distribute any discovery materials except under very strict conditions, and in any event the defendant and counsel "are strictly prohibited from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery." To the extent they need to reference the identity of individuals as part of their investigation, e.g., in individual interviews, any potential defense witnesses and counsel are similarly prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating such identifying information. We realize that for- But given all the circumstances, as well as the potential applicability to your other clients, we nevertheless did want to let you know that we are beginning to make discovery productions, in an abundance of caution and in the interests of transparency. Additionally, when we make the initial discovery production, with your permission we may advise defense counsel that each victim in the Indictment is represented by counsel, and identify the counsel for each person (i.e., we would identify you as counsel for . The reason we would do that would be to preempt attempts at direct contact with represented witnesses by defense counsel or defense investigators. For your client in particular, we note this because ease et us now i you ave a pre erence on t is, an so appy to iscuss it via phone. As always, please do not hesitate to be in touch on any of these issues, we'll keep you advised of any significant developments, and thanks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of New York EFTA00101890

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Wire Refreference
Wire Refreferenced

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Federal prosecutors allegedly back‑down on Epstein victim notifications after pressure from Epstein’s lawyers, with DOJ officials’ communications revealing internal conflict

Federal prosecutors allegedly back‑down on Epstein victim notifications after pressure from Epstein’s lawyers, with DOJ officials’ communications revealing internal conflict The passage provides concrete names (Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta, Lefkowitz, Starr) and dates (2008, 2013) showing possible obstruction of victim notifications in the Epstein case, suggesting a lead for investigating DOJ and FBI decision‑making. While it ties high‑level officials, the claim of pressure from Epstein’s attorneys is not yet corroborated, limiting the score to the high‑mid range. Key insights: Jeffrey Sloman, top aide to U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, planned to notify Epstein victims after a plea deal was signed.; Lefkowitz warned Acosta that the office had promised not to contact victims or potential claimants.; Federal prosecutors resumed the FBI investigation and interviewed witnesses in NY and NM while plea negotiations continued.

1p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017

15 July 7 2016 - July 17 2016 working progress_Redacted.pdf

Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Irons, Janet < Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:47 AM Richard C. Smith     Hello Warden Smith,     mother is anxious to hear the results of your inquiry into her daughter's health.   I'd be grateful if you could  email or call me at your earliest convenience.  I'm free today after 2 p.m.  Alternatively, we could meet after the Prison  Board of Inspectors Meeting this coming Thursday.    Best wishes,    Janet Irons    1 Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent:

1196p
House OversightUnknown

Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case

Defense Claims DOJ Official Misrepresented Deferred Prosecution Agreement Modifications in Epstein Case The passage outlines a dispute over a purported modification to Jeffrey Epstein's Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) by U.S. Attorney Paul Acosta and SDFL prosecutor Michael Sloman. It suggests possible procedural misconduct or bad‑faith tactics by DOJ officials, which could be a concrete lead for further FOIA requests, interview of the attorneys involved, and review of the December 19, 2007 letter. While the actors are high‑profile (U.S. Attorney, federal prosecutors), the claim is not novel and lacks specific evidence of wrongdoing beyond contradictory statements, placing it in the strong‑lead range. Key insights: Sloman threatened to terminate the DPA unless Epstein complied with a 'unilateral modification' that defense says was never formally agreed to.; The defense asserts the December 19, 2007 letter from U.S. Attorney Acosta only proposed changes, which were rejected by defense counsel.; The SDFL allegedly refused to provide needed information for Epstein to meet the alleged new pleading and sentencing requirements.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Email chain discussing the documentary "Inside Job" and its portrayal of financial crisis actors

Email chain discussing the documentary "Inside Job" and its portrayal of financial crisis actors The passage merely references a public documentary and names well‑known officials (Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, Bush, Greenspan) without providing new facts, specific transactions, dates, or actionable leads. It offers no evidence of misconduct beyond what is already publicly reported, making it low‑value for investigative follow‑up. Key insights: Mentions Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner as featured in the film.; References Lawrence H. Summers and Alan Greenspan as quoted in the documentary.; Alludes to criticism of the 2008 financial crisis handling but provides no new data.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alleged Collusion Between Federal Prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein in Secret Plea Deal

The passage details specific names of senior prosecutors and legal officials (e.g., Alexander Acosta, Alan Dershowitz, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, Kenneth Starr) discus Emails and letters suggest prosecutors coordinated with Epstein’s lawyers to keep the deal confident Alexander Acosta is named as having been “unduly measured” by Epstein and involved in the agreemen

4p
House OversightUnknown

Kirkland & Ellis Letter (June 19, 2008) from Kenneth Starr urging DOJ Deputy Attorney General to halt federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein

Kirkland & Ellis Letter (June 19, 2008) from Kenneth Starr urging DOJ Deputy Attorney General to halt federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein The document provides a detailed, contemporaneous account of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, a violated Non‑Prosecution Agreement, and mentions high‑level officials (Deputy Attorney General, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, former President Bill Clinton) that could be pursued for further investigation. It includes specific dates, subpoena details, and names of attorneys, offering concrete leads, but the claims are largely unverified and rely on the law firm’s advocacy, limiting its immediate explosiveness. Key insights: Letter dated June 19, 2008 from Kenneth W. Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to Deputy Attorney General John Roth.; Claims that the federal grand jury investigation was re‑started in violation of a September 24, 2007 Non‑Prosecution Agreement with Epstein.; Alleges misconduct by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Villafana and Sloman, including alleged self‑dealing and conflict‑of‑interest.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.