EFTA00029728.pdf
54.1 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain
File Size:
54.1 KB
Summary
An email exchange between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Martin Weinberg, Michael Miller, Reid Weingarten) occurring in late August 2019, shortly after Epstein's death. The correspondence concerns the logistical wrap-up of the criminal case, specifically the 'expected nolle order' (dismissal), the return or certified destruction of discovery materials, and a follow-up on civil forfeiture.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin G. Weinberg | Defense Attorney |
Addressed as 'Marty', recipient of the emails; CC'd in header.
|
| Michael Miller | Defense Attorney |
CC'd in header; referred to as 'Mike' in body regarding a conference call.
|
| Reid Weingarten | Defense Attorney |
CC'd in header.
|
| Redacted Sender (Aug 25) | Government Official/Prosecutor |
Asking about defense's intention to address the Court and return of discovery.
|
| Redacted Sender (Aug 22) | Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Sender of the previous email regarding civil forfeiture and discovery destruction; identified by signature.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Mentioned in subject line 'U.S. v. Epstein'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction listed in the signature block of the Assistant U.S. Attorney.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney's Office |
Implied by 'Assistant U.S. Attorney' title.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the U.S. Attorney's office involved.
|
Relationships (2)
Referenced together for a conference call ('give you (or Mike, to conference you in) a call').
Correspondence regarding case dismissal and discovery obligations.
Key Quotes (4)
"whether the defense intends to address the Court beyond noting that there is no objection to the dismissal?"Source
EFTA00029728.pdf
Quote #1
"certify that all discovery received has been security destroyed or deleted"Source
EFTA00029728.pdf
Quote #2
"based on the expected nolle order"Source
EFTA00029728.pdf
Quote #3
"We want to be able to advise the Court on Tuesday that there are no outstanding discovery obligations"Source
EFTA00029728.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,955 characters)
From: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: "Martin G. Weinberg" <[Redacted]>, "Miller, Michael" <[Redacted]>, "Weingarten, Reid" <[Redacted]>, "[Redacted]" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Epstein call
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:04:28 +0000
To: [Redacted] <[Redacted]>
Cc: "Martin G. Weinberg" <[Redacted]>, "Miller, Michael" <[Redacted]>, "Weingarten, Reid" <[Redacted]>, "[Redacted]" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Epstein call
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:04:28 +0000
Marty,
Following up on our conversation last week, are you able to share with us your thoughts on whether the defense intends to address the Court beyond noting that there is no objection to the dismissal?
Separately, if you could please let us know the status of the return of discovery materials, we would appreciate it. We are hopping to be able to tell the Court on Tuesday that this issue is resolved.
Thanks,
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:09 PM, [Redacted] <[Redacted]> wrote:
Marty,
I got your voicemail from this morning regarding follow-up on civil forfeiture—we have a meeting at 12:30 that I expect will go approximately 15 minutes and will plan to give you (or Mike, to conference you in) a call after that, so approximately around 12:45 – 1:00.
Separately, based on the expected nolle order, and in connection with the protective order in this case, in advance of the hearing on Tuesday can you please either return to the Government all discovery you received in this case and certify that any copies have been security destroyed or deleted, or, alternatively, simply certify that all discovery received has been security destroyed or deleted? (As to the second option, that is to say that you do not need to make additional copies of electronic materials to formally "return" them to us if it is more efficient to simply delete and destroy the existing electronic copies you have.) We want to be able to advise the Court on Tuesday that there are no outstanding discovery obligations on either side based in connection with the protective order.
Thank you,
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
[Redacted]
EFTA00029728
Southern District of New York
[Redacted]
EFTA00029728
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document