EFTA00020119.pdf
39.5 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email
File Size:
39.5 KB
Summary
This document is an email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Epstein's defense lawyers (Weinberg, Miller, Weingarten) dated August 22, 2019 (shortly after Epstein's death). The email discusses a scheduled call regarding civil forfeiture and formally requests that the defense team return or certify the destruction of all discovery materials due to the expected 'nolle order' (dismissal of charges due to death). The prosecution aims to advise the Court at an upcoming Tuesday hearing that no discovery obligations remain.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin G. Weinberg | Defense Attorney |
Recipient of email, addressed as 'Marty'. Asked to destroy discovery materials.
|
| Michael Miller | Defense Attorney |
Recipient of email, referred to as 'Mike'. Mentioned regarding a conference call.
|
| Reid Weingarten | Defense Attorney |
Recipient of email.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant (Deceased) |
Mentioned in Subject line 'U.S. v. Epstein call'.
|
| Redacted Sender | Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Sender of the email from the Southern District of New York.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District of New York |
Office of the sender (Assistant U.S. Attorney).
|
|
| The Government |
Referring to the prosecution/US Government.
|
|
| The Court |
Judicial body overseeing the case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the sender.
|
Relationships (2)
Email correspondence regarding discovery and court orders.
Sender suggests calling Weinberg 'or Mike to conference you in'.
Key Quotes (2)
"based on the expected nolle order, and in connection with the protective order in this case... 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"Source
EFTA00020119.pdf
Quote #1
"We want to be able to advise the Court on Tuesday that there are no outstanding discovery obligations on either side"Source
EFTA00020119.pdf
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,441 characters)
From: [REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
To: "'Martin G. Weinberg'" <[REDACTED]>, "'Miller, Michael'" <[REDACTED]>,
"'Weingarten, Reid'" <[REDACTED]>
Cc: "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>, "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: U.S. v. Epstein call
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:09:19 +0000
To: "'Martin G. Weinberg'" <[REDACTED]>, "'Miller, Michael'" <[REDACTED]>,
"'Weingarten, Reid'" <[REDACTED]>
Cc: "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>, "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: RE: U.S. v. Epstein call
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:09:19 +0000
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.
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.
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
Southern District of New York
EFTA00020119
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document