UNITED DISTRICT DISTRIC-4.1T-.3 OF CASE No JANE DOE AND DOE UNITED OF AMERICA,-6.1 Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EP-4.3STEI FOR LI-6.3MITED INTERVENTION 2730.9Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves pursuant to Fe Crim8.1 a and5.7 he be pe4.9rm8.9itted to inte4.9r4.1v1.1ene the4.9 lim8.9ited pur4.1pose of4 protecting6 his in6teres5.2t-1.2s in th6e sec4.8r-1ecy of9 m7.9a-1.1tters which occurred before the federal gr and juries of which he was the target On July the governm8.4e-.6nt iled a privilege log in response to this Court?s order of June Doc in which it asserted that it could not disclose an array of m8.5a-.5terials because of the prohib5.5ition agains4.7t d5.5i-1.7sclosu5.5re of m8.3a-.7tters occurring b5.5e-.7fore the jury set forth5.5 in Fed Crim8.1 The Court?s order give the plaintiffs da-5.7ys after the filing of the governm8.4e-.6nt?s privilege log to m8.4ove to com8.4p.6el pr oduction of m8.1a-.9terials with respect to which the governm8.2e-.8nt has asserted a privileg or bar to disclosure If th plaintiffs to production of any as to which the govern has asserted the Rule disclosure prohibition Mr Epstein has enfo rc4.8eable4.8 priv6ate in6tere4.8sts5.2 in the4.8 contin6ued sec4.8r-1ecy6 of4 m8.8a-.1tters which occur3.5r-1.5ed the two that the issue4.5 whether he comm8.5itted indictable federal offenses and he should be perm8.3itted to intervene to en5.5sure that interests Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of are Mr Ep5.8stein5.8 is to in5.8tervene will com8.6p.8ly with th5.8e tim8.6e and page lim8.6itations pleadings set forth in the Court?s June order The plaintiffs object to this m8.1o.3tion The governm8.1e-.9nt does not object to this m8.1o.3tion I 2108.4INTERVE-3.7NTION AS OF RIGHT party intervene as of right under Rule a if the applic ation to inte4.4rvene is tim9ely the party an inte5res5.4t-1 rela5ting to the property or transactio which is the subject m8.4a-.6tter of th5.6e action the party is situated that dispo5.4s-.4ition5.4 of th5.4e action a practical m9.2a.2tter im9.2pede or impair its ab5.9ility to protect inte4.7rest and the intere4.7st repres5.2ented6 inadequa4.8tely6 by the ex6.1is5.3ting pa4.9rties to the Chiles Thornburgh F.2d 11th Cir The circum)8.3stances here easily satisfy all four elem7.8ents of the standard A Timeliness.5.2 In asses5.3s.3ing6.1 the tim8.9eline4.9ss m8.9o1.1tions to interv en6.2e courts are5 to conside5r-.8 of during which the would-be intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest the cas4.4e befo5.2re he petitio5.2n.2ed for leav interve5.1n1.3e the tent of prejudice to the existing parties as a result of the would-be interv failure to apply as soon as he knew or reasonably should have known of hi interest the extent of prejudice to the would-be-5.9 intervenor if his petitio5.5n is denied5.5 and th6e existen6ce o6f4 unusual circum8.8stances5.2 m8.8ilitating eithe5.1r-.7 or against a d6.3e.1term9.1ination6.3 that the ap6.3plica5.1tion is tim9.1ely United States Jefferson County F.2d 11th Cir Tim)7.9elin ess is not lim ited to chronological considerations but is to be determ8.4ined from8.4 all the circum8.4stances Stallworth Monsanto Co Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of F.2d 5th Cir Am)7.9ong the circ um7.9stances which be considered is the purpose for which intervention is sought National Resources Defense Council Costle F.2d D.C.Cir m8.8o1tion tim8.8e-.2ly becau6se it seeks interven5.8tion only for the lim8.6ited purpose of opposing disclosure to plaintiffs of m8a-1tters which occurred befo re the grand juries at issue That issue did not ripe until July when the governm7.8e-1.2nt filed its privilege log asser4.2ting th6.2at the dis5.4c0lo6.2sure of various listed materials is prohibited by Rule which first provided6.1 no6.1tice4.9 Epstein6.1 his inte4.9rests in m8.6a-.4intain5.8ing the4.6 grand5.8 jury were at issu5.9e Plain5.9tiffs will not prejud5.9iced the requ5.7es4.9ted in5.7terven5.7tion as Mr Epstein has prom8.2ptly moved to intervene and in any event li tigate the Rule issue with)5.4 the governm8.3e-.7nt if they choose to challenge the governm8.3e-5.7nt?s reliance on Rule through a motion to com8.3p.5el Mr Epstein on the other hand will be severely prejudiced if his m8.3o.5tion denied as he will be denied the opp6ortunity to s5.2eek to6 pr4iva4.8t3.8e in6tere4.8sts5.2 in the See Section I in6.2fra Epstein Has an Interest Relating to the Property or Transaction Which Is the Subject Matter of the Action Maintaining5.7 2490confidentiali ty of grand jury5.8 proceed5.8ing5.8s0 protects5 s5e-.4veral im8.6portan5.8t3.6 interests of the governm8e-1nt and of private citizens In re Grand Proceedin5.3gs F.3d 5th Cir em8phasis added Rule prohibits disclosure of occurring before a grand jury to protect th s4.7ecrecy which is critical to th grand jury process including protection of the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted United States Eisenberg F.2d 11th Cir See e.g Applica5.5tion5.5 of Dow Jones Inc F.2d 2d Cir Not the least im portant consideration is to protect the Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of good and reputation of those investigat ed but not indicted by the grand jury Lucas Turner F.2d 7th Cir One of the principal reasons for preserving the secrecy of grand jury p5.5r3.5oceedings is to protec the reputatio5.7ns of both witnesses and5.7 those under investigation In re Grand Jury Investigation F.2d at The rule of secrecy avoids injury5.9 to th5.9e repu5.9tation5.9 of those p5.9e-.3rsons accu sed of crimes whom8.1 the grand5.3 jury does no5.3t indict are th5.9e private in5.9terests at stak grand jury secrecy that private parties4.9 bring civil action5.9s.1 injun5.9c-.3tive relief3.9 to prevent future violations of Rule by governm8.4e-.6nt actors subject to the Ru le disclosure prohibition See e.g United States Barry F.2d D.C.Cir United States B6.9l-1.1alock F.2d 11th Cir Eisenberg supra If as in these cases private in dividuals may be entitled to relief after th6.7ere been a Rule violation th en surely a private individual has recognizable and im7.7portant interests in preventing a Rule violat ion from occurring in the firs4.9t place The m8.1a-.9terials to which the governm8.1e-.9nt has a sserted the Rule bar to disclosure include m8a-1terials which would disclose substan tia4.7l portions5.1 the evidence pres5.1en5.9ted to the4.8 grand jury both documentary and te stim8.6onial and draft indictm8.6e-.4nts of Mr Epstein all of which rela4.6te to a4.6l-1.4legation5.8s0 now than ears old of a highly sensitive nature which Mr Epstein never had the opportunity to refute and which if the non-prosecution agreem8.3ent in force as it contractually and cons4.9titu5.7tionally s4.6hould he will never refute He has a profound5.4 interest in opposing the release to plaintiffs of this grand jury m7.9a-1.1terial which can only redound to his severe prejudice and injury Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Epstein6.1?4.1s interests assum8.9e-.1 enhanced im8.9porta nce in ligh6.2t-1 of the fact that the conte5.2n1.4t of most if not all of the material to which the governm8.4e-.6nt has asserted the Rule disclosure prohibition are fundamentally irre levant to the issues before the Court in plaintiffs action nam8.4e-.6ly whether the governm8.4e-.6nt violated their rights under the CVRA While it m8.2a-.8terial for the plaintif8.4fs to know for exam8.2ple that the grand jury investigation continued beyond Septem7.9ber and apparently into as the privilege log reve als the details of the grand jury?s investigation such6 as who testif4ied bef4o1re th grand jury who the grand jury was investigating in addition to Mr Epstein what documents were produced in response to grand jury subpoenas and what the content of hose docum8.2ents did or did not reveal is not inform8.3ation which plain5.5t3.3iffs need or to which they should be perm8.5itted access to sup5.7port their effort to pro5.7v.7e that the g5.7overnm8.5e nt violated their CVRA rights Epstein Is Situated So That Disp osit4io6n of the on as a Practical Matte4.5r Ma5.7y Impede Impair His Ability to Protect Intere4.4st.5.6 W4.7h.9ile Mr Epstein theor3.9e-.3tica4.7lly be ab5.9le to bring a separate ci v5.9il action s5.1eeking enjoin any f8.4u.4ture violation of the grand jury secrecy requirem8.1ent by the governm8.1e-.9nt the issue bef3.7o.7re the Court now and will resolved the Court the plaintif3.8f3.8s0 m8.6ove to com8.6p.8el production of any of the m8.4a-.6terial with respect to which the governm7.9e-1.1nt has asserted the Rule disclosure prohibition As a practical therefore th Court?s ruling on any m7.7o-.1tion to com9p1.2el f4.2iled by will de5term9ine Epstein6.4?-.6s inte5.2rests well as th6.4ose the governm8.2e-.8nt and he should be perm8.2itted to intervene to oppose any such disclosures Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Epstein?s Interests in the Con6.3t inued Secrecy of Ma tters Which Occurred6.4 Before Grand Jury Would Not Be Adequately Repres4.3e3.9n1.3ted by the3.9 Existing Parties to the Suit Mr Epstein and the governm7.9e-1.1nt may share a common goal of opposing disclosure of m8a-1tters occurring before the grand jury bu5.8t inte4.6rests as well as w8h.8at th5.8ey wo5.8uld br3.8ing to the Court on the issue vary subs tantially Although the E6.1l-1.9eventh Circ uit has sa4.6id th5.8at is5 a presum8.4ption of adequate rep5.6r-1.4esen5.6tation where an existing5.6 party seeks4.8 the objectives the interven5.9ers Stone First Union Corp F.3d 11th Cir that presum8.5ption is a weak one id interveners need only show that the current party?s representation may be inadequate and the burden for m8.5a-.5king such a showing is Id em8.6phasis added quoting Clark Putnam County F.3d 11th Cir See e.g Georgia United States Corps of Engineers F.3d 11th Cir The proposed intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequate4.9ly r4.1e-.1presen6.1t its inte4.9rests but this burden6.3 is treated Federal Sav5 and Loan Ins Corp Falls Chase Special Taxing District F.2d 11th Cir The proposed intervenor?s burden to show that their interests may be inadequately represented is em8.5phasis in original govern5.7m8.5e-.5nt has its own institu5.7tional inte rests in preserving grand jury secrecy,5.2 but those interests differ from8.7 the private intere sts of Mr Epstein The governm8.2e-.8nt has several interests protected by the gra nd jury secrecy requirem8.1e-.9nt First if preindictm8.5e-.5nt proceed5.7ings were public prospectiv5.5e witnesses would be hesitant to forward voluntarily know ing that those against whom7.9 they testify would be aware of that testim7.8ony Moreover witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less like4.7l3.7y to tes5.1tif3.9y f3.9u.9lly and frankly as they would be open to retribution as well to inducem8.2ents There would also5.4 be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee or would try to influence individua grand jurors to vote against indictm8e-1nt Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of In re Sealed Case No F.3d D.C.Cir quoting Douglas Oil Co of California Petrol Stops Northwest Mr Epstein on the other hand has his own personal privacy and reputationa interests in m8a-1intaining the secrecy of m8.3a-.7tters which occurred before the grand jury which belong to him8 individually and which the governm8.4e-.6nt is un5.6certain to or even5.6 ass4.8e-.6rt in oppos5ition5.8 disclosu re or adequately5.1 protect See Matter of Special March Grand Jury F.2d 7th contrasting institutional inte rests which range from not forewarning the targets of the grand investigation to prot ecting witnesses and grand jurors from7.6 reprisals with personal-7.4 and private interests m8.3a-.7inly in reputation that the ex parte nature of the grand jury puts at risk for exa-5.7m8.3ple the reputation of a person accuse of wrongdoing by a witness before the grand jury divergence of interests between the governm8.1e-.9nt and Mr Epstein is illustrated by governm8.3e-.7nt?s privilege log itself While the gover nm8.8ent required to file the privilege log on the public docket Doc at and to prov ide certain specified inform8ation including the general sub5.6j-1.6ect m8.4a-.6tter of each with5.6held docum8.4ent id Rule to whic the Court cited expressly provides that the inform8ation spec in the4.3 rule is to be provided unless divulgen6ce-5.2 of such information would cause disclosure of the allegedly privileged information em7phasis added Although Mr E)6.1p.3stein does not wish to be unduly critical of the governm8.3e-.7nt?s efforts to com8.6p.8ly with the Cour3.8t?s5 order th governm8e-1nt?s privilege log has itself breached5.4 th5.4e grand5.4 jury5.4 secrecy requirem8.3ent going beyond general subject m8.3a-.7tter to reveal the of e-5.6n.5tities and individuals which were the subj ect of grand jury subpoenas and which produced docum8.1e-.9nts and records relating to Mr Epstei pursuant to those subpoenas see Doc at Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of the name of an individual for whom8.3 i-6.7m3.3munity was requested at and the of subjects and targets of the grand jury?s investigation id at as well as Mr Epstein?s The Governm8.4e-.6nt?s privilege log even referenced5.9 the exis5.1tence of draft and signed ind6.9i-.3ctm9.7e.7nts at This is all inf8.9o.9rm8.7ation falling within the core gran5.9d jury secrecy protectio5.9n m8.7a-.3ndated by Rule See e.g Hodge F.B.I F.3d D.C.C ir identities of individu5.4als who received grand ju5.4ry subpoenas fell with5.4in Rule In re Case F.3d D.C.Cir It woul ordinarily be a violation of Rule to disclose that a grand jury is investiga ting a particular person re Gra5.6nd Jury Pro5.6ceedings F.2d 6th Cir Confidential docum8.2entary inform8ation not otherwise public obtained by the grand5.8 jury by coercive m8.6eans is presum8.6ed to be m8.1atters occurring before the grand jury just as as testim8.7ony before the grand jury5.9 United States Velez F.Supp.2d D.P.R m8.5aterials containing of targ ets of grand jury inve stigation fell within Rule United States Diaz F.R.D N.D.Cal grand jury subpoenas duces tecum8.1 f4a-.2ll within Rule United States White R6.2e-.8ady-Mix Concrete Co N.D Ohio nam8.2es of grand jury w7.6itnesses fall within Rule governm8e-1nt howe-6v.2er despite the fact that the identitie of the subpoenaed entities and individuals and the targ to6 the4.8 gran6d jury6 requ6irem8.8ent of4 Rule chose to disclose the ra-5.6ther than re fer to these individuals and entities by a general descriptive term8.4 such as subpoenaed entity or target or subject or witness as it did in using5.8 the4.6 term8.6 victim8.6 rather th5.8an the which would have com8.6p.8lied with the Court?s order The governm8.6e-.4nt?s privile ge log plainly shows that Mr Epstein cannot rely on the governm8.1e-.9nt to protect his interests in m8.1a-.9intaining the required secrecy of the grand Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of jury proceedings Ultim8.4ately the governm8.4e-.6nt?s in terests lie in prevailing in the plaintiffs CVRA litig5.9ation ag5.9ains5.1t it while in the c4.7onte4.7x this motion to interven5.6e inte4.4rests lie in protecting5.6 his pe rsonal privacy and guarding agai nst the personal and professional injury which would be the inevitable consequence of the release of inform7.7ation which Rule commands should secret II PERMISSIVE 1720INTERVENTION The Court n5.5eed not reach the i ssue of perm8.7issive interven5.9tio as Mr Epstein so plainly satisfies the criteria for interv en5.7tion as of right For the same reasons ad5.7dressed in the precedin5.7g5.7 section Mr Epstein has a claim8.5 or defense that shares with the m8a-1in action a comm8on question of law or fact Fed Civ That common question of law or fact is whether Rule prohibits disclosure to the grand5.8 jury5.8 m8.6a-.4terials by the4.6 gov5.8ernm8.6ent in its privilege log Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of CONCL-4.1US-4.9ION For all the f8.2o.2regoing reasons Mr E6p.2stein?s m8o tion in5.9terv5.9ene tim8.7e-.3ly and shou5.9ld be granted as of right under Rule a Alternat ively perm7.9issive interven tion should be granted under Rule We certify that on July this m7.9o.1tion filed using the CM/ECF system7.9 Respectf3.9u.9lly5.9 2750subm8.7itted BLACK SREB-3.3NICK KORNSPAN 2750South 2750Biscayne 2750Boulevard Suite Miam8.3i 2750Florida Telephone Fax ROY BL-3.3ACK ESQ Florida rblack ro5.5yblack.com JACKIE ESQ Florida jperczek r4.7oyblack.com MARTIN WEINB-3.6E1.4RG P.C Suite Boston Office Fax By MARTIN WEINBERG ESQ Massachusetts Bar No owlmgw att.net Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
