EFTA00029275.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: data-set-8
Extracted text

From: ' 
To: "I
Cc: "I 
(USANYS)" ctl 
 
>, ausANImMays,„ 
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality 
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:06:33 +0000 
Sorry, I just realized I mixed up 
and M. All three witnesses have not met with us but 
has indicated she won't 
come in, right? 
From: 
(USANYS) 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:50 PM 
To: 
Cc: 
(USANYS) 
Subject: RE: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality 
Is the following fair/accurate? If there are specific concerns they raised, feel free to add/edit as appropriate. Thanks 
Following 
comments about Prince Andrew on January 27, the team heard from counsel for several witnesses who 
had seen 
remarks and had concerns. Specifically, the team heard from counsel for 
and 
each of whom referenced 
comments about Prince Andrew and sough to confirm that their own 
communications with the team about their clients would remain confidential. =, 
as you know, has already met with us 
several times. 
and 
— both of whom are believed to have worked in some capacity for Maxwell/Epstein 
during relevant time periods — have never been interviewed before but have expressed a willingness to come in, and we 
have been working with their counsel now to arrange for interviews. 
From: 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 5:34 PM 
To: 
(USANYS) 
Cc: 
) ca
'*; 
Subject: RE: attorneys asking about confidentiality 
• 
Following up on our discussion earlier, the attorneys who have asked about confidentiality since the public comments 
about Prince Andrew include counsel for 
counsel for 
and counsel for 
Separately, just a reminder to please send us 
email on the Maxwell depositions? We're going through them 
separately as well, but would be helpful to know what jumped out to him in his read. 
thanks, 
Mi• 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Southern District of New York 
EFTA00029275
Open in the interactive archive →