Jane Doe v. Roy Black
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283
11th Cir.2014Background
- DOJ and FBI investigated Jeffrey Epstein for sexual abuse of minors; extensive plea negotiations between DOJ and Epstein led to a 2007 federal non‑prosecution agreement and state guilty pleas by Epstein.
- Two identified victims (Jane Doe No. 1 and No. 2) sued under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), alleging DOJ violated victims’ rights by failing to confer and by concealing the non‑prosecution agreement.
- Victims sought discovery of correspondence exchanged between Epstein’s defense counsel and DOJ during plea negotiations; DOJ produced some materials but not defense‑drafted correspondence.
- Epstein and his attorneys intervened limitedly to prevent disclosure, asserting Rule 410, work‑product protection, Sixth Amendment concerns, and a novel common‑law privilege for plea negotiations; district court ordered disclosure and denied protective relief.
- Intervenors appealed interlocutorily; victims moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit (Pryor, J.) affirmed district court: it had jurisdiction under Perlman‑type principles and held no privilege barred disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal by limited intervenors claiming privilege over materials held by a disinterested party | Victims: Perlman applies only to grand‑jury subpoenas; Mohawk forecloses interlocutory privilege appeals | Intervenors: Perlman logic applies where privilege holder is powerless to prevent disclosure to a disinterested party; Mohawk does not displace Perlman in this context | Court: Jurisdiction exists—Perlman principles apply where privilege holder cannot prevent disclosure by the custodian and cannot obtain adequate relief after final judgment; Mohawk does not bar such appeals here |
| Whether Rule 410 bars discovery/admissibility of plea negotiation correspondence | Intervenors: Rule 410 protects plea discussions and thus precludes disclosure | Victims: Rule 410 governs admissibility against the defendant, not discoverability against the government; Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges so Rule 410 does not apply | Court: Rule 410 does not create a non‑disclosure privilege here and does not bar discovery/use against the government |
| Whether correspondence is protected by attorney work‑product doctrine | Intervenors: Correspondence is counsel work product and protected | Victims/DOJ: Disclosure to an adversarial government waived any work‑product protection | Court: Work‑product protection waived by voluntary disclosure to the United States during negotiations |
| Whether a new common‑law privilege should be recognized for plea negotiations | Intervenors: A new privilege is needed to protect plea bargaining confidentiality and encourage candid negotiations | Victims: No compelling justification; Rule 410 already balances interests; new privilege would unduly expand secrecy | Court: Declines to recognize new privilege — presumption against new privileges, Rule 410 and public‑interest considerations weigh against creating one |
Key Cases Cited
- Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct. 1918) (establishes interlocutory appeal principle for privilege claimants powerless to prevent disclosure)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (limits collateral‑order appeals for parties who can obtain review after final judgment)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (factors for recognizing testimonial privileges)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (Rule 501 and scope of federal privilege law)
- United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (Rule 410 protects defendant from admission of plea discussions but does not establish a general non‑disclosure privilege)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (Sup. Ct. 1949) (articulates collateral‑order doctrine for interlocutory appeals)