Senior Examiner From: Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 4:11 PM To:-. (NY) (FBI) < >; Cc: (NY) (FBI) <->; Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents (USANYS) [Contractor] (NY) (FBI) < Thanks for this, it's a helpful start. In terms of being able to write our search warrant, one additional piece of information we need is the serial number, or some other specific identifier, ideally for each device but at least for any device that there is more than one of the same thing. So for example, we need to be able to somehow differentiate the following devices — The two Dell power edge T310 hard drives (NYCO24323 and NYCO24324) The two Sony Vaio laptop / Fujitsu hdd (NYCO24336 and NYCO24337) the following loose storage devices: o Micro SD card (NYCO24339) o Flash Drive (generic) (NYCO24340) o Thumbdrive (Emtec) (NYCO24341) o hard drive (loose) (NYCO24342) o verbatim thumbdrive (NYCO24343) The four San Disk cruzer-thumbdrives (NYCO24344-47) The three Seagate IDE hard drives (NYCO24348-50) The camera SD card (NYCO24351) I think the rest of the devices are either specifically distinguishable and/or have an S/N listed. (By comparison, the USVI spreadsheet we have lists an s/n for about 20 of the 25(ish) devices. The other thing we're looking for is the location in the house (and ideally specific location) for each device, which the USVI list also has — is that info available? The list also has just five devices as still pending to be transferred to us, and I think it's right that the plan is to reproduce all the materials so that we can get them in searchable format, but just wanted to confirm? Currently, we aren't able to match any of the prior productions to specific devices — so if we're able to match them up by Bates number now, that might work, but otherwise I think it makes sense for us to get everything. But let us know if any issue with that. thanks very much, IM• From: (NY) (FBI) < > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 15:54 To: Cc: (NY) (FBI) <> ;-. (NY) (FBI) < > Subject: Re: Epstein search warrant documents < >) (USANYS) [Contractor] EFTA00026986

Here is The listing of all the evidence gathered in NY that I have. I added some columns to guide you to the unique numbers CART NY uses fro their evidence. The template wasn't a slam dunk over, so I did what I could to convey the information. If you are confused by anything, please let me know. In the column for approximate size, it is in GB, totaled at the bottom and converted to TB. In the materials contained column, I put what load file group the data was transferred over in (Mac, Windows, Loose Media, IDE, or Blacklight) If there is no entry in that column, that data has yet to be transferred. There are 2 Macs and a DVR you don't have as well as an iPhone and an iPad. IF the descriptions are a bit light, let me know and I'll do what I can to beef them up. I will get you the Island stuff tomorrow. FBI NY CART Coordinator Senior Examiner From: Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:25 PM To: . (NY) (FBI) .: >; (USANYS) [Contractor] Cc: I 1ce; (NY) (FBI) 'c >: Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents (NY) (FBI) < > Respectfully, I think there are some miscommunications here — all we have asked is to receive the materials in a format such that we can view them using a system we have access to. We're not able to get web-enabled access through any FBI tool, so we asked for the materials to be transferred in a loadable format so we could put them on Relativity, which both we and the agents can access. We're required to have the files in a format that we can produce them to defense counsel. I've done that in many other cases and it hasn't previously been an issue. My understanding from is that the best way to do it now is just for us (the U.S. Attorney's Office) to get the original files, which our vendor will process—by which I just mean converting into file formats that are loadable onto Relativity. It doesn't really have anything to do with the taint review—we have to have access to the docs in our systems for discovery purposes. And we were happy to get the materials as they were processed, but when we received the 1.1 million documents earlier this year, they were in a format that wasn't usable for the reasons described in the email I sent on March 9. Again, I understand from that the best way forward is to just get copies of the materials in their original formats, which I understand will be segregated and designated by device. That should work for usl I was just trying to understand the approach, as well as the timeline. thanks, From: (NY) (FBI) < > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 13:03 To: ; (USANYS) [Contractor) Cc: EFTA00026987

(NY) (FBI) .: >;-. (NY) (FBI) Subject: Re: Epstein search warrant documents Just to be clear. The US Attorney's Office (or it's contractors) are not "processing" anything. You are taking files that I will be extracting from processed evidence and putting them into an E-Discovery tool (Relativity) to do a taint review. Relativity is NOT a forensic tool. It is incapable of dealing with many things that are found forensically on a computer like free space, slack space, and system files to name a few. When we started this, and you insisted you do the taint review in Relativity, I warned you that it was adding months worth of work on top of what was already done, and that Relativity was incapable of viewing everything. You insisted we do it this way. So now and I have come up with a way to fit this round peg into this square hole. We will get it done. Sorry it has taken so long, but we are talking about terabytes worth of data over multiple forms of digital evidence. Phones, tablets, loose media, cameras, DVRs, servers, laptops, and desktop computers. We have gotten past encryption on multiple devices. When we review devices on such large cases, we usually do it piece by piece as things are processed, I was unaware that you didn't want to review as things were processed, that you wanted to do it "all at once", so that added to the delay. Sorry for that. Just a differentiation of methodology I suppose. and I feel confident that the method we have come up with will be more consistent and preserve the attribution of files to devices and links of e-mails to attachments that the load file generation that I did a while back was lacking. FBI NY CART Coordinator Senior Examiner From: Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:33 AM To: . (NY) (FBI) < I>: Cc: Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents (USANYS) [Contractor] Okay, so just to check, you both think that there is not a need to do a test run? You're both comfortable with just basically sending us copies of everything? I don't totally understand why we couldn't have done that eight months ago, but regardless of the passage of time, I want to make sure we understand so we can report to our supervisors. I assume that means that we (at the U.S. Attorney's Office and through contractors) will therefore need to do all the processing ourselves, correct? And thanks again to you both. From: (NY) (FBI) < ::• Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:30 To: (USANYS) [Contractor] < >; Cc: Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents >; EFTA00026988