From: ' „cl To: " riMi l=1.>, " (USANYS)" Cc: ' >, " (USANYS)" Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:04:27 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.jpg My inclination is to mark all empty attachments as non-responsive. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll go ahead and tag all empty attachments as non-responsive in Relativity. From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:27 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: ) Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns (USANYS) We didn't, but that could also be a function of the stellar defense lawyers in the GEP case. My understanding is that the email will show the attachments ("i.e., "Attachment 1" "Attachment 2") but then when they click through the responsive documents, there just won't be a "Attachment 2" if that's the one that was missing. The reason we didn't "seize" them was that without any content, they weren't responsive to the warrant, which would be my concern with seizing them here. You could also ask Chris whether there's a way to substitute "blank attachment" or some sort of filler page for the missing attachments so that it's clear to the defense what happened. From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:22 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns (USANYS) <M > Just out of curiosity, did that result in a million questions from defense counsel about where the attachments were? I don't feel strongly about this at all, the only issue to flag is that if we tag them as responsive, we can then tell defense counsel that for any attachment that is blank, what that means is the FBI was unable to extract the attachment, so what they have is what we have. Alternatively we could mark all the blank pages as non-responsive and, if true, tell defense counsel that for any email lacking an attachment, the reason is the FBI was unable to extract one. Whichever you think will be more likely to stave off lots of follow up questions from defense counsel. From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:19 AM To: Cc: ) Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns We ran into this issue in GEP and marked them non-responsive. From: Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:15 AM To: (USANYS) (USANYS) (USANYS) (USANYS) EFTA00089649

Cc: Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns (USANYS) :, I just spoke with Flatley about the partial emails and empty attachments. He explained that for those files, because of the platform Epstein was using to check some of his emails, the FBI's technology was not able to extract the full emails and attachments. So what we see on Relativity is what the FBI has as well. Given that answer, do we want to mass mark the empty attachments as non-responsive? Or should we include the empty attachment files as related to the responsive partial emails? From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:04 PM To: (USANYS) < Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Great, this all makes sense to me. From: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:34 PM To: (USANYS) < (USANYS) Cc: ) (USANYS) Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Yes, my view is that these would be responsive to 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. And confirmed that these have been de- duped. I'm going to go through and do a few more spot checks to try to weed out any more false hits. My hope is that we can clarify the empty attachments with Flatley tomorrow and then ask PAE to start bates stamping the remaining responsive documents for production tomorrow. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss anything else in the meantime. From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:51 PM To: (USANYS) < Cc: (USANYS) Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Thanks, this is helpful. It seems like the= and jeevacation hits (which had two of the highest hit rates in the STR) would be responsive to #6 (and possibly #2, 3, 4, or 5) — is that right? And have these documents been de-duped? EFTA00089650

1. Evidence concerning the identity or location of the owner(s) or user(s) of the Subject Devices. 2. Evi • identity or location of co-conspirators of JEFFREY EPSTEDI. including and GHISLAINE MAXWELL] 3. Evidence COIKeflaill to. from. by. anclior among CO-CODSIXIMOTS of JEFFREY EPSTEIN. including and GHISLAINE MAXWELL 4. Any documents or communications with or regarding victims or potential victims of the Subject Offenses. 5. Documents or records reflecting payments to victims andlor co-conspirators including but not limited to bank and financial records. spreadsheets. ledgers. account listings. check and wire records. and documents reflecting cash withdrawals. 6. Documents or records reflecting travel plans or arrangements for victims or potential victims of the Subject Offenses. or co-conspirators in those Subject Offenses. including Given that the warrant authorizes seizing data from a more than 20-year period, and given the extent to which Epstein traveled, having this many responsive documents does not seem crazy to me. Particularly if you've already tried to weed out the spam, and spot-checked the responsive documents for each search term to make sure it wasn't pulling in false hits. From: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:58 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: ) c )'; Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Sure, the warrant is attached. (USANYS) (USANYS) < From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:52 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) c Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Thanks Let's see what Flatley says about the attachments. Do you mind sending the rider for the warrant that we would be seizing these materials pursuant to? From: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:12 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: ) c >; Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns Update from (USANYS) (USANYS) There are 128,175 email attachments attached to emails with search term hits that are empty files. review of the emails to which these empty files attached suggests that the FBI only provided us with partial files for these emails. Unclear whether those partial files are all that the FBI was able to extract from the devices, or whether the FBI left out parts of these files when producing them to us. I have asked Flatley for a call tomorrow morning to discuss. In the meantime, that still leaves us with a very large number of documents hitting on the search terms. Here is a breakdown of the file types: EFTA00089651