From: Laura Menning Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 12:21 PM To: ) Cc: (USANYS) ;Jeff Pagliuca < 'Bobbi Sternheim . . . ferral re photo and Following up on the below, as I believe these are the outstanding issues from this email chain. 1. When do you expect to have clarification from the FBI regarding the discrepancy in highly confidential material count? 2. Same for the de-designated HC materials? 3. Your answer regarding Bates-stamped but content-less files only addressed those that you took off of Epstein devices. I asked about a file that your office created — an Excel spreadsheet — that did not have content yet you Bates-stamped and produced it. Are there others? 4. When do you expect to have answers to the list of documents that our client is unable to view at the MDC? It is a few days shy of a month since I forwarded that list to you and I am hoping that you will have answers in the next few days. I will wait for answer to 1 and 2 above before I can adequately address your position on the HC materials. It may be that we need to go back to the Court to address your definition of highly confidential which is unlike I have seen on even child pornography cases. Thanks for your prompt attention to these matters. -Laura Laura A. Henninger I Partner Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. O 80203 From: Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 9:01 PM To: Laura Menninger < Cc: (U >; ; Jeff Pagliuca 'Bobbi Sternher Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo an Laura, I have responded to your comments below in red. I am working with the FBI to understand the discrepancy you pointed out, which I did not appreciate until receiving your May 7, 2021 email. The 2,100 estimate was the amount of files that the FBI verbally informed me had been loaded onto the second hard drive when I was arranging for your review of evidence at 500 Pearl. At the time, I did not recall that the 302 had a different number, and I did not check the number the FBI provided verbally against the 302. As soon as I receive clarification from the FBI, I will reach back out to you. EFTA00102064

As for your request to have access to Highly Confidential images and videos, paragraph 12 of the Protective Order in this case defines Highly Confidential information as discovery material that "contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals." That definition does not limit this category to child pornography. Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order further provides that any Highly Confidential materials "Shall be made available for inspection by Defense Counsel and the Defendant, under protection of law enforcement officers or employees." Given those provisions, as well as the importance of maintaining the security of nude images of third parties, including victims, we are not prepared to provide you with copies of nude or partially-nude images from the hard drives. However, we appreciate your concern that images that do not contain nudity appear to have been designated as Highly Confidential. Accordingly, I am working with the FBI to de-designate any images that do not depict genitals, breasts, or buttocks. Once those images have been de-designated, our office will produce them to you. Best, From: Laura Menninger Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 4:43 PM To: < Cc: (USANYS) < ) < >; Jeff Pagliu ; 'Bobbi Sternheim ( Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery deficiencies) Thank you for your response of April 23. I haven't heard back from you last week as promised on this or my April 28 request, so I'm writing to follow up. I have responses to specific questions of yours below in blue. Additionally, I have more questions regarding your production of "highly confidential" ("HC") images and videos. When we met the week of April 13 in NY, during which time I requested to view all evidence in the government's possession, including all highly confidential material, you described for me two hard-drives that contained all of the HC images and videos from this case. • First, one of those hard-drives you said contained all of the materials extracted from the disks contained in the black binders. There were approximately 40,000 or so images (Excel spreadsheet SDNY_GM_00467567) of which 3,400 images were deemed HC and tagged "#nudity" by your team (SDNY_GM_00467568). (I still await a response regarding the problems with your metadata overlay). • Second, the other hard-drive contained images extracted from Epstein's devices which were searched pursuant to a warrant. You said the responsive image/video files were contained on that second hard-drive, and there were approximately 2,100 "nude" or HC images on that hard-drive. You did not produce the metadata for those images because it was still present on the files which had been digitally extracted. As I understood it then, there were approximately 5,500 HC images that you made available for review. However, the FBI Report dated January 27, 2021 (produced at SDNY_GM_02742399) indicates there are approximately 33,747 NC images and 895 HC videos that were identified by a digital review of CART-processed evidence; I presume based on the CART numbers that this list is the same as the images extracted from Epstein's devices, or as I understood it, the content on your hard-drive #2 above. I am completely unclear as to why you informed me that there were 2,100 nude images from Epstein's devices, but this report seems to indicate there were approximately 34,000 HC images and videos. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding what you told me and if so, what the correct information is. EFTA00102065