EFTA00013448

On May 8, 2020 12:10 PM, ' > wrote: Following up on the below, I think you had said you expected to be able to get us a list of the devices seized from the search warrants at Epstein's residences in New York and the USVI, as well as from his person upon arrest, in about a month (during our conference call a month ago) — so wanted to check if we can still expect that very soon? We're waiting on that list to be able to do an updated search warrant on all of those devices. Please let us know the current timeline — and also the current timeline on producing the results from those August and September searches? I think you and were going to coordinate on that, and you had mentioned you expected we'd have it a couple months from our call, which would be about a month from now. Wanted to make sure we're still on track. thanks,

otherwise I'd propose we do:

On Apr 7, 2020 1:55 PM, ' wrote: Following up on this from a month ago — I know we're living in a different world than what existed four weeks ago, but are you at all able to assist while working remotely? This has been pending for almost two months and we still don't have a very basic list of each device or item that was seized and searched, or for which of those we've received materials. We're happy to have a call if that would be useful, but as a first step the most basic thing we're looking for is the info in the template spreadsheet we sent earlier (that's also attached). thanks, IM•

recently received: The data we've received has no way to put any emails and attachments together. So if an email says, "see the attached flight records," for example, we have no way of linking that up with the records themselves. Not only is that a big problem for us in review, it's going to be a huge problem for producing the documents to defense counsel. The load file has no link to the native file, so when we load the data to the database, there's no way to have the native files show up in the database. Because many of the files are too large to open in the viewer, it effectively means that there are many files that are completely invisible to us. Related, the control numbers in the load file don't match up to the native files. So we have two sets of numbers and no way to match up anything—that is, even if we were to try to go hunt down every individual large file in the native files, it would be impossible. So the data that we most recently got, we need to get in a form that addresses those issues, and we likely will need to get a similar reproduction of the data we received a couple months ago. Otherwise we're sifting through more than a million documents without much rhyme or reason. I've re-attached the spreadsheet we sent last week — I think that's a good place to start in terms of our necessary record- keeping, and we need that info at the very least, as well as anything else you think would be useful. Also attaching the SW returns for reference. And again, we're happy to meet up anytime and hash all this out in person if that's useful.

thanks,

clarification: There were 9 IDE hard drives found in the Manhattan apartment, they turned out to be 3 copies of 3 drives (9 drives in total) from a July 2007 search on one of his properties. I only processed 3 (as they were all copies). All the loose media from the NY apartment is included. All the Windows machines from the NY apartment are included. Only 2 Macs from NY and 1 from the Island are included. I will have to more closely coordinate with whoever is loading up Relativity with the remaining Macs as the tool they have to be processed with does not easily re-name the load files. Spreadsheet is attached. (office) (cell)

cell desk On Mar 2, 2020 11:15 AM, ' wrote: Doing the weekly check in on this — is there a time this week when everyone can meet on this? thanks,

only contained pictures, no documents. There are still some Apple items from NY that need to be produced. As far as the Island stuff goes, the 1st item on your spreadsheet, the "kitchen" mac has been produced. Still working on the rest. cell desk On Feb 23, 2020 12:21 AM, "I Team, > wrote: Following up on the below from last weekend, I'm still not sure how we're addressing this so I thought it would make sense for us to all schedule a (hopefully relatively brief) meeting to all get on the same page? We didn't hear back on which files had previously been provided, but our tech folks did their best to differentiate, and we got access to the materials yesterday and its well over a million documents, and we don't have any idea what we're looking at — i.e., which devices the materials came from, whether it's full or partial results, how many more devices we have coming, etc. Based on the attached search warrant returns, it looks like from the New York mansion (the PDF) there are approximately 40 devices that would have storage (computers, hard drives, thumb drives, etc.) and that's not even counting at least 60+ CDs. And then from the Virgin Islands (the Excel spreadsheet), at least more than 25 devices, including multiple servers / server racks. So we gotta know what we've already received, what remains, anticipated schedule, etc, and I know it's a lot of moving pieces on all sides so wanted to loop in everybody at once. The case team will be in California this coming week from Tuesday through Friday, but then I think generally around the first week of March, which will hopefully be plenty of time to schedule a productive meeting. thanks all, IM•

modified date of 1/27/20, so I think that may be the materials we hadn't previously received? That folder by itself has more than 600,000 items. I don't want to give anything that we've already previously received and uploaded, and I can't tell from the folder or file names whether everything on the drive is new, or whether just additional materials were saved onto it in addition to what we already have. =, are you able to give us some guidance on this? Ultimately what we really need is a spreadsheet of every device, whether it's been dumped (or partially dumped), and then identifying that same info — which device, and what materials from it — are being given to us with each data transfer. Otherwise I think organizationally and for review purposes it will be a total disaster for us. We're happy to have a meeting on this if that's helpful — and thanks everybody for the assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney

Southern District of New York