# docs_fts_content

c1: EFTA00031173
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031173.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE | U.S. V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FRIDAY,
NOVEMBER 26, 2021
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:59:29 +0000
Online tomorrow, print Sunday (UK). They'll focus primarily on the defense case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2021, at 1:24 PM,
wrote:
Ok, thanks. When will they publish?
(
let's discuss giving the team a heads up)
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2021, at 1:23 PM,
wrote:
For what it's worth, they called to tell me they plan to publish an article about
using her real name and a
photo. I declined to provide further guidance or comment.
From:
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 10:24 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE I U.S. V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2021
Thanks
I don't think you need to say any more regarding the below, but for your knowledge,
will
testify under her own name (and has testified under her own name at the prior bail hearings).
From:
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 10:19 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE I U.S. V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2021
We circulated Tuesday's guidance to some additional UK reporters this morning. The additional guidance we drafted
on Wednesday will go out shortly, we'll blind copy you.
From:
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 10:14 AM
To: Gadher, Dipesh <dipesh.gadher@sunday-times.co.uk>
EFTA00031173

=== Page 2 ===
Cc:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE I U.S. V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2021
In accordance with the previously provided court order, any victim or witness testifying under a pseudonym should
not be identified, and should be referred to under their pseudonym, regardless of any previous identifications or
waivers that might have been made.
Best,
From: Gadher, Dipesh <dipesh.gadher@sunday-times.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 9:58 AM
To:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: SDNY PRESS GUIDANCE I U.S. V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2021
Hi - can I please clarify if I'm allowed to identify
by name as she has previously waived her right to
anonymity? How will she be identified in future proceedings? Thanks.
Best
Dipesh
The Sunday Times
1 London Bridge Street
-
London SE1 9GF
Tel: +44 (0)20 7782 5745
Mob: +44 (0)7956 142 227
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:48, Biase, Nicholas (USANYS) <Nicholas.Biase@usdoj.gov> wrote:
In order meet the demand for the high volume of media requests we are already receiving, the following guidance is
being provided in advance of the trial to ensure efficient communications. Please take careful note.
<image001.png>
PRESS GUIDANCE
Friday, November 26, 2021
*OFF-THE-RECORD, AND FOR GUIDANCE ONLY: Several of the government's anticipated witnesses will be
testifying in this trial using a pseudonym or first name. The Court granted a Government motion [attached]
requesting that they be able to do so, because the victim witnesses are expected to describe alleged sensitive,
explicit and personal events concerning illegal sexual abuse, sexual contact and other acts of which they have
been victims. I believe most, if not all, news media outlets have a policy against identifying sex crime victims
without their consent, and urge you to abide by that policy with our witnesses and respect their privacy.
9:30 a.m. - Final pretrial conference U.S. V. Ghislaine Maxwell - the defendant is charged in connection to
conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity - before Judge Alison
EFTA00031174

=== Page 3 ===
Nathan (Courtroom 318, 40 Foley Square [overflow Courtrooms 110, 506, 905, and 906 of the Thurgood Marshall
U.S. Courthouse]).
EXHIBITS: Government exhibits will be provided exclusively through the SDNY file share. If you are unable to access
this link to the file share (USAFx), you must establish an account to access the files. To establish an account, request
access by email to me or my colleague, Jim Margolin, Cc'd here, prior to Wednesday, November 29, 2021.
Please also note that all case filings in U.S. V. Maxwell are available in the Court's electronic filing system; we
encourage media representatives to establish a free PACER account, if they have not done so already. Credentialing
and other matters relating to in-person attendance for the trial are handled by the SDNY District Executive's Office.
Periodic updates to follow.
Follow us on Facebook I Follow us on Twitter I SDNY website YouTube
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE AT (212) 637-2600.
"Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail"
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may be
legally privileged and are the property of News Corp UK & Ireland
Limited on whose systems they were generated. News Corp UK
& Ireland Limited is the holding company for the News UK group,
is registered in England & Wales under number 81701, has its
registered office at 1 London Bridge Street, London, SE1 9GF and
is registered with VAT number GB 243 8054 69. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and do not
use, distribute, store or copy it in any way. Statements or opinions in
this e-mail or any attachment are those of the author and are not
necessarily agreed or authorised by News Corp UK & Ireland Limited
or any member of its group. News Corp UK & Ireland Limited may
monitor outgoing or incoming emails as permitted by law. It accepts
no liability for viruses introduced by this e-mail or attachments.
News Corp UK & Ireland Limited and its titles are committed to abiding by
IPSO's regulations and the Editors' Code of Practice that IPSO enforces.
EFTA00031175


c1: EFTA00030094
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030094.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
STATE
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
March 16, 2021
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Enclosed is discovery pertinent to the following inmate:
Ghislaine Maxwell: 02879-509
Please allow her access to the materials enclosed.
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney
by:
Assistant United States Attorneys
Enclosure
EFTA00030094


c1: EFTA00030733
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030733.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Note
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:40:09 +0000
Thank you!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:39 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Note
Attached are the front and back of the requested note that was in Epstein's cell
From:
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 11:32 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Note
Thank you, I passed this along to my chief.
From:
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 10:31 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Note
The Evidence Control Unit advised that this evidence has already been transported to our evidence storage at an
offsite. The request has been submitted for the evidence to be brought back to the city - it may not be here by
COB today. It will likely be Monday
On Sep 6, 2019 9:18 AM,
wrote:
I'm really sorry to ask, I know you guys are working on the other case, but my chief is asking if there is anyone at FBI
who could scan a copy of that note in today?
From:
Sent: Fridav. September 6. AM
To:
Subject: Note
Sure I'm out of the office today on interviews for another case - but will check it out of evidence and scan
beginning of next week. I was under the impression that he wrote a letter and gave it to someone. I started
scanning through his file that Lt.
supplied us but didn't see anything. However, maybe the psychologist
you interview today might know something about it
EFTA00030733

=== Page 2 ===
On Sep 6, 2019 8:35 AM,
I think this is the note complaining about prison conditions - could you send us a scanned copy of this? Thank you!
EFTA00030734


c1: EFTA00030276
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030276.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Roberta Kaplan
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 -- victims' rights re: bail hearing
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:17:51 +0000
Importance: Normal
I'm actually jumping in a cab in a minute so if you want to chat l'll be reachable on my cell -
From: Roberta Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 22:06
To:
y.
Conlon <aconlon@kaplanhecker.com>; Jenna Dabbs
<jdabbs@kaplanhecker.com>; Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess <ahess@kaplanhecker.com>
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 -- victims' rights re: bail hearing
Can you talk?
Roberta ("Robbie") Kaplan, Esq.
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
New York, New York 10118
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 5:56:39 PM
To:
Conlon; Roberta Kaplan; Jenna Dabbs; Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Cc:
);
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 -- victims' rights re: bail hearing
Hi all,
As you may already know, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(4), a crime victim has
the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving
release. Accordingly, we wanted to be in touch consistent with our responsibilities and obligations-and your client's
rights-under that statute, to see whether your client would like to be heard in any fashion, whether through a
submission, a representation that we can include in our bail submission due Friday, or some other form. Of course no
requirement or obligation, but we would be happy to discuss it if that would be useful.
To the extent this information is useful in your consideration, I can say that while I don't want to prejudge the
Would it make sense to set up a brief call sometime tomorrow, if any of you want to discuss? I should be able to make
myself available whenever is convenient for you (and likely will be just me, as the remainder of the team will be traveling).
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030276

=== Page 2 ===
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
EFTA00030277


c1: EFTA00031844
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031844.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: FW: Amazon Ref. No.
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 22:52:43 +0000
Attachments:
xlsx
From: Rodelo, Teresa
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 18:47
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Amazon Ref. No.
Dear
Dear
Attached please find Amazon's response to the above-referenced request. For privacy and other legal reasons, we have
redacted the titles of expressive materials. Amazon reserves any and all objections that Amazon may have with respect to
this law enforcement request, including that the information and/or records requested are unusually voluminous in
nature and that compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on Amazon.
Sincerely,
Teresa Rodelo
Manager, Law Enforcement Response Team
Amazon.com, Inc.
NOTICE: This communication might contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or you believe that you have received this
communication in error, please delete this message and do not print, share, or otherwise use this message or its contents in any way. Please also indicate by reply email
that you have received this communication in error and that you have deleted it.
EFTA00031844


c1: EFTA00030617
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030617.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: USAO SDNY Prisoner for Court Production Request
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:04:17 +0000
Good afternoon-
Judge Berman has rescheduled the below conference for 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, instead of 9:30. Thanks!
PRISONER PRODUCTION FOR COURT REQUEST
Use this e-mail only to order defendants for Court.
DATE 7/18/19
TIME 11:30 am JUDGE
Berman
COURT ROOM 17B
PRODUCTION TYPE (enter X in box to the right of description)
CASE#
19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
Arraignment
Bond hearing
Bond signing
Change of plea
Detention hearing
X
Fatico hearing
Motion hearing
Other, describe below
Preliminary hearing
Revocation hearing
Revocation & sentencing
Sentencing
Status hearing
Suppression hearing
Trial
Material witness
On writ status
Defendant
USMS #
USMS use only/report result to CrimSec
(indicate Y only)
Sentence
Time served
Detainer
1
Jeffrey Epstein
76318-054
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REMARKS (security precautions, separations, violent crime charge, not standard release issues):
AUSA NAME
AUSA PHONE
EFTA00030617

=== Page 2 ===
EFTA00030618


c1: EFTA00030161
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030161.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Martin Weinberg
To:
Subject: Re: U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:33:54 +0000
I expect to be with reid weingarten
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 7, 2019, at 5:23 PM,
wrote:
Following up briefly on our earlier conversation, I wanted to advise you that we expect to be able to unseal the
indictment and have the case assigned to a district judge at approximately 9:15 a.m. tomorrow morning, after which we
can email and/or call you, or anyone you'd prefer we reach out to at that time.
Separately, I may have conveyed this previously, but in case not, please feel free to call my cell anytime tonight (or early
tomorrow morning) if it would be useful to speak after you've met with Mr. Epstein-there's no time too late or too
early to call, I'll be up. Particularly if you expect not to make a bail argument tomorrow, but rather consent to detention
without prejudice to make an application in the coming days-we would just want to let the judge know that early
tomorrow, if possible, if that's how you prefer to proceed. Certainly understand if not, of course, but just to mention it.
In any event, my cell is
Thank you, and talk soon.
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 20:52
To: 'Martin G. Weinberg'
Cc:
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein
Marty,
I hadn't seen your email from a few minutes ago, I think they crossed - while I go by
my email is
but
now you have all the correct contact info.
With respect to the search, we'll follow up with you regarding the warrant - I believe a copy of the warrant and an
inventory either has been or will be (at the conclusion of the search) be delivered on site - but we are cognizant of
potential privilege issues and we appreciate you bring them to our attention as well.
thank you,
From: Martin G. Weinberg
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 20:48
EFTA00030161

=== Page 2 ===
To:
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein
Thank You. Marty
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
This Electronic Message contains information from the Law
Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the
addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
From
Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2019 8:38 PM
To:
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Weinberg,
Following up on our phone conversation this evening, attached please find the Indictment returned by the grand jury
against Mr. Epstein, who we understand you represent in connection with this case for current purposes. As discussed,
we expect that Mr. Epstein will be presented on Monday at the U.S. District Court at 500 Pearl Street - he will be
interviewed by Pretrial Services and then presented before either the duty magistrate judge or the district judge who is
assigned, which we also expect to occur on Monday.
As we discussed, the Indictment is attached. As we also discussed, the following is contact information for the AUSAs
involved in this case:
EFTA00030162

=== Page 3 ===
EFTA00030163


c1: EFTA00031086
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031086.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: NY law speech
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:33:46 +0000
As a result of this new law, victims of childhood sexual abuse whose voices were never heard and whose stories were
never told have now been given a new chance to come forward, to share their experiences, and to vindicate their rights,
all goals wholeheartedly shared by my Office, which is committed to using the federal criminal law to the maximum extent
possible to investigate and prosecute those who sexually abuse and traffic minors.
As many of you know, last year, my Office brought criminal sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein, a serial predator
who, over a period of years, abused dozens and potentially hundreds of young girls. To do so, we relied on the courage of
many young women who were victimized as minors and who were willing -- years after their abuse - to share their
stories. And while Epstein committed suicide before he could face trial, our investigation into his co-conspirators
continues.
As I have said publicly before, we can only do the work we do with the assistance of victims willing to come forward. By
providing victims of childhood sexual abuse with a new opportunity to be heard, this law marks not only an important
step for victims' rights but will help facilitate the work of law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting those who prey
on and seek to do harm to our most vulnerable.
EFTA00031086


c1: EFTA00031721
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031721.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
,
(USANYS)"
To: USAEO-Foreign Travel
Cc:
)"
Subject: ECC package - AUSA
ECC package
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:40:23 +0000
Importance: High
Attachments:
-_ECC_package_2.3.20.pdf.
Hi RMP,
Please see the attached ECC request package for
If required, please inform the traveler how to determine who the POC is for this trip.
Hi
Please let EOUSA know if you have checked to see if a visa is required for your destination.
View the state dept. link for the country you are traveling to visa link for the country you are traveling to.
Visa policies may be found on the Department of State's website or on the website hosted by each country's embassy.
Traveler, Consult EOUSA
mailbox to obtain a visa for you.
To provide sufficient time for the State Dept. to issue the authorization letter and for the foreign government to process the visa
request, it is recommended that visa request package be submitted to EOUSA's RMP Travel.
Staff 15 business days prior to the proposed date of departure.
Thank you
From:
)
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:02 AM
To: USAEO-Foreign Travel
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
>;
Subject: RE: AUSAs
and
to Stockholm, Sweden, on February 3-7
This request for foreign travel, by AUSAs
and
was not submitted to EOUSA-
RMP, via E2, 15 business days prior to the trip because the expected witness interview date for a time-sensitive matter
was only confirmed yesterday, January 23, 2020. We are asking that EOUSA-RMP obtain ECC for AUSAs
and
I will forward my travel authorization to EOUSA-RMP, with ALL of the requisite forms attached, via E2 shortly.
thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00031721


c1: EFTA00030500
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030500.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: RE: FW: Requests
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:44:58 +0000
Just not sure if it's a public document, but no real downside.
From:
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:44 AM
To:
Subject: RE: FW: Requests
Might as well. Any downside?
From:
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:40 AM
To:
)
is
Subject: FW: FW: Requests
Ah, some clarity. Do you think we should produce the DOJ Ethics Handbook, attached? Foy asked for the BOP Employee
Code of Conduct, which we now have and will be producing, and the (presumably BOP) Code of Ethics.
From:
<ckizzier@bop.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:21 PM
To:
is
Cc:
is
is
Subject: Re: FW: Requests
All,
I hope my responses below serve to clear up some of the issues you had with the documentation that was provided. I
continue to work to obtain the missing items and will send them as I receive any additional documents. Please let me
know if you have further questions and I'll be happy to address anything that is still unclear.
Many of the requests made, such as ICT agenda, cellmate policies and SHU policies are not one-stop-shops.
These issues are covered in a number of different policies, therefore I tried to include all policies that
reference those topics.
1. We received unsigned Word versions of Program Statements 5511.08 and 5500.13. Are there finalized versions?
Executive Assistant Lee Plourde handles the finalizing of the supplements. He's on leave and will
address this upon his return on Monday, June 29, 2020.
2. Why were we given the BOP Correctional Services Procedures Manual? Which of our requests is this responsive
to? Section 310 of this policy covers inmate accountability in the SHU. You requested 5511.08 and
this section in the CSPM overlaps some of those same policies.
3. Why were we given the BOP Suicide Prevention Program Statement? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
This policy covers staff training requirements for ICT and Quarterly SHU training. I included the
policy because it directly correlated with other requests.
4. We were also given a Powerpoint entitled Suicide Prevention for Inmates. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from? The slide show is the Psychology portion of the SHU Training you
requested. It is dated 1/2/2014. I have requested an updated version that would have been used
more closely to the time of
assignment to SHU. I'm just waiting for Psychology staff to
provide me whatever it is they used at that time.
5. We were provided a document titled Introduction to Correctional Techniques from January 2020. Which of our
requests is this responsive to? Is it the MCC institutional familiarization training outline? If so, we would request
EFTA00030500

=== Page 2 ===
one from a time when the defendants were actively employed at MCC (so before August 2019). This is the
Institutional Familiarization (IF) outline you requested. It hasn't been called IF for a few years. It
is now Introduction to Correctional Techniques (ICT). An earlier version is attached here.
6. We were provided with an undated slide presentation about the MCC SHU. Which of our requests is this
responsive to? When is this document from? The slide show was created 1/2/2014 as a part of
quarterly SHU training. The quarterly SHU training is primarily conducted through the BOP's online
training platform that is a self-guided course that covers a number of topics related to SHU. The
official SHU training course is not something I can send or save due to the nature of the course
being automated by the training platform and not a hard file.
7. The BOP Code of Ethics is highlighted below. Which document is this? Program Statement 3420.11 is the
Standards of Employee Conduct, which covers the dos and don'ts of employment in the BOP. I've
attached the DOJ Ethics Handbook here. If there is something specific you're looking for, please let
me know.
8. We received digital lieutenant's logs. Is there also a hard copy book? There is no hard copy book of these
logs. The logs are saved to a shared folder at the end of each shift. Although I have worked at
places that print each log, the Lieutenant's here at NYM reported that that is not the practice here.
The LTs here email their logs to the executive staff at the conclusion of each 24 hour period for
review purposes. Thus, eliminating a hard copy record system.
9. We were provided with a document called "SHU Logs MW" and a document called "SHU Logs." Can we confirm
what these are? Our requests were for SHU Watch Call Logs and SHU Control Center Logs. Those are the
digital log books from SHU for the Evening and Morning Watch shifts during the requested time
period. I am working on obtaining the actual Watch Call tracking sheets from the main Control
Center at MCC which is something different. However, the officer should be logging their watch
calls into the digital log book every 30 minutes between 6a - 6p each day.
10. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training, which is highlighted below as
having been provided? PS 5270.11 as well as the Suicide Prevention policy covers the SHU quarterly
training requirement. There is not a separate policy for that.
11. We asked for P.S. 5270.10, but got P.S. 5270.11. Was P.S. 5270.10 provided to us in error? Or was our request
incorrect? 5270.10 does not exist. 5270.11 is the policy covering SHU.
12. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on cellmates? I am not aware of any such policy and
have struggled to find even a mention of it in the policies I've reviewed. I will continue to search
for a policy that references cellmate assignments.
13. In the second email, there is a document called "Hot Lists" dated August 30, 2019. Which of our requests is this
responsive to? The "Hot List" is the high risk list. Any inmate on that list who goes to SHU requires
immediate notification to Psychology. This is the only "high risk" list the BOP has and I provided it
in response to your request for "All High Risk Lists reviewed during weekly SHU meetings...
14. In the second email,
mentioned that most of the control center paperwork was seized by FBI and/or OIG.
Do you or FBI have that paperwork? Has it been provided to us?
15. Finally, what is the status of the remaining requests? As I continue to work from home, I have not
personally been able to physically search for the Watch Call sheets. As I previously mentioned,
those logs were reportedly seized early on in this investigation. I continue to follow up on this.
With regard to the SROs, those reviews are only electronically available for inmates who are
currently in SHU and only for the period of their most recent admission to SHU. SROs, assuming
they were completed, would then be printed and filed in the inmate's central file. I am currently
trying to figure out where Epstein's file is to see if any SROs are in it. If you really want ALL SROs
for the period of
assignment to SHU, that will be an extremely lengthy process of tracking
down inmate files, many of whom have released from the BOP or been transferred to any number
of institutions across the country, and then requesting any SROs from the specified period of time
that are contained in those files be scanned to us. I'm guessing Epstein's file was taken along with
all of the other documentation shortly after his death, but I have not confirmed that yet.
Special Investigative Agent
MCC New York
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
>>>
06/25/20 12:35 PM >>>
EFTA00030501

=== Page 3 ===
Can you please address the questions/discrepancies noted below. Much appreciated.
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:30 PM
To:
is
Cc:
i
Subject: RE: Requests
Some follow up questions related to these materials:
1. We received unsigned Word versions of Program Statements 5511.08 and 5500.13. Are there finalized versions?
2. Why were we given the BOP Correctional Services Procedures Manual? Which of our requests is this responsive
to?
3. Why were we given the BOP Suicide Prevention Program Statement? Which of our requests is this responsive to?
4. We were also given a Powerpoint entitled Suicide Prevention for Inmates. Which of our requests is this responsive
to? When is this document from?
5. We were provided a document titled Introduction to Correctional Techniques from January 2020. Which of our
requests is this responsive to? Is it the MCC institutional familiarization training outline? If so, we would request
one from a time when the defendants were actively employed at MCC (so before August 2019).
6. We were provided with an undated slide presentation about the MCC SHU. Which of our requests is this
responsive to? When is this document from?
7. The BOP Code of Ethics is highlighted below. Which document is this?
8. We received digital lieutenant's logs. Is there also a hard copy book?
9. We were provided with a document called "SHU Logs MW" and a document called "SHU Logs." Can we confirm
what these are? Our requests were for SHU Watch Call Logs and SHU Control Center Logs.
10. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training, which is highlighted below as having
been provided?
11. We asked for P.S. 5270.10, but got P.S. 5270.11. Was P.S. 5270.10 provided to us in error? Or was our request
incorrect?
12. Which document contains the BOP and MCC policy on cellmates?
13. In the second email, there is a document called "Hot Lists" dated August 30, 2019. Which of our requests is this
responsive to?
14. In the second email,
mentioned that most of the control center paperwork was seized by FBI and/or OIG. Do
you or FBI have that paperwork? Has it been provided to us?
15. Finally, what is the status of the remaining requests?
Please work on this as quickly as you can. Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:59 PM
To:
is
Cc:
Subject: FW: Requests
fyi
EFTA00030502

=== Page 4 ===
From:
<ckizzier@bop.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:53 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Requests
I've attached all the documentation I have pertaining to the below request. I am waiting for a few things from HR and
Psychology but wanted to send you what I have right now. I highlighted the items below that are attached in this email.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Special Investigative Agent
MCC New York
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
>>>
06/12/20 1:54 PM >>>
Hi
:
Hope you and fam have been well, as well as MCC staff.
Can you please provide the following information concerning the Epstein suicide investigation:
The BOP and MCC Employee Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, and corresponding employee acknowledgement
forms for Defendant Noel.
The MCC institutional familiarization training outline.
The BOP and MCC policy on cellmates and local Institutional Supplement on Special Housing Unit Regulations,
including Institutional Supplement/Program Statement Number P.S. NYM 5270.10.
The BOP and MCC policy on SHU quarterly training.
The Inmate Accountability Institutional Supplement/Program Statement, Number I.S. NYM 5511.08.
The Security Inspections Institutional Supplement/Program Statement, Number I.S. NYM 5500.13.
SHU Watch Call Logs from August 9, 2019 and August 10, 2019.
All SHU Watch Call Logs completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which began on June 26,
2019.
All SHU Control Center Logs completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which began on
June 26, 2019.
All SHU Operations Lieutenant Log Books completed during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post which
began on June 26, 2019.
All High Risk Lists reviewed during weekly SHU meetings during Defendant
assignment to the SHU post
which began on June 26, 2019.
All SHU reports and SRO reviews completed by the SHU Lieutenant during Defendant
assignment to the SHU
post which began on June 26, 2019.
Many thx!
EFTA00030503


c1: EFTA00030972
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030972.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
To:
From:
Sent:
Mon 1/4/2010 8:36:55 PM (UTC)
Subject:
Admissibility of Sex Game
Hello and Happy New Year!
Here's an issue I haven't seen addressed: CP distribution case arising from multiple reports of uploads to Yahoo photo albums. Four
computers seized from defendant's house. CP-related activity found on all four. Forensics reveal a large compressed file on the root
of the C drive of the computer most actively used for CP activity. The examiner was able to save and install the file and found it to be
a virtual reality game call Hizashi no nakano real, in which the player uses the mouse to control a virtual hand that molests an
animated Asian girl whose age appears to be about 10. The game was accompanied by a detailed "walk through" document telling
the steps for navigating the game. This document, like the game itself, is very graphic and detailed. The only Local User who has the
game loaded is our defendant. Forensics show our Local User had gotten to Level 4 of the game, which involves significant and
sustained affirmative acts against the virtual girl.
Admissible?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
EFTA00030972


c1: EFTA00029987
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029987.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(OPCL)"
To:
"
(ODAG)"
Cc:
"
(ODAG)"
11
(OPR)"
(OPR)"
(OLA)"
,
(USAGAN)"
,
"
(USANYS)"
Bcc:
"
Subject: RE: Victim Meeting Talking Points
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 21:27:39 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Victim_Meeting_Talking_Points.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Victim Meeting Talking Points
Message-Id:
<BN3P110MB0516D17DFCFF81C332CCF4FB8FEA0@BN3P110MB0516.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
EFTA00029987


c1: EFTA00031679
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031679.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
OIG)"
Cc:
(NY) (OGA)"
Subject: FW: FBINET to UNET Uploaded Files
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:58:06 +0000
Attachments: Interview_of
- DRAFT.pdf
DRAFT 302 of
Special Agent
FBI New York Field Office
Violent Crimes Task Force
EFTA00031679


c1: EFTA00030489
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030489.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Opposition to Bill of Particulars
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:25:56 +0000
Attachments: 2021.02.26_Government_Ommibus_Opposition_to_Maxwell_Defense_Motions_FINAL_U
NREDACTED.docx;
Government_Opposition_to_Defense_Supplemental_Pretrial_Motions_v6.docx
Of course! Attached is the briefing from the two rounds of pretrial motions in that case.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 7:00 PM
To:
Subject: Opposition to Bill of Particulars
Hi
Hope your summer is good.
I see that Judge Nathan denied Ghislaine's motion for a BoP.
I bet your papers were excellent. Could I get a look? Thanks much.
AUSA, SDNY
EFTA00030489


c1: EFTA00029956
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029956.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
20-cv-484 (JGK)
- against -
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
DARREN K. INDYKE, RICHARD D. KAHN,
AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendants.
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff brought this action under a pseudonym as "Jane
Doe" against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their
capacities as appointed executors of the estate of Jeffrey E.
Epstein (together, the "Epstein Estate"), and Ghislaine Maxwell,
seeking declaratory relief and damages for sexual assault, sexual
battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. The
plaintiff now moves for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 (a) (2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons explained below,
the motion is granted, subject to certain conditions.
I
The plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on January
17, 2020. For the purposes of this motion, the substance of the
claims is relevant only insofar as to note that on June 29, 2020,
Ms. Maxwell was indicted on criminal charges in this District. See
ECF No. 1, 20-CR-330. On September 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge
EFTA00029956

=== Page 2 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 8
Freeman issued an order staying this case, pending the outcome of
the criminal prosecution of Ms. Maxwell. See ECF No. 8.
After the complaint was filed, the Epstein Estate set up the
Epstein Victim's Compensation Program (the "Program") and the
administrator started accepting claims on June 25, 2020. See ECF
No. 47. On November 29, 2020, the plaintiff accepted an offer of
compensation from the Program, which requires her to dismiss with
prejudice her claims against the defendants in this action. See
ECF No. 94. To satisfy the requirement, the plaintiff sought
dismissal with prejudice by stipulation pursuant to Rule
41 (a) (1) (A) (ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF
No. 87. The stipulation provided that "each party shall bear its
own attorney's fees and costs of suit" but also that "nothing
herein shall be construed to preclude Ms. Maxwell from seeking
fees or costs related to this matter from the [Epstein Estate] "
Id. at 3. While counsel for the Epstein Estate signed the
stipulation, counsel for Ms. Maxwell declined to sign the
stipulation. The plaintiff then filed this motion pursuant to Rule
41 (a) (2), seeking dismissal of the action with prejudice in
accordance with the terms set forth in the partially-executed
stipulation.
II
Rule 41 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41 (a) (1) [which
describes voluntary dismissals made either before the defendant
2
EFTA00029957

=== Page 3 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 8
files a responsive pleading or with consent of all parties], an
action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court
order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P.
41 (a) (2) ; see also Paysys Int'l, Inc. V. Atos IT Servs. Ltd., 901
F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2018) .1 "Rule 41 (a) (2) dismissals are at the
district court's discretion and only will be reviewed for an abuse
of that discretion." D'Alto V. Dahon Cal., Inc., 100 F.3d 281, 283
(2d Cir. 1996). Once the district court articulates its terms for
dismissal, "plaintiff
has the choice between accepting the
conditions and obtaining dismissal and, if [the plaintiff] feels
that the conditions are too burdensome, withdrawing [the
plaintiff's] dismissal motion and proceeding with the case on the
merits." Paysys, 901 F.3d at 109.
III
Ms. Maxwell objects to the plaintiff's motion to dismiss with
prejudice insofar as the motion incorporates the terms set forth
in the stipulation and requests that any dismissal be subject to
two conditions. First, Ms. Maxwell requests that the provision in
the stipulation that "each party shall bear its own attorney's
fees and costs of suit" be stricken and that additional language
be inserted to preserve her rights to seek her costs as the
prevailing party in this action, and to sue plaintiff for damages
in a subsequent action. Second, Ms. Maxwell requests that she be
provided with the unredacted copy of the release that the
1 Unless otherwise noted, this Memorandum Opinion and Order omits all
alterations, citations, footnotes, and internal quotation marks in quoted text.
3
EFTA00029958

=== Page 4 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 8
plaintiff has signed under the Program. The release allegedly
includes the plaintiff's name and the compensation for the
release.
A
Ms. Maxwell's request regarding costs and fees has two
components: (1) the provision that "each party shall bear its own
attorney's fees and costs of suit" should be stricken; and (2) the
condition should include the language that "[n]othing herein shall
be construed to preclude Ms. Maxwell from seeking fees or costs
related to this matter from plaintiff or from [the Epstein
Estate. See Proposed Order at 2, ECF No. 93-2.
The provision of the stipulation that "each party shall bear
its own attorney's fees and costs of suit" is indeed inconsistent
with the provision in the stipulation proposed by the plaintiff
that "nothing herein shall be construed to preclude Ms. Maxwell
from seeking fees or costs related to this matter from the
[Epstein Estate] " Accordingly, the provision must be modified to
state that "the plaintiff and the Epstein Estate shall each bear
their own attorney's fees and costs of suit."
In addition, Ms. Maxwell also requests that the condition
specify that she may seek fees and costs from the plaintiff in
addition to the Epstein Estate. Ms. Maxwell argues that she is the
prevailing party in this litigation and, pursuant to Rule 54 (d),
she should be allowed to seek costs from the plaintiff. Moreover,
Ms. Maxwell claims she should not be prejudiced from bringing a
4
EFTA00029959

=== Page 5 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 8
separate action against the plaintiff for damages-including
attorney's fees incurred in this action-for the torts of abuse of
process and malicious prosecution. Ms. Maxwell is correct that
under Second Circuit law, she is the prevailing party for the
purposes of Rule 54 (d) See Carter V. Inc. Vill. of Ocean Beach,
759 F.3d 159, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that where a
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case against one defendant
with prejudice, that defendant was a prevailing party under Rule
54 (d) ) And under Rule 54 (d), "costs-other than attorney's fees-
should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P.
54 (d) (1). Therefore, a condition that precludes Ms. Maxwell from
seeking costs from the plaintiff would prejudice her from
exercising the rights she would normally have under Rule 54 (d),
and therefore, cannot be included. See Cross Westchester Dev.
Corp. V. Chiulli, 887 F.2d 431, 432 (2d Cir. 1989) ("The purpose
of authorizing terms and conditions on a voluntary dismissal is to
protect the defendant from prejudice.").
Furthermore, the stipulation in the amended form-that is,
"the plaintiff and the Epstein Estate shall each bear their own
attorney's fees and costs of suit"-should not affect Ms. Maxwell's
ability to bring a future claim against the plaintiff for abuse of
process or malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the condition
related to costs and fees, in its entirely, is as follows: "The
plaintiff and the Epstein Estate shall each bear their own
attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing herein shall be
5
EFTA00029960

=== Page 6 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 8
construed to preclude Ms. Maxwell from seeking fees or costs
related to this matter from the Epstein Estate and from the
plaintiff."
B
With respect to the second request, Ms. Maxwell seeks to be
provided with an unredacted copy of the release that would
indicate who the plaintiff is and the amount of compensation that
the plaintiff has received. On the one hand, the plaintiff has an
understandable interest in maintaining her anonymity, and the
Court entered an order to protect it. See ECF No. 32. On the other
hand, it is important for Ms. Maxwell to know the name of the
plaintiff so that if Ms. Maxwell is sued by the plaintiff, she can
use the release as well as the dismissal with prejudice as a
defense in that lawsuit. Further, if the plaintiff were to appear
as a witness against Ms. Maxwell in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial,
it would be important for Ms. Maxwell to be able to use the
release as possible impeachment material against the plaintiff.
Each party's interest can be protected by requiring that the
unredacted copy of the release be provided to Ms. Maxwell, but
that it not be disclosed for any purpose without the prior
approval of this Court. This will assure that the unredacted copy
of the plaintiff's release is used only for a proper purpose.
C
Because the conditions added to the stipulation affect the
rights of each of the parties, each of the parties should be given
6
EFTA00029961

=== Page 7 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 7 of 8
an opportunity to decide whether that party is prepared to proceed
with the dismissal as provided in the partially-executed
stipulation and with the changes provided by the Court. Each of
the parties must indicate that party's acceptance of the
conditions specified by the Court by March 19, 2021. If any party
does not agree by that date, the motion to dismiss is denied and
the case will be stayed. If all parties agree by that date, the
case will be dismissed with prejudice subject to the stipulation
with the changes proposed by the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the
parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments
are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the
motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) The plaintiff and the Epstein Estate shall each bear
their own attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing
herein shall be construed to preclude Ms. Maxwell from
seeking fees or costs related to this matter from the
Epstein Estate and from the plaintiff;
(2) The plaintiff shall provide an unredacted and signed
copy of the General Release (the "Release") the
plaintiff executed with the Program by March 23, 2021,
together with a certification of its authenticity. The
Release is subject to the Order on Plaintiff's Anonymity
7
EFTA00029962

=== Page 8 ===
Case 1:20-cv-00484-JGK-DCF Document 98 Filed 03/08/21 Page 8 of 8
in this action and shall not be disclosed except
pursuant to an Order of this Court.
Each of the parties must indicate that party's acceptable of
the terms of the stipulation and the additional conditions
specified above by March 19, 2021. If any party fails to agree by
that date, the motion to dismiss is denied and the case will be
stayed. If all parties agree by that date, this case will be
dismissed with prejudice, subject to the stipulation with the
changes proposed by the Court.
so ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
March 8, 2021
/s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
8
EFTA00029963


c1: EFTA00031431
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031431.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Epstein FOIA Next Steps - Noel Team
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:09:14 +0000
I'd have to move something but can do if nothing else works. I am wide open between 12 and 3 if there's
anything good during that time.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2021, at 1:26 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Tomorrow morning fairly booked for me, but do have 10-10:30 if that's better for everyone.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:26 PM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA Next Steps - Noel Team
This afternoon isn't ideal. I can do 6pm if absolutely necessary, but I would prefer any time tomorrow morning.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:10 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA Next Steps - Noel Team
Doesn't work for me. Could you do 6pm?
Original Appointment
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:09 PM
To:
(USANYS);
(USANYS);
(USANYS)
Subject: Epstein FOIA Next Steps - Noel Team
When: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:00 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where:
"
please let me know if this time doesn't work
has availability tomorrow as well. Thanks.
Please use dial in
with passcode
EFTA00031431


c1: EFTA00030271
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030271.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(NY) (FBI)"
Subject: Phone/flight records
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:05:34 +0000
Importance: Normal
For
here's what I saw:
9/16/2004
1:49:00 PM
Call
0:02:00
9/16/2004
2:08:00 PM
Call
0:01:00
9/16/2004
6:45:00 PM
Call
0:01:00
Epstein's Flight
arrives at PBIA
Jeffrey Epstein,
9/16/2004
10:16:00 PM
(Boeing 727)
If you could take a look at
that would be great.
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030271


c1: EFTA00030610
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030610.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
BHT
SEAL
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
September 9, 2019
Florence Hutner, Esq.
General Counsel
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
Re: Autopsy Report and File for Jeffrey Epstein
Dear Ms. Hutner:
By letter dated August 28, 2019, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York ("USAO") requested that the OCME withhold from disclosure to any third
party (i) "any documents, evidence or information made available to OCME by the USAO or the
FBI-including documents, records, or materials from the MCC-or created by OCME or within
the OCME case file that include, reflect, or contain information made available to OCME by the
USAO or FBI"; and (ii) "the names and identifying information of any federal law enforcement
agents or employees who were interviewed by the OCME, along with the substance of any
statements or interviews made by those agents or employees" (the "August 28 Letter").
At OCME's request, the USAO has made proposed redactions to the version of the OCME
report and file for Jeffrey Epstein that was previously provided by OCME to the FBI, consistent
with the requests set forth in the August 28 Letter. That redacted document is attached hereto. In
order to preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation, in addition to the requests set forth in
the August 28 Letter, we also request that OCME withhold from disclosure to any third party this
letter and its attachment, and the August 28 Letter. We appreciate your willingness to comply
with these requests. Please contact us with any further questions.
Very truly yours,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
by:
/s/
Assistant United States Attorneys
Encl.
EFTA00030610


c1: EFTA00031726
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031726.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization 10982122 has received final approval
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 22:06:55 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization 10982122 has received final approval.
Trip ID: 10982122
Traveler name:
Minor Customer name: OBD-USA-USANYS-NEW YORK SOUTHERN (UNYS) (JO2104)
Purpose: R20NYS13340 - Epstein investigation (2018R01618) - Witness Interviews
Destination: Stockholm, Sweden
Dates: 2020-02-03 - 2020-02-06
Current status: Authorization Approved
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# T0006
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00031726


c1: EFTA00031081
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031081.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
]"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
"
)"
,
)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
)"
)"
i
)"
Subject: FW: Sasse Statement on Arrests of Epstein's Guards
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:58:51 +0000
Inline-Images: ~WRD078.jpg; image001.jpg
FYI from Senator Ben Sasse re arrests today.
From: Hosenball, Mark J. (Reuters)
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: Fwd: Sasse Statement on Arrests of Epstein's Guards
Senator just put this out
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Senator Sasse Press Shop
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:47:17 AM
To: Hosenball, Mark J. (Reuters)
Subject: Sasse Statement on Arrests of Epstein's Guards
For Immediate Release
Contact: James Wegmann
November 19, 2019
(202) 224-4224
Sasse Statement on Arrests of
Epstein's Guards
"These arrests are important, but they're not the end of this: These guards
aren't the only ones who should stand trial - every one of Jeffrey Epstein's co-
conspirators should be spending the rest of their lives behind bars."
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who
warned the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to come to today's oversight hearing prepared to
give answers, issued the following statement regarding the arrests of two of Jeffrey Epstein's
EFTA00031081

=== Page 2 ===
prison guards.
"Good. Heads needed to roll the day Jeffrey Epstein died. The Bureau of Prisons and the
Department of Justice need to start giving the public some answers. These arrests are
important, but they're not the end of this: These guards aren't the only ones who should stand
trial - every one of Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators should be spending the rest of their lives
behind bars."
Background:
On November 13, Sasse told the Director of Bureau of Prisons to show up to today's hearing
prepared to answer questions.
On August 19, when Attorney General Barr removed the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
Sasse praised the move and called for more answers.
On August 13, Sasse urged Attorney General Barr to rip up the plea deal with Epstein that still
shields his co-conspirators. That letter is available here.
On August 10, the day of Epstein's death, Sasse wrote to Attorney General Barr demanding that
"heads must roll" and asking transparency questions to make sure the DOJ answers for the
miscarriage of justice.
In February 2019, at Sasse's insistence, the Department of Justice opened an investigation into
its handling of Epstein, who was charged with running a child sex trafficking ring in New York and
Florida, among other locations.
On January 15, 2019, during his confirmation hearing, William Barr, the President's nominee for
Attorney General, publicly committed to making sure that the DOJ responded to Senator Sasse's
questions into the Epstein case and that they would prioritize the prosecution of sex-trafficking.
In late 2018, Sasse repeatedly pushed the DOJ to investigate the sweetheart deal
that Epstein received.
###
Stay in touch with us online
sasse.senate.gov
EFTA00031082

=== Page 3 ===
Click here to open this e-mail in its own browser window Click here to open a plain text version of this email
EFTA00031083


c1: EFTA00030166
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030166.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "Biase, Nicholas (USANYS)"
To:
)"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Epstein draft press materials
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:43:24 +0000
Importance: Normal
Great, thanks. Let us know if there's any way we can help.
EFTA00030166

=== Page 2 ===


c1: EFTA00030975
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030975.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
I"
Subject: My edits to Section IV
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 00:13:14 +0000
Attachments: 2021.02.26_GM_Omnibus_Opposition_to_Defense_Motions.rd_(MC).docx
Attached, thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030975


c1: EFTA00030507
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030507.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Gloria Allred
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
,
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:31:44 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.png; image003.jpg; image004.png; image005.jpg
She emailed me that she would feel more comfortable meeting at the hotel. Would you be available to meet at 2 or 3
P.M. instead of at 1P.M. so that there is time for lunch after the court status conference? Also, I have good news. When we
meet tomorrow, I will discuss a third victim whom I represent who would like to meet with you in August in New York.
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
323-653-6530
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERG
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell'
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:25 PM
To: Gloria Allred
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Hi Gloria,
Do you have a sense yet of what time works for you and your client to come to our office tomorrow afternoon?
Thanks,
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:17 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Wednesday
I understand. I will let you know as soon as I hear from
Also, I am open to having the meeting later than 1P.M.
,because I scheduled that time prior to knowing about the status conference in the morning. Let me see what
wants
to do and then we can discuss the where and when and will work for you.
EFTA00030507

=== Page 2 ===
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
323-653-6530
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERO
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell'
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Gloria Allred
Cc:
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Hi Gloria,
Thanks for letting us know about the possible meeting location change- please let us know once you've been able to
confirm with your client, and we can let
know so that she can cancel the car service.
Regarding the court conference, we are unfortunately not able to reserve seats for anyone-the court manages court
I
security and the crowd, so we don't have control over that. The other victim attorneys have been attending the
conferences on their own, and although I don't know, I would guess that means that they have been arriving early.
Thanks,
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 6:00 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Thank you very much for this information. I plan to attend this court this status conference on Wednesday. I am
concerned that the courtroom may be full and no seat will be available for me Would you be kind enough to have
someone on your staff save a seat for me? Also, since the courthouse is very close to your office I have emailed
to
ask if she would be willing to meet at your office instead of at my hotel at 1P.M.Since her hotel is near to your office and
near the courthouse and since I will be in the area now as well, if she feels comfortable meeting at your office instead of
my hotel I am willing to meet at your office to save you and her the time to travel to my hotel. I will let you know when
she responds.
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
323-653-6530
EFTA00030508

=== Page 3 ===
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERG
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell'
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
of Professional Excellence
2019
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 1:50 PM
To: Gloria Allred
Subject: RE: Wednesday
Hi Gloria,
Yes-in this district, criminal defendants are present at all court conferences absent unusual circumstances.
From: Gloria Allred
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 4:46 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: Wednesday
I see that a status conference is scheduled for Mr. Epstein 's criminal case in court in New York at 11A.M.on Wednesday
,July 31. Do you know if Mr. Epstein will be present for the status conference in court on Wednesday?
Gloria Allred
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg
6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90048
323-653-6530
www.amglaw.com
www.gloriaallred.com
ALLRED. MAROKO & GOLDBERG
2019
Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
PREEMINENT
AV
Peer Rated for Highest Level
frofessional Excellence
2019
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
EFTA00030509

=== Page 4 ===
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT 323-653-6530. Thank you.
EFTA00030510


c1: EFTA00029980
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029980.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
November 9, 2020
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
MDC-Metropolitan Detention Center
Legal Department
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Re:
United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Enclosed is discovery pertinent to the following inmate:
Ghislaine Maxwell: 02879-509
Please allow her access to the materials enclosed.
Very truly yours,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
by:
Went ne
Assistant United States Attorneys
Enclosure
EFTA00029980


c1: EFTA00029634
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029634.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
,
)"
Subject: RE: Questionnaire - Hi We also need this one ASAP. Thanks
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:58:53 +0000
Attachments: Questionnaire_for_Official_Foreign_Travel,_Stockholm,_2020_
(
).pdf
My questionnaire also attached. Note that my passport has five months until expiration -
told me a couple weeks
ago that was fine.
From:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:33
To:
(USANYS)
is
Subject: RE: Questionnaire - Hi We also need this one ASAP. Thanks
Attached is my questionairre
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:32 AM
To:
is
;
Subject: Questionnaire - Hi We also need this one ASAP. Thanks
Importance: High
EFTA00029634


c1: EFTA00031569
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031569.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
9 EAST 71 STREET
Borough: MANHATTAN
Block: 1386 Lot: 10
Property Owner(s)
MAPLE, INC.
Property Data
Tax Year
2020/21
Lot Grouping
Property Address
9 EAST 71 STREET, 10021
Tax Class
1
Building Class
A5 - ONE FAMILY ATTACHED OR SEMI -
DETACHED
Condo Development
Condo Suffix
EFTA00031569

=== Page 2 ===
7
Property Information
Apply for Exemptions
Get Help
Property Address Search
BBL Search
REUC Search
9 EAST 71 STREET
Borough: MANHATTAN
Property Info
Block: 1386 Lot: 10
Account Balance
1 of 1
07/18/2019
Return to Searc
Account History
Notes
Notices of Property Value
Action
This account is paid in full as of July 18, 2019.
Printable Su
Property Tax Bills
Printable Ve
Benefits - Prop. Owners
More In
Benefits - Business &
FAQ
Construction
Benefits - Gov & Non-Prof
Market Values &
Printable Version
Assessments
2019-2020 Final
Current & Prior Years
Directory of City Agencies
Contact NYC Government
City Employees
Notify NYC
CityStore
Stay Connected
Caty of New York 2019
All Regists Reserved
NYC is 0 trademark and service nwork of the
NYC Mobile Apps
Maps
Resident Toolkit
City of New York
Privacy Policy Terms of Use
EFTA00031570

=== Page 3 ===
9 EAST 71 STREET
Borough: MANHATTAN
Block: 1386 Lot: 10
Notes
This account history is for informational purposes only. The amounts below do not
include interest due through today. Visit our NYCePay or CityPay payment sites for
today's balance. Payments made today will be visible the next business day.
Profile
Building Class
A5 - ONE FAMILY ATTACHED OR SEMI -
DETACHED
Tax Class
1
Unused SCRIE Credit
Unused DRIE Credit
Refund Amount
Overpayment amount
Account History Summary
Interest
Year Period
Charge
Original
Type
Due Date
Begin/Process
Charge
Paid Balance
Date
2020
3
TAX
01/01/2020
171,775.47 -171,775.47
0.00
2020
1
TAX
07/01/2019
173,510.58-173,510.58
0.00
2019
3
TAX
01/01/2019
176,248.93-176,248.93
0.00
2019
1
TAX
07/01/2018
169,081.34-169,081.34
0.00
2018
3
TAX
01/01/2018
169,412.92 - -169,412.92
0.00
2018
1
TAX
07/01/2017
164,571.60 - 164,571.60
0.00
Account History Details
Click here for the Account History Details
EFTA00031571

=== Page 4 ===
ASSESSMENT ROLL 2018-2019
City of New York
Taxable Status Date: January 5, 2018
Parcel Information
Borough:
Manhattan
Owner Name
Block:
1386
MAPLE, INC.
Lot:
10
Property Address and Zip Code
9 EAST 71 STREET 10021
Tax Class:
1
Building Class: A5
Real Estate Billing Name and Address
MAPLE, INC.
9100 HAVE NSIGHT, PO
ST. THOMAS
00802
Land Information
Lot Size
Irregular
Corner
50.00 FT X 102.17 FT
Building Information
Number of Buildings
Building Size
Extension
Stories
1
50.00 FT X 92.17 FT
6.00
Assessment Information
Description
Land
Total
ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE
75,016,000
ACTUAL AV
330,378
1,658,880
ACTUAL EX AV
0
0
TRANS AV
0
0
TRANS EX AV
0
0
Taxable/Billable Assessed Value
SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS, YOUR 2018/19 TAXES WILL BE BASED ON
1,658,880
Property is assessed at the following uniform percentages of full market value, unless limited
to a lesser amount by law:
Class 1 - 6%
Class 2 - 45%
Class 3 - 45%
Class 4- - 45%
EFTA00031572


c1: EFTA00030329
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030329.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:05:11 +0000
Awesome, thank you very much.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 15:05
To:
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Hello
I am available for a call tomorrow. Please let me know what time is good for everyone and I will make myself available.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:00 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Epstein search warrant documents
Importance: High
- I hope you're doing alright in the midst of all the pandemic craziness, and staying healthy and safe. On these
Epstein issues, are you able to join a conference call tomorrow with
?
I can generally express what you've told me,
but on the Relativity issues especially it would be hugely helpful to have your input in real-time. Are there times
tomorrow that would work for you?
thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 14:13
To:
(USANYS)
is
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Are you available tomorrow for a conference call to discuss this issue?
EFTA00030329

=== Page 2 ===
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,
From:
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 12:00
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
>;
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Unfortunately I don't think this is very helpful to us. Did you take a look at the example spreadsheet I sent on 2/24? The
excel file you sent has descriptions that don't match up to the items listed in the search warrant returns (that we sent on
2/23), and we don't have the 1B or CART numbers to be able to cross-reference. We also can't tell what you mean by
"loose media" without a specific comparison to what was seized, we don't know which items you're referring to as
"Windows machines," and we can't tell whether the entirety of any particular item has been transferred, or just partial.
For example, it looks like we have gotten very, very few image files, which is surprising.
We have also encountered some very significant problems in trying to review the more than 1 million documents we
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.
EFTA00030330

=== Page 3 ===
thanks,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 16:36
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
is
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Here is a listing of what I have already handed over in load files to the US Attorney's Office for taint review. Some points of
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)
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
i
is
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I could do Thursday morning, but I think it would be helpful for us to get the accounting in advance of the meeting so we
can figure out in advance what (if any) additional steps we need - is that possible?
From:
)
^
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 09:59
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
i
-
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Can we do Thursday morning? My network should be back by then and I can give you a good accounting.
EFTA00030331

=== Page 4 ===
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,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 17:38
To:
)
is
(USANYS)
i
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
>;
is
i
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Totally understand about the network issues-we can relate. I do still think it will be helpful to all sit down together to
have an in-person discussion, to make sure everybody is on the same page. Are folks available for that next week? And
what I think would be most helpful to facilitate that would be a spreadsheet of each separate device referenced in the two
search warrant returns, with columns for whether we've dumped the contents, whether they've been reviewed and/or
transferred, what portions were transferred, etc.
Something roughly like the attached, with any other categories you think would be useful - and the info on the attached is
mostly hypothetical, obviously, just as examples. That will help us fully understand what's been reviewed, transferred,
and received so far, and what remains.
(Also just on the pictures, we do want copies of those as well, please including from the discs and the devices - I think FBI
was going to do an initial screen to make sure no CP, and since I think the answer was no, we'll need to get those to be
able to review them as well.)
many thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 09:24
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
>;
in
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Sorry for the delayed response. They are tearing out our old network and giving us a new one, they mandated we
delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth). Now that they are working on replacing the network, we can do only local
work. I should be able to give you an accounting of what is what. I can say, off the top of my head, that all
EFTA00030332

=== Page 5 ===
windows based items from the NY search have been handed over as well as all loose media. The CDs from NY
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,
)"
wrote:
Team,
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,
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 16:30
To:
is
Cc:
is
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure who's the exact right person to ask this, so wanted to get everybody on one email chain about it - I have the
hard drive that
dropped off that has new Epstein search warrant materials, but it looks like there are also old
materials (that I think we had previously received and uploaded??) on the hard drive, and so I'm not sure what's new.
Just generally, and
and I talked about this last week too, but it's basically impossible for us to keep track of what
we're getting, and what has been completed, without some kind of identification or labeling system, along with a list of
which devices have been extracted and downloaded.
So for example on the hard drive currently, there are 38 folders labeled "loadFiles" through "37loadFiles" with a modified
date of 11/14/19, which I think we may have already previously received - but I'm not sure, because we haven't gotten
any info on which folders match up to which devices, etc. And then there's another folder titled "NYC024362" that has a
EFTA00030333

=== Page 6 ===
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
EFTA00030334


c1: EFTA00030748
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030748.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
)"
Subject: FW: travel approval request
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 23:17:44 +0000
Hi
In connection with this trip next week, could you possibly book my travel arrangements, please? That would be a big help,
and thanks in advance. Here's what I had in mind:
Hotel: Doubletree, 1707 Fourth Street, Santa Monica, CA. Checking in on 11/13, checking out 11/14.
We won't need a conference room at the hotel for this trip.
Outbound flight: 11/13, JetBlue, 2:29 p.m. departure from JFK, arriving at LAX at 5:44 p.m.
Inbound flight: 11/14, JetBlue, 8:30 p.m. departure from LAX, arriving at JFK at 4:44 a.m.
My JetBlue frequent flier number is
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 4:58 PM
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 5, 2019, at 4:56 PM,
wrote:
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission for the team to travel next week for an interview in Los Angeles on November 14. We expect to be traveling,
respectively, some combination of the 13th to the 15th (and no conference room necessary for this trip).
thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 13:55
To:
Cc:
is
EFTA00030748

=== Page 2 ===
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission to travel next week for an interview in West Palm Beach on November 4. It will just be me and
and we'll travel some combination of the 3rd to the 5th. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to
reserve a conference room at the hotel on that Monday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 14:51
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request permission to travel next
week for a victim interview in Los Angeles. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Wednesday and return no later
than Friday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows). The trip will be some combination of me,
and/or
as previously. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a conference
room at the hotel on Thursday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:57
To:
Cc:
is
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation, we'd like to please request permission to travel for approximately
three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly
down Tuesday night and return on Wednesday or Thursday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows).
Unfortunately we're still trying to pin down timing for interviewing the victims, so depending on the timing it will either
be me and
or
and
but we wanted to ask for permission now either way so we weren't doing it
super last minute after the holiday on Tuesday. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a
conference room at the hotel for the interviews, please.
thanks very much,
EFTA00030749

=== Page 3 ===
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:57
To:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Thank you
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:46
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:02 PM,
> wrote:
For the same case as below, United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of minors for
sexual activity,
and I would like to please request permission to travel for approximately three days next week
for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Tuesday night
and return on Friday, though we will shorten the timeframe if scheduling allows.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
From:
)
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 18:32
To:
Cc:
Subject: travel approval request
and I would like to please request permission for travel for United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an
investigation relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity, for two days of meetings and interviews in West Palm
Beach and/or Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of now we're hoping to fly down next Wednesday night and return on
Saturday.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030750


c1: EFTA00031108
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031108.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: FW: media has it
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 13:20:31 +0000
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 09:20
To:
Subject: media has it
Tom Winter per usual - he has some great source at FBI
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00031108


c1: EFTA00029951
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029951.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
IN RE APPLICATION TO UNSEAL CIVIL DISCOVERY. Slip Copy (2021)
court order. Id. at 9 13. Finally, the Protective Order permits
2021 WL 1164272
modification by the Court "at any time for good cause shown
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
be heard." Id. at 1 15.
IN RE APPLICATION TO UNSEAL
The United States Attorney has served a grand jury subpoena
CIVIL DISCOVERY MATERIALS,
on the Law Firm for documents that are covered by the
USAO Reference No. 2018R01618.
Protective Order. 2 The Government has represented that
the subpoena was validly issued as part of an ongoing
19-MC-00179 (SN)
investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others for possible
violations of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 591 and
Filed 03/24/2021
1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b)
(unlawfully enticing minors). The production of the materials
pursuant to the subpoena is solely for the purposes of the
SEALED ORDER
Investigation and is subject to the protections and restrictions
SARAH NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge
of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). The Law Firm
has indicated its willingness to comply with the subpoena so
*1 The United States Attorney for the Southern District of
long as it is authorized to do so by a court order modifying
New York has moved, pursuant to the All Writs Act, Title 28,
the Protective Order.
United States Code, Section 1651, for an order relieving Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Law Firm") of its obligations
under the protective order issued on November 29, 2018,
DISCUSSION
in Jane Doe 43 V. Jeffrey Epstein, et al., 17-CV-616 (JGK)
(SN) (S.D.N.Y.). The purpose of such order is to permit the
*2 The All Writs Act provides, in relevant part, that "all
Law Firm to comply with a grand jury subpoena and provide
courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs
materials to the Government in connection with a federal
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
grand jury investigation. The motion is DENIED without
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28
prejudice.
U.S.C. § 1651(a). The All Writs Act permits a court, in its
"sound judgment," to issue orders necessary "to achieve the
rational ends of law" and "the ends of justice entrusted to
BACKGROUND
it."
United States V. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S.
159, 172-73 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citations
The Law Firm represented Jane Doe 43, a plaintiff in a civil
omitted). The All Writs Act provides a "residual source of
suit against Jeffrey Epstein and others. The case involves
authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by
allegations of sex trafficking. Because of the sensitive nature
of some of the discovery, the parties entered into a Protective
statute."
Penn. Bureau of Corr. V. U.S. Marshals Serv.,
Order that deemed certain information to be "Confidential
474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). "Although the Act empowers federal
courts to fashion extraordinary remedies when the need arises,
Information. Protective Order, at ECF No. 177. As
it does not authorize them to issue ad hoc writs whenever
relevant here, the Protective Order provides that Confidential
Information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose
compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient
or less appropriate." Id. The Court finds that it is authorized
other than the civil case. Id. at 1 4. At the conclusion of
under the All Writs Act to modify the Protective Order.
the case, the Protective Order requires the destruction of
Confidential hard-copy documents or electronic files. Id. at 1
The Court, however, declines to exercise its discretion to
12. The Protective Order further prohibits the distribution of
modify the Protective Order on the record before it. Before
Confidential electronic non-file copies without a court order.
modifying a protective order on which parties to a civil
Id. The Protective Order contemplates that a subpoena for
action presumptively relied, the Court of Appeals for the
Confidential Information may be received and precludes the
Second Circuit has directed district courts to find either
receiving party from complying with the subpoena absent a
that: (1) the protective was improvidently granted or (2) the
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
EFTA00029951

=== Page 2 ===
IN RE APPLICATION TO UNSEAL CIVIL DISCOVERY. Slip Copy (2021)
government has established exceptional circumstances or a
thereby foreclosing the possibility of atrial. Reliance on the
compelling need. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum,
continued effect of the Protective Order was and is, therefore,
945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991); see also
Martindell
entirely reasonable. See
SEC V. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d
V. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d
222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001) ("In some cases, settlement would not
Cir. 1979). Because the Government does not argue that
be possible but for the parties' reliance on a protective order
the Protective Order was improvidently granted (nor could
Thus, another compelling reason to discourage modification
it), and because the Government has not, on this record,
of protective orders in civil cases is to encourage testimony in
established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need,
pre-trial discovery proceedings and to promote the settlement
the motion to modify is denied.
of disputes.").
The Government argues that the presumption against
*3 In response to an identical application seeking to modify
modifying protective orders articulated in Martindell and In
a protective order in a different case between Epstein and an
re Grand Jury does not apply here for two reasons. First, the
alleged victim, another judge in this District has reached a
Government argues that the standard from those cases applies
different conclusion. That judge found that Epstein's reliance
only to their specific procedural posture, specifically a motion
on the protective order in that case was not reasonable, and
to quash (In re Grand Jury) or an informal request without a
therefore modified its terms to allow the Law Firm to respond
grand jury subpoena (Martindell). This is a distinction without
to the grand jury subpoena. I reach a different conclusion.
a difference. Nothing in those decisions cabins the rule to
the procedural posture presented, and there is no logical
Courts look to four factors when assessing whether reliance
reason to think a different standard should apply when the
on a protective order was reasonable: "(1) the scope of the
subpoena's recipient does not move to quash. If anything,
protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the
the presumption of confidentiality applies more forcefully
level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order;
where, as is the case here, the Government's confidential
and (4) the nature of reliance on the order."
In re Ethylene
application deprives the interested party of the chance to
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 255
quash the subpoena.
F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). The Protective Order is
not a blanket order that might be disfavored; instead, the
Second, the Government argues that the presumption does not
definition of Confidential Information is limited and subject
apply because the Protective Order protects only documents
to objective standards, and the parties may designate material
exchanged in pretrial litigation. It is true that the Court of
only in "good faith" after attorney review. Protective Order
Appeals has said the presumption may not apply in some
3, 8. The Court entered the Protective Order after briefing,
cases because the expectation of continued confidentiality
oral argument, and a direction from the Court to make
was unreasonable. See
SEC V. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d
modifications to their proposals. See ECF Nos. 163-177. The
222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[S]ome protective orders may
Protective Order's language also specifically contemplated
not merit a strong presumption against modification. For
that confidentiality would not be waived ex parte where the
instance, protective orders that are on their face temporary
government has subpoenaed documents that were exchanged
or limited may not justify reliance by the parties." see also
in discovery but never used at trial. Protective Order
15
("This Protective Order may be modified following notice
In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139,
to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.").
147 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[A]ppellants could not have relied
on the permanence of the protective order. The order
by
Finally, no Confidential Information was filed with the Court
after the entry of the Protective Order such that the parties
its very terms was applicable solely to the pretrial stages of
the litigation."). But this is not a case where the "conditions
could anticipate its public disclosure. 3 On this record, the
contemplated by the Court for revisiting the Protective Order
Court finds that the parties' reliance on the Protective Order
was reasonable and the presumption of confidentiality should
have now occurred."
Allen V. City of 420 F. Supp. 2d
apply.
295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). All parties to the Protective Order
have not been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. See
Thus, the Martindell/In re Grand Jury Subpoena test applies
Protective Order 1 15. And although the Order contemplates
here. Under that standard, the Government's arguments
the disclosure of Confidential Information during trial, see id.
for exceptional circumstances and compelling need are
14, that condition never arose. Instead, the parties settled,
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
EFTA00029952

=== Page 3 ===
IN RE APPLICATION TO UNSEAL CIVIL DISCOVERY... Slip Copy (2021)
unpersuasive. The Government argues that it needs the
protected documents because issuing subpoenas to other
sources would alert the investigation's targets, possibly
CONCLUSION
leading them to destroy evidence or flee prosecution. But
the Government has not offered any affirmations or facts
The motion for an order relieving the Law Firm of its
suggesting that the evidence in the Law Firm's possession
obligations under the Protective Order to comply with the
cannot be obtained from other sources without compromising
grand jury's subpoena is DENIED without prejudice. This
the investigation. Instead, it relies on the general desire
order does not preclude the Law Firm from producing
for secrecy. That abstract concern, which applies to all
material in its possession responsive to the subpoena that
confidential grand jury investigations, is not "a showing
is not covered by the Protective Order. It also does not
of exceptional circumstances or compelling need." In re
preclude the Law Firm from disclosing to the Government
Grand Jury, 945 F.2d at 1224. 4 Indeed, if anything, the
an inventory of material in its possession that was marked
extraordinary posture of the case requires the Court to police
confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in order to allow
the Government to renew its application to the Court to
carefully government intrusions into areas of protections
establish extraordinary circumstances or a compelling need
agreed to by civil litigants and so-ordered by the Court.
for the materials it seeks.
The Government is attempting to side-step these protections
by serving a subpoena only upon a party who is willing
Because the Government's application is filed in connection
(and perhaps eager) to comply with the Government's
investigation.
with an on-going criminal investigation, this Order and all
other documents filed within this Miscellaneous Case will
remain UNDER SEAL until further Court Order.
*4 The subject matter of the Government's investigation
is obviously serious. But to pierce the Protective Order, the
so ORDERED.
Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is
an extraordinary circumstance, but that the reason for seeking
the documents is so extraordinary or compelling that there is
All Citations
a need to modify the Protective Order. The Government has
not met that standard.
Slip Copy, 2021 WL 1164272
Footnotes
1
The Protective Order covers "information whose public release would violate common law and
statutory privacy interests, including information reflecting medical or psychological conditions, medical or
psychological treatment, prescriptions for controlled substances, non-public personal financial information,
sexual activity or sexual contact, education records, email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses,
social security numbers and similarly personally identifying information for parties and third-party witnesses,
any information subject to
NY. Civil Rights Law $ 50 or
51, or any other information deemed private by
a Court of competent jurisdiction to include the tort of publication of private facts." Protective Order,
3.
2
Because the Government has not provided the Court with a copy of the subpoena, the scope of that subpoena
is unknown.
3
The other decision found that reliance on a protective order is not reasonable when the order contemplates
that the confidential material may become public if used at trial. But that is an argument in favor of finding
reliance on all protective orders unreasonable. The public has a strong presumption in favor of accessing
trial documents. See Under Seal V. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[The First
Amendment] provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil.")
(citing
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. V. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (alterations omitted).
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
EFTA00029953

=== Page 4 ===
IN RE APPLICATION TO UNSEAL CIVIL DISCOVERY..., Slip Copy (2021)
4
The Government also argues that the Confidential Information covered by the Protective Order is not the
sort of sensitive information that has been protected in the past, such as trade secrets. The fact that the
protected material here is not of a specific type that has arisen in prior cases does not suggest that this case
is extraordinary.
End of Document
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
EFTA00029954


c1: EFTA00029875
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029875.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Bec: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: Unit Updates
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:25:29 +0000
Embedded: RE:_Unit_Updates.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: Unit Updates
Message-Id:
<DM3P110MB0409881F5D08C10622018A1CFAA30@DM3P110MB0409.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.CO
M>
To:
To:
EFTA00029875


c1: EFTA00029710
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029710.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Automatic reply: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 16:12:50 +0000
I am currently on trial before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer. Although I will be checking emails, my responses may be delayed. For urgent
matters, please contact the other AUSA(s) on the case, or AUSA
EFTA00029710


c1: EFTA00030909
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030909.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: FW: OPR Epstein Final Report
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:30:58 +0000
Attachments: OPR_458587-v1-Epstein_Report_transmittal_to_SDNY_(leter_signed).PDF;OPR-
458557-v1-Epstein_Report_of_Investigation_and_Exhibits_pdf.PDF
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 11:00 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: OPR Epstein Final Report
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:07 AM
To:
Subject: OPR Epstein Final Report
Attached please find OPR's final Report in the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and a transmittal letter.
EFTA00030909


c1: EFTA00030384
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030384.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: kathryn milofsky
To:
Subject: Important question re USA V Ghislaine Maxwell
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 23:08:45 +0000
Dear Mr
/
I am Kathryn Milofsky a producer for ITV News in the UK, based in NY.We are the largest commercial
broadcaster in the UK, similar in style stature to NBC.
We are trying to establish when the bail hearing is in your case USA V Maxwell.
Could you be so kind as to let me know.
Have a wonderful safe July 4th.
Best
Kathryn Milofsky
Producer
ITV News
EFTA00030384


c1: EFTA00030423
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030423.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Travel Authorization 10808018 approved by
, now awaiting further
approval
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 20:34:01 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Travel authorization 10808018 has been approved by
, now awaiting further approval.
Trip ID: 10808018
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13180 - U.S. V. Epstein (2018R01618) - Witness Interviews
Destination: Santa Monica, CA, United States
Dates: 2019-11-13 - 2019-11-15
Current status: Pending Authorization Approval
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# T0007
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00030423


c1: EFTA00031263
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031263.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
-V.- -
:
19 Cr. 830 (AT)
:
TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL THOMAS'S MOTION TO COMPEL
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
EFTA00031263

=== Page 2 ===
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2
I.
The Indictment
2
II.
Pretrial Discovery and the Defendant's Request for Additional Materials
3
A. The Government's Discovery Production
3
B.
Defense Requests for Additional Discovery Materials
4
ARGUMENT
7
I.
Applicable Law
7
A.
Brady & Giglio
7
B.
Rule 16
8
II.
Thomas is Not Entitled to Additional Materials
8
A. The Government Has Satisfied its Discovery and Disclosure Obligations
8
B. The Requested Records Are Not "Material" to Preparing a Defense and Are
Sought for the Impermissible Purpose of Jury Nullification
10
1. Applicable Law
10
2. Discussion
12
C. The Government is Not Required to Collect Materials From Agencies Who
Were Not Part of the Prosecution Team
15
1. Applicable Law
16
2. Discussion
19
D. Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure
21
E.
Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material in
Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
24
1. Applicable Law
24
2. Discussion
26
CONCLUSION
29
EFTA00031264

=== Page 3 ===
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amnesty Int' 'l USA V. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
27
Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
passim
Color of Change V. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447
(S.D.N.Y. 2018)
27
Dep't of Interior V. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass 'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001)
26, 27
Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
passim
In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
26
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008)
15
Kyles V. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)
19
N.L.R.B. V. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975)
26
Nat'l Res. Def. Council V. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 954 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.
2020)
26
Standefer V. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980)
13
United States V. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003)
29, 30, 31
United States V. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996)
passim
United States V. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998)
19, 25
United States V. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)
7
United States V. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015)
19
United States V. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002)
30, 33
United States V. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974)
30, 31
United States V. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
20
United States V. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989)
24
United States V. Carr, 424 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2005)
12
United States V. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
20
ii
EFTA00031265

=== Page 4 ===
United States V. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001)
7,8
United States V. Defreitas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 31, 2011)
12, 17
United States V. Delacruz, No. 14 Cr. 815 (KBF), 2015 WL 2211943, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
May 12, 2015)
16
United States V. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1996)
13
United States V. Fares, 978 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1992)
30, 31, 33
United States V. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2000)
26
United States V. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
20
United States V. Floyd, No. 99 Cr. 0234 (DAB), 1999 WL 476438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
July 7, 1999)
16
United States V. Frank, 8F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
26
United States V. George, 786 F. Supp. 56 (D.D.C. 1992)
15
United States V. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
21
United States V. Gibbons, 602 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1979)
16
United States V. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020)
10
United States V. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1982)
7
United States V. Levin, No. 15 Cr. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 2990831, at *12 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 25, 2016)
13, 16
United States V. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994)
28
United States V. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2008)
32
United States V. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006)
24
United States V. Manzano, 945 F.3d 616 (2d Cir. 2019)
13, 17
United States V. McGuinness, 764 F. Supp. 888 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
11
United States V. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)
20, 22
United States V. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983)
30, 33
iii
EFTA00031266

=== Page 5 ===
United States V. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995)
8
United States V. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005)
21
United States V. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
10
United States V. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011)
8
United States V. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
13, 16
United States V. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
11, 12
United States V. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009)
20
United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1984)
17
United States V. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972)
15
United States V. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1973)
7
United States V. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
29
United States V. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985)
15
United States V. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
21
United States V. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175 (2d Cir. 1993)
9, 12
United States V. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)
12
United States V. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005)
10
United States V. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)
21
United States V. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d 204 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
24
United States V. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
14, 15
United States V. White, 972 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992)
33
United States V. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
19
iv
EFTA00031267

=== Page 6 ===
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to defendant
Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 33) ("Mot."). Thomas seeks an order
compelling the Government to collect materials that are not in its possession, not discoverable
under any legal basis, and not related to any legally cognizable defense. Thomas's motion is
entirely without merit and should be denied.¹
Thomas concedes that the Government has produced a "multitude" of discovery directly
relevant to the charges against him. (Mot. 6). Nonetheless, he seeks an order compelling the
Government to collect and produce additional materials that he believes would support his
purported defenses, namely, that he committed the offenses because of staffing issues and
supervisory lapses, and that he was singled out for prosecution. Specifically, Thomas seeks: (i) a
copy of a report being prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General
("DOJ-OIG"), which does not yet exist and would principally be based on the same primary
materials that the Government produced to Thomas in December 2019 (Mot. 5, 8-9); (ii) reports
and documents prepared by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and other agencies who were not and
are not members of the prosecution team (Mot. 6-7); (iii) reports and documents related to "any
and all [Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC")] employees" who have engaged in "the same
or similar conduct," including an incident in "2005 or 2006" where officers failed to conduct
counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide (Mot. 6); and (iv) reports, statistics, and
documents related to purported staffing issues, supervisory lapses, and the application of BOP
1 Tova Noel did not file any pretrial motions, and has not joined in Thomas's pretrial
motions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) ("If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule
12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the defense, objection, or
request if the party shows good cause.").
EFTA00031268

=== Page 7 ===
policies which relate to the "much larger context" at the BOP (Mot. 6, 7, 9, 10).
As an initial matter, the Government has satisfied its Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio obligations
and is not in possession of the additional materials that Thomas seeks. More importantly, Thomas
is not entitled to compel the Government to collect the additional records for at least four separate
reasons. First, the records are not "material" to preparing a defense because they are wholly
irrelevant to the false statement charges against Thomas and are intended to prompt jurors to
nullify the charges against him. Second, the BOP records Thomas seeks are not in the "possession"
of the prosecution team, and there is no legal basis for compelling the Government to collect
materials from other agencies or components of the Department of Justice who are not and were
not part of the criminal investigation that led to the charges against Thomas. Third, there is no
legal basis to require the Government to produce a draft of the report being prepared by the DOJ-
OIG, which is subject to the deliberative process privilege. Fourth, Thomas is not entitled to
discovery relating to what happened to other MCC employees when they "falsif[ied] the same
documents," (Mot. 6), because he has utterly failed to identify evidence that the decision to
prosecute him had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
Thomas's motion should be denied in all respects.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
The Indictment
Indictment 19 Cr. 830 (AT) (the "Indictment") was filed on November 19, 2019, charging
defendants Tova Noel and Michael Thomas in six counts: (i) conspiring to defraud the United
States and to make or use a false writing or document, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 371 (Count One); and (ii) five counts of making or using a false writing or document, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001(a)(3) and 3 (Counts Two through Six).
2
EFTA00031269

=== Page 8 ===
Both defendants are charged in Counts One, Four, Five, and Six; defendant Noel only is charged
in Counts Two and Three. The charges in the Indictment stem from a fourteen-hour time period,
from approximately 4:00 p.m. on August 9, 2019 to approximately 6:30 a.m. the following day,
August 10, 2019, when the defendants were working as correctional officers at the MCC. As
charged in the Indictment, during that time period, the defendants failed to perform mandated
counts of prisoners housed in MCC's Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), but nevertheless signed false
certifications attesting to having conducted those counts, when, in fact, no counts or rounds of the
SHU were conducted from approximately 10:30 p.m. on August 9 to 6:30 a.m. on August 10.
II.
Pretrial Discovery and the Defendants' Request for Additional Materials
A.
The Government's Discovery Production
At the initial pretrial conference on November 25, 2019, the Court set a discovery deadline
of December 31, 2019. On that date, pursuant to a protective order entered by the Court, the
Government made a substantial discovery production to both defendants, consisting in part of the
following: surveillance video for the common area of the SHU; analysis of the computers used by
Noel and Thomas from August 9 to 10, 2019; count slips and thirty-minute round reports; MCC
phone records; personnel records and prior work schedules; and reports and notes of witness
interviews prepared by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the DOJ-OIG
who were participating in the investigation.²
Subsequently, the Government made three additional discovery productions, much more
limited in scope. On January 23, 2020, the Government produced additional interview reports and
2 The Government does not concede that production of all of the materials was required
under Rule 16, but nonetheless produced the materials in its possession out of an abundance of
caution.
3
EFTA00031270

=== Page 9 ===
notes. On January 30, 2020,3 the Government reproduced video surveillance footage with
timestamps, and on March 16, 2020, the Government produced forensic reports for three electronic
devices and a photograph of a text message.
B.
Defense Requests for Additional Discovery Materials
The defendants have made a number of requests for additional discovery materials, in
response to which the Government has provided information in its possession as consistent with
Rule 16 and its other disclosure obligations, as described below.
At the initial pretrial conference on November 11, 2019, Thomas, through counsel, raised
the issue of an "ongoing
report" by the Office of the Inspector General and requested the
"status" of the report and when it would be completed.4 (Conf. Tr., Nov. 25, 2019, at 3-4, 7-9).
In response, the Government explained that "to the extent counsel's asking for a summary of the
results of the criminal investigation, obviously we'll be turning over in discovery all of the
underlying results of the criminal investigation.
I don't have a time frame on the [I]nspector
[G]eneral report, but the [G]overnment will produce to the defense all of the relevant discovery
materials in this matter, which includes the Rule 16 materials relevant to the criminal charges that
have been brought against the defendants." (Id. at 7-8). As there was no pending issue to resolve,
the Court declined to rule at that time.
On January 29, 2020, Thomas and Noel each submitted discovery requests to the
Government. Thomas's letter reiterated his prior request for "any and all reports, memorandums,
3 The January 30, 2020 production was made to Noel's counsel on January 24, 2020, while
the Government was still waiting for an additional hard drive from Thomas's counsel.
4 Based on conversations with attorneys at DOJ-OIG tasked with preparing this report, the
Government understands that the report will likely focus on the events surrounding the death of
Jeffrey Epstein and BOP policies and procedures.
4
EFTA00031271

=== Page 10 ===
written statements, photos, videos, and incident reports created, manufactured or possessed by the
United States Inspector General." Noel's January 29 letter sought materials related to the MCC
video surveillance system and additional surveillance video, as well as assistance locating
particular information in the surveillance video footage that the Government had previously
produced in discovery.
At the pretrial conference the following day, Thomas, through counsel, renewed his request
for "whatever investigation was done and whatever information there is that is discoverable with
respect to the Inspector General's report." (Conf. Tr., Jan. 30, 2020, at 6, 9). The Court directed
Thomas to file a motion formalizing his request. (Id. at 9).⁵
The Government responded to the defendants' discovery requests by letter dated March
14, 2020. As for Thomas's request for materials related to any forthcoming Inspector General's
report, the Government referred Thomas to its prior response as stated at the November 25, 2019
pretrial conference. With respect to Noel's requests for additional materials related to the MCC
video surveillance system, the Government explained that to the extent such materials were in the
Government's possession and currently subject to disclosure, they had already been produced. In
addition, the Government provided additional information answering certain of Noel's questions,
including video timestamps to assist with review of the surveillance footage.
On March 27, 2020, Thomas submitted another discovery request to the Government,
seeking, among other things, information from the BOP regarding other correctional officers and
information about the Government's charging decisions. The Government responded by letter
5 Thomas, through counsel, previewed that he would also likely file a motion to dismiss
the indictment based on "selective prosecution." (Conf. Tr., Jan. 30, 2020 at 6). The deadline for
filing motions, which was extended at counsel's request, has passed, and Thomas has failed to
timely file a motion to dismiss.
5
EFTA00031272

=== Page 11 ===
dated April 1, 2020, explaining that any responsive information in the Government's possession
and subject to disclosure had already been produced. The letter further explained that to the extent
the requests called for items not in the Government's possession or not subject to disclosure,
Thomas had not identified any legal basis or authority for his requests and the Government was
not aware of any authority requiring the Government to obtain or produce the requested
information.
On April 9, 2020, Thomas filed the instant motion seeking an order from the Court
compelling the Government to produce the following:
The Inspector General's report investigating the death of Jeffrey Epstein
and BOP policies and procedures (referred to herein as the "Inspector
General's Report"), as well as all supporting memoranda and other
documents, (Mot. 4-5);
Any and all "reports generated by investigators within the [BOP] regarding
the August 10, 2019 incident" as well as "documents, reports, witness
statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who
have engaged in the same or similar conduct," including "results of any
disciplinary proceedings and documents maintained by the BOP regarding
the discipline or administrative adjudication of any other employees who
have failed to conduct rounds or inmate counts," (Mot. 4, 6);
Any previously undisclosed reports, witness statements, and documents
created by "any other federal agencies that investigated the circumstances
surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein," (Mot. 4, 7).
For the reasons that follow, Thomas is not entitled to the materials he seeks, and his motion
should be denied.
6
EFTA00031273

=== Page 12 ===
ARGUMENT
I.
Applicable Law
A.
Brady & Giglio
The Government has an obligation under the Due Process Clause to make a timely
disclosure of any exculpatory or impeaching evidence that is material and in its possession. See
Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); see also
United States V. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2001). Evidence is "material" in this sense
only if "its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of a trial." United States V. Bagley,
473 U.S. 667, 678 (1985). "The rationale underlying Brady is not to supply a defendant with all
the evidence in the Government's possession which might conceivably assist the preparation of
his defense, but to assure that the defendant will not be denied access to exculpatory evidence only
known to the Government." United States V. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 619 (2d Cir. 1982) (citing
United States V. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599, 604 (2d Cir. 1973)).
Impeachment evidence is material only "where the witness at issue supplied the only
evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime, or where the likely impact on the witness's
credibility would have undermined a critical element of the prosecution's case." United States V.
Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1210 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Similarly, "where the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to
challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable or is subject to
extensive attack by reason of other evidence, the undisclosed evidence may properly be viewed as
cumulative, and hence not material." United States V. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 111 (2d Cir. 2011)
(citing cases). With regard to the timing of disclosing material under Giglio, the Second Circuit,
in Coppa, rejected the argument that such material should be disclosed when defendants make a
7
EFTA00031274

=== Page 13 ===
demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do
not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It
found that the time required for its effective use would depend on the materiality of the evidence
as well as the particular circumstances of the case, and suggested that district courts may order
disclosure of material it deems material as a matter of case management. Id. As described above,
the Government disclosed reports and notes of witness statements as part of its discovery
productions, such that the defendants will have possessed substantial material that may serve as
potential impeachment evidence for one year in advance of trial.
B.
Rule 16
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Government to permit the
defendants to inspect and copy documents and objects within the Government's possession,
custody, or control if the items are material to preparing the defense, if the Government intends to
use them in its case-in-chief at trial, or if the items were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). An item is "material to preparing the defense" under Rule 16 "if it
could be used to counter the Government's case or bolster a defense." United States V. Stevens,
985 F.2d 1175, 1180-81 (2d Cir. 1993).
II.
Thomas is Not Entitled to Additional Materials
A.
The Government Has Satisfied its Discovery and Disclosure Obligations
As an initial matter, the Government is aware of, has satisfied, and will continue to satisfy
its discovery and disclosure obligations.
The Government has met its Rule 16 discovery and disclosure obligations. As set forth
above, the Government has produced an expansive amount of discovery, which includes among
other things, hundreds of hours of video surveillance going back to July 5, 2019 (despite the fact
8
EFTA00031275

=== Page 14 ===
that the Indictment relates to a 14-hour time period); count slips, thirty minute round forms, and
staffing rosters for the three-week period surrounding Epstein's suicide; internal MCC phone
records; employee files and staffing history for Noel and Thomas; and a wide range of written
Bureau of Prison policies and regulations, among other documents and materials. In addition and
while not required by Rule 16, the Government produced months in advance of trial (and now,
approximately a year in advance of trial) statements for all of the witnesses interviewed during the
investigation. While the Government is not aware of any other information that warrants
disclosure, it will produce any such materials to the extent it becomes aware of them.
The Government is likewise aware of, and has complied with, its Brady and Giglio
obligations. The Government has already produced any evidence in its possession that is arguably
exculpatory or impeaching. To the extent Giglio material exists in notes of witness statements or
attorney proffers made on behalf of witnesses that have not already been produced, the
Government intends to comply with its obligations and will make such disclosures sufficiently in
advance of trial to be effectively used. Based on that representation alone, the defendant's motion
should be denied. See United States V. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying a motion to compel because the government "represented
that it had complied with and would continue to comply with its Brady and Rule 16 obligations);
United States V. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21,
2005) ("The courts of this Circuit repeatedly have denied pretrial requests for discovery orders
pursuant to Brady where the government has made such good faith representations."); United
States V. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying defendant's motion to compel
production of Brady based on Government's representation that it was aware of and had complied
with Brady).
9
EFTA00031276

=== Page 15 ===
B.
The Requested Records Are Not "Material" to Preparing a Defense and Are
Sought for the Impermissible Purpose of Jury Nullification
All of the records Thomas seeks in his motion are not "material to preparing a defense"
under Rule 16, and are not exculpatory under Brady, because they are irrelevant to countering the
Government's false statements case or advancing a legitimate defense. Instead, Thomas seeks
evidence of staffing shortages, working conditions, the implementation of BOP policies,
supervisory lapses, and instances in which other BOP employees were not prosecuted so that he
can engage in attempted jury nullification by arguing that those conditions "led" to the criminal
conduct that he is charged with and are a reason to acquit him. (Mot. 5, 7, 9, 14). Thomas is not
entitled to records-and certainly would not be entitled to introduce any such evidence at trial-
that would aid in that nullification effort because Rule 16 only entitles a defendant to discovery
for purposes of bolstering a defense to the Government's case in chief, not the merits of the
decision to prosecute.
1.
Applicable Law
An item or record that the Government does not intend to use in its case-in-chief at trial is
discoverable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) only if it "is material to preparing the defense." Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16(a)(1)(E). "It is [a defendant's] burden to make a prima facie showing that documents sought
under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) are material to preparing the defense." United States V. Rigas, 258 F.
Supp. 2d 299, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing United States V. McGuinness, 764 F. Supp. 888, 894
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)). As noted above, an item is "material to preparing the defense" under Rule 16
"if it could be used to counter the Government's case or bolster a defense." Stevens, 985 F.2d at
1180-81. The defendant must "offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested
evidence is material." Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (internal citation omitted).
As the Supreme Court held in United States V. Armstrong, while Rule 16 authorizes
10
EFTA00031277

=== Page 16 ===
defendants to examine records "material to the preparation of their defense against the
Government's case in chief," it does not authorize discovery for defenses that do not rebut the
"merits to the criminal charge itself." 517 U.S. 456, 462-63 (1996) (holding that Rule 16 does not
authorize discovery relating to a selective prosecution claim). For that reason, because evidence
that would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification does not relate to the merits of
the criminal charges, it is not discoverable under Rule 16. Id.; see also United States V. Defreitas,
No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2011) (rejecting discovery
request related to something that is "not a defense" and has "nothing to do with the issues of
whether defendants
committed the
crimes charged"). Since jury nullification is "a practice
whereby a juror votes in purposeful disregard of the evidence," United States V. Thomas, 116 F.3d
606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997), or "out of compassion or compromise," Standefer V. United States, 447
U.S. 10, 22 (1980) (internal citation omitted), it is not error for a court to preclude evidence that is
"not a valid defense" aimed at nullification, United States V. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17, 19-20 (2d Cir.
1996). See also United States V. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579, 583-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (precluding
defense arguments or evidence related to "possible consequences for the defendant of conviction,
jury nullification, and the Government's motive and conduct in prosecuting [defendant]"); United
States V. Levin, No. 15 Cr. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 299031, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) (barring
evidence "intended to elicit sympathy" and attempts to "use jury nullification as a defense" as
"plainly improper"). Indeed, "trial courts have the duty to forestall or prevent jury nullification"
even where the defendant or the court may "strongly disagree[] with the government's charging
decisions and the attendant sentencing consequences." United States V. Manzano, 945 F.3d 616,
626-27 (2d Cir. 2019) (citations & quotation marks omitted).
11
EFTA00031278

=== Page 17 ===
2.
Discussion
Thomas's motion makes clear that he intends for his principal defense at trial to be that-
irrespective of his guilt or innocence of the false statements charges-he should be acquitted
because the MCC was understaffed, Thomas was overworked, his supervisors did not catch his
crime in the moment, and falsification of count slips is rampant within the BOP. (See Mot. 3
("staffing issues, staffing shortages, supervisory lapses and the enforcement/interpretation of BOP
procedures go to the heart of his defense to the government's criminal allegations"); 9 ("Mr.
Thomas will assert that the rampant staffing shortages present at the MCC in August of 2019 led
to the conduct for which Mr. Thomas is now criminally charged.")). Thomas has failed to meet
his burden in establishing the materiality of discovery about these topics to preparing a valid
defense because the materials he seeks do not rebut the merits of the criminal charges and instead
would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification.
The purported reasons for Thomas's decision to falsify count slips-being tired,
overworked, or understaffed-are not a valid legal defense, and therefore evidence related to those
issues is not relevant. Put simply, were the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas
intentionally made materially false statements and also that did so while tired or overworked, it
would still be required to convict him. See United States V. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)
(holding that "it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that it had a duty to find [the
defendant] guilty if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense
with which he was charged" (internal citation omitted)).
None of Thomas's proffered excuses relate to proving or rebutting the elements of a
violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1001(a)(3) as they do not concern whether a writing or entry was false,
whether it was material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the BOP, or whether he knowingly
12
EFTA00031279

=== Page 18 ===
and willfully made a false statement. Nor are those excuses relevant to whether Thomas had a
criminal agreement with his co-defendant. Indeed, evidence as to a defendant's purportedly
innocent motive in a false statement case is irrelevant to the question of intent. See United States
V. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 493-94 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (holding that proof of a good or innocent
motive is not probative of intent where the mens rea is "knowingly and willfully"); In re Terrorist
Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 154 n.49 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Washington,
705 F.2d at 493, for "the irrelevance of a motive to the question of whether conduct is intentional");
United States V. George, 786 F. Supp. 56, 64 (D.D.C. 1992) (rejecting the defendant's "context
argument" for why materials could be relevant to the crime charged).
For the same reasons, "other people were doing it" is not a defense to a false statements or
conspiracy charge because the conduct of other BOP employees is irrelevant to each of the
foregoing elements. Thomas argues that because he was aware of incidents where BOP employees
falsified records and "their conduct did not lead to their indictment or incarceration," evidence of
what other BOP employees have done is relevant to his intent. (Mot. 6.) Not so. Whether Thomas
believed falsifying records was illegal or was subject to criminal penalties is not relevant to the
charges against him. See United States V. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1372 (2d Cir. 1985)
("Ignorance of the law is no defense to a charge of purposeful and intentional action."); United
States V. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598, 601 n.2 (3d Cir. 1972) ("As long as the inexcusable intent is
present, it is not necessary that the defendant know that his conduct is subject to criminal
penalties."). And in any event, it would be fundamentally inappropriate, and extremely prejudicial,
for the jury to consider other individuals not on trial or otherwise relevant to the conduct charged
here, in evaluating the guilt or innocence of the defendant. See United States V. Gibbons, 602 F.2d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1979) (approving instruction that jury was not to consider individuals who
13
EFTA00031280

=== Page 19 ===
were not on trial).
Thomas's efforts to garner sympathy, put the Government on trial, and deflect blame for
his own criminal actions plainly sound in nullification. See Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 583-84;
Levin, 2016 WL 2990831, at *12. Evidence on those points does not relate to whether the
defendant committed the crimes charged, but rather is intended to elicit sympathy, compassion, or
compromise from the jury. The records Thomas seeks are no more discoverable than the
nullification evidence precluded in Armstrong and its progeny. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462-
63 (defendant not entitled to discovery on race of other narcotics defendants to aid in selective
prosecution claim); United States V. Delacruz, No. 14 Cr. 815 (KBF), 2015 WL 2211943, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2015) (rejecting defendant's "demands for general information and statistics
relating to the Government's use of sting operations"); United States V. Floyd, No. 99 Cr. 0234
(DAB), 1999 WL 476438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1999) (rejecting discovery request for
"background data, records and investigative reports" of the New York City Police Department
("NYPD") as well as information about NYPD officers' conduct in other cases); Defreitas, 2011
WL 317964, at *10 (rejecting discovery demands related to a "factual impossibility" defense to a
conspiracy charge). It is the Court's "duty to forestall or prevent" jury nullification. Manzano,
945 F.3d at 627 (holding that "District courts have a duty to forestall or prevent [jury nullification
arguments] and the district court in this case abdicated its duty by ruling that defense counsel could
argue jury nullification."); see also United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984)
(criticizing trial court for inviting nullification by permitting the defendants to mount a "political
defense" and stating that it was an "erroneous assumption that good motive for committing a crime
is inconsistent with criminal intent").
In sum, much of the additional discovery Thomas seeks in his motion relates to legally
14
EFTA00031281

=== Page 20 ===
irrelevant matters, such as what "led" him to the criminal conduct or the broader "context" in
which he committed specific criminal acts. There is no basis to compel production of evidence
related to those matters under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio because they are not material and because
the evidence sought is in furtherance of a transparent attempt at nullification. Thomas's motion
should be denied on this basis alone.
C.
The Government is Not Required to Collect Materials From Agencies Who
Were Not Part of the Prosecution Team
Thomas asks the Court to compel the Government to produce "any reports, witness
statements, memorandum, and documents from any separate investigation conducted by the
BOP," "documents, reports, witness statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC
employees who have engaged in the same or similar conduct," and any previously undisclosed
reports, witness statements, and documents created by "any other federal agencies that investigated
the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein." (Mot. 4, 7 (emphasis added)). Even
if Thomas had satisfied the materiality requirement under Rule 16 or Brady with respect to these
items-and he has not-Thomas's motion would still fail because the materials he seeks are not
in the prosecution team's possession.
The BOP is not, and never has been, part of the prosecution team. Nor did the BOP conduct
an investigation jointly or in coordination with the prosecution team.6 To require the Government
to obtain and produce any records from the BOP from a separate investigation, as well as evidence
that would support Thomas's purported (and improper, for the reasons discussed in Part II.B,
6 The defendant claims, based on a CNN article, that the U.S. Marshal Service ("USMS")
conducted an investigation. The Government is unaware of such an investigation, and in any
event, any such inquiry by the USMS was not conducted jointly or in coordination with the
prosecution team.
15
EFTA00031282

=== Page 21 ===
supra) defenses, is not legally required and would impose a nearly insurmountable obligation on
the Government of marshaling and reviewing information and data in the possession of an entirely
separate entity.
1.
Applicable Law
As described above, Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio apply to materials in the Government's
"possession." As a general matter, while "[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed
to have
knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office's investigation of the
case,
knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does
not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor." United States V.
Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The imposition of such "an
unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor's office
on the case in question would inappropriately require us to adopt a monolithic view of government'
that would "condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis." Id. (citation &
quotation marks omitted); see also Kyles V. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (Government's
discovery and disclosure obligations extend only to information in the custody of the prosecutor
or "others acting on the government's behalf in the case"). Thus, discovery and disclosure
obligations only extend "information known to persons who are a part of the "prosecution
team'
who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of
the case," including "police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the
prosecutor and participate in the investigation." United States V. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d
Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Brady is not a basis to compel the Government to gather information
in the possession of third parties on behalf of the defense. See United States V. Yousef, 327 F.3d
16
EFTA00031283

=== Page 22 ===
56, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendants were not deprived of due process by any alleged failure of U.S.
government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).
In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another
government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the
Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See
United States V. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that
there was "no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")]" and
therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United
States V. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government
was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury
presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by
prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States V. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr.
36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was
not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
("PCAOB")] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the
SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's
investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States V. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228,
241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States V.
Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between
Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")); United States V. Upton, 856 F. Supp.
727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA")
did not conduct a "joint investigation" even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the
criminal investigation).
17
EFTA00031284

=== Page 23 ===
Moreover, even where agents from a component of an agency are involved in an
investigation, that does not render the entirety of an agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g.,
United States V. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("While the prosecution's [Rule
16] disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge
of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of
the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned."); United
States V. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 218 (3d Cir. 2005) ("[T]hat other agents in the ([Department of
Labor ("DOL")] participated in this investigation does not mean that the entire DOL is properly
considered part of the prosecution team."); see also United States V. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 949 (2d
1993) (refusing, for Brady purposes, to impute to AUSAs prosecuting that action with the
assistance of certain FBI agents knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were
"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants"); but see United States V. Ghailani, 687
F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other
members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and
progress of the case were part of the "government" for Rule 16 purposes).
Thus, as the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether
an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records
are in the "possession" of the Government include whether the agency or component: "(1)
participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the
grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4)
played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to
court proceedings." Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.
18
EFTA00031285

=== Page 24 ===
2.
Discussion
As described above, the Government has produced Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 material in
the possession of the prosecutors and agents at the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and
the DOJ-OIG who have worked on this investigation and prosecution. Thomas seeks materials
that are not in the possession of the United States Attorney's Office or the case teams at the FBI
and DOJ-OIG who worked on this criminal investigation.
Thomas seeks a variety of records from the BOP. The BOP was not a member of the
prosecution team, and no employee of the BOP performed investigative duties or made strategic
decisions about the prosecution of the case. Indeed, the Government obtained records from the
MCC (a component of the BOP) pursuant to a grand jury subpoena to the institution and written
requests to the MCC's legal department. Likewise, the Government was not involved in any
internal BOP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. Notwithstanding
those facts, the defendant asserts that the BOP is "allied with the prosecution" and therefore the
Government's discovery and disclosure obligations extend to materials exclusively in the
possession of the BOP. That argument is not only belied by the facts, but it is settled law in this
Circuit that a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession, custody, or
control of another agency for Brady evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint
investigation" with that agency. None of the indicia of a "joint" or "allied" prosecution, as
discussed in the foregoing case law, is present here. A straightforward application of those factors
considered by courts in this Circuit reveals that the investigation was in no way joint: the BOP did
not participate in the prosecution's witness interviews; it was not involved in presenting the case
to the grand jury; no BOP employees aided in the review of documents gathered by the
19
EFTA00031286

=== Page 25 ===
Government; the BOP was not involved in the strategic decisions; and no BOP personnel
accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.
Moreover, even if the BOP had conducted a joint investigation with the Government into
the events of August 9 and 10, 2019 (which they did not), Thomas has offered no reason to believe
that most if not all of the records that he seeks-such as records of other instances of BOP
employees failing to conduct rounds and counts-would be part of the BOP's investigation. There
is simply no basis to seek an order compelling the Government to search for records in the
possession of the BOP, without any temporal limitation or factual nexus to the charged case,
regarding staffing shortages at the MCC, other instances where BOP employees failed to conduct
required rounds and counts, and disciplinary records for other BOP employees who have at other
times also allegedly falsified records.
The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States V. Bryan, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents
located in the district of prosecution since the case came out of a single, nationwide IRS
investigation. 868 F.2d 1032, 1035-37 (9th Cir. 1989). In reaching that holding, the Circuit
explained that "a federal prosecutor need not comb the files of every federal agency which might
have documents regarding the defendant" and that Rule 16's disclosure requirements are cabined
to anything in the possession "of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the
defendant." Id. at 1036 (emphasis added). Similarly, in United States V. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d
204, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the court explained, in denying the defendant's discovery motion, that
"[c]ourts have construed the term 'government'
narrowly to mean the prosecutors in the
particular case or the governmental agencies jointly involved in the prosecution of the defendant,
and not the 'government' in general." And while the court in United States V. Libby, 429 F. Supp.
20
EFTA00031287

=== Page 26 ===
2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2006), required the prosecutors to obtain records from the Office of the Vice
President and the Central Intelligence Agency, even though those parts of government did not
participate in the grand jury investigation, that holding was an outlier, which has never been cited
by another court, and the decision itself has never been cited in this Circuit.
Finally, even if such materials had any conceivable relevance to the charges at hand (which,
as discussed above, they do not), asking the Government to conduct a broad canvassing of the
BOP's records-including searching databases located out of state, reviewing large quantities of
documents, attempting to pull archived records going back as far as 2005, and parsing through
attorney work product-would be inordinately time consuming and burdensome for attorneys for
the Government, which does not have custody of the files, is not familiar with the files, and knows
of no effective way to search them. It would, as the Circuit warned against in Avellino, "condemn
the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis." 136 F.3d at 255. Such a result is not
legally required by Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, and therefore Thomas's motion should be denied.
D.
Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure
Thomas argues that any report by the Inspector General and related materials must be
produced because he speculates that such a report will address systemic issues at the BOP,
including purported staffing shortages at the MCC. (Mot. 5, 9-10). For the reasons set forth above,
any draft Inspector General Report is not discoverable because the issues Thomas believes it will
discuss are not material to the preparation of a valid defense, see Part II.B, and the draft reports,
to the extent they exist, are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege. While
the prosecution team has had no involvement in writing the Inspector General Report, the
Government understands that those attorneys from DOJ-OIG responsible for writing the Report
have not yet completed a draft, and do not anticipate completing the Report in the near term. As
21
EFTA00031288

=== Page 27 ===
such, there are no drafts of the Report to disclose, and Thomas's motion can be denied on that
reason alone. Moreover, Thomas's request for draft versions of the Report-which do not yet
exist-fails for two additional reasons.
First, drafts of the Inspector General's Report, which has not been completed and will
likely make recommendations about reforms at the BOP, are protected from disclosure under the
deliberative process privilege, which "covers 'documents reflecting advisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions
and policies are formulated." Dep't of Interior V. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532
U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (quoting N.L.R.B. V. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). The
privilege is applicable in criminal and civil cases involving the government. See, e.g., United
States V. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240, 1246-47 (9th Cir. 2000) (government's death penalty
evaluation form and prosecution memoranda were shielded from discovery under the deliberative
process privilege); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737-40 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (indicating that the
privilege applies to grand jury subpoenas); United States V. Frank, 8 F. Supp. 2d 253, 284
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal memoranda covered by privilege). "In order for the privilege to apply,
the agency record at issue must be (1) an inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letter; (2)
pre-decisional; and (3) deliberative." Nat'l Res. Def. Council V. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 954 F.3d
150, 155 (2d Cir. 2020). "It is well-settled that draft documents, by their very nature, are typically
pre-decisional and deliberative [because] [t]hey reflect only the tentative view of their authors;
views that might be altered or rejected upon further deliberation by their authors or by their
superiors." Color of Change V. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447, 453 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (quoting Amnesty Int 'l USA V. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
The Inspector General's Report is both pre-decisional and deliberative. A full draft has not
22
EFTA00031289

=== Page 28 ===
been completed, let alone reached a point where the final version will be disclosed to the public.
It is also deliberative in that it will likely make recommendations about the BOP, and those
recommendations will be under discussion within the Office of the Inspector General prior to being
finalized and publicly announced. Internal deliberations are an important tool for agencies in
reaching decisions, including recommendations in DOJ-OIG reports. The ability to have these
discussions is important in identifying a broad range of policy and legal issues. Here, disclosure
of any draft report or other work product related to the preparation of the Report will undermine
the DOJ-OIG's ability to engage in meaningful discussions of the issues at the BOP relating to
inmate security and staffing, among other topics, and will potentially stifle rigorous discourse on
the issues. Accordingly, Thomas's motion should be denied for the reason that the materials
sought are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 9.
Second, Thomas has offered no support for his contention that drafts of the Inspector
General's Report itself (and any related work product)-as opposed to the underlying materials
upon which the Report is based-are subject to disclosure. To the extent that the forthcoming
Inspector General's Report relies on information gathered during the instant investigation and
prosecution, those underlying materials-which focus primarily on the events of August 9 and 10,
2019, the incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein, and related MCC records-have already been disclosed
to the defendants. Thomas contends that those tasked with preparing the Report may "possibl[y]"
have generated additional witness statements and "other information" that has not been produced
by the Government to date. (Mot. 5). Thomas provides no support for such assertions besides
mere speculation. The prosecution has inquired of the Washington D.C.-based attorneys who are
preparing the Inspector General's Report. Based on those conversations, it is the prosecution's
understanding that those attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise
23
EFTA00031290

=== Page 29 ===
discovered any potential Brady material. As such, given that the prosecution has already produced
in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the
underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants'
possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General's
Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See
United States V. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that "nothing contained
in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable").
At bottom, Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft,
unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not
required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.
E.
Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material
in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
Thomas seeks "information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is
being charged with a crime were
rampant throughout the BOP" and that the application of
criminal laws to him is "possibl[y] discriminatory." (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a
demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only
for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite
showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas
has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or
discriminatory purpose.
1.
Applicable Law
"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself,
but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by
the Constitution." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is "a demanding
24
EFTA00031291

=== Page 30 ===
one," id., as the defendant must "overcome the strong presumption of regularity on the part of
federal prosecutors, and 'in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they
have properly discharged their official duties." United States V. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141, 144
(E.D.N.Y. 1998) (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464), aff'd, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000).
A defendant claiming selective prosecution must present "clear evidence" that the decision
to prosecute not only (1) "had a discriminatory effect" but was also (2) "motivated by a
discriminatory purpose." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465; United States V. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 173
(2d Cir. 2003); United States V. Fares, 978 F.2d 52, 59 (2d Cir. 1992); United States V. Moon, 718
F.2d 1210, 1229 (2d Cir. 1983). "The discriminatory effect prong requires a showing that
"similarly situated individuals of a different [classification] were not prosecuted." Alameh, 341
F.3d at 173 (quoting Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465). In other words, the defendant must show that
he has been "singled out" as a member of a protected class. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (quoting Moon,
718 F.2d at 1229). To establish discriminatory purpose, the defendant must show that the
Government's discriminatory "selection of the defendant for prosecution has been invidious or in
bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to
prevent his exercise of constitutional rights." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration
incorporated). Where a defendant "has not shown that the Government prosecuted him because
of" his protected status or conduct, his claim fails. Id.
In order to obtain discovery on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must offer
"some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense."
Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468 (quoting United States V. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207, 1211 (2d Cir. 1974));
United States V. Bass, 536 U.S. 862, 863 (2002) (per curiam) (to obtain discovery, a defendant
accordingly first "must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory
25
EFTA00031292

=== Page 31 ===
intent"); Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (same). "[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself
be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464.
"Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient" to meet this
burden. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59; see, e.g., Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470 (affidavits "recount[ing]
hearsay and report[ing] personal conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence" are not sufficient to
justify discovery); Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211 (affidavit from defendant and attorney that they
"believe[d]" there was improper motive and that "hundreds" of similarly situated individuals went
unprosecuted was insufficient); Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174 (defendant's statistical analysis was
insufficient to merit discovery on selective prosecution claim).
2.
Discussion
Thomas is not entitled to discovery that would relate to a selective procession or
"discriminatory application" claim. He has not carried his burden through a showing of any
evidence that his prosecution for the charges in the Indictment is discriminatory.
As to the first required prong (discriminatory effect), Thomas has failed to put forth any
evidence that "others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of
conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him]." Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (internal
quotation marks omitted). "A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who
has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom
the law has not been enforced." United States V. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008). Thomas
alleges that there was an "almost identical incident in 2005 or 2006 wherein officers failed to
conduct institutional counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide," and one of the four
officers involved was given a suspension. (Mot. 6). But Thomas is not charged with failing to
conduct counts, he is charged with making false statements about those counts. Even assuming
26
EFTA00031293

=== Page 32 ===
those officers "in 2005 or 2006" did falsify count slips, Thomas has still not put forth any evidence
that those officers were "outside of the protected class," meaning of a different race, gender,
nationality, or other protected class than Thomas. In any event, even were the conduct similar,
that Thomas can point to but a single other instance in which officers were not criminally
prosecuted for that type of conduct hardly rings of selectiveness.
Similarly, Thomas points to the fact that "Officer-1" and "Officer-2" in the Indictment,
who falsified count slips along with Tova Noel for the 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. institutional counts on
August 9, 2019, respectively, were not prosecuted. (Mot. 10; Ind. 11 15, 17, 19). Even assuming
arguendo that Officer-1 and Officer-2 were similarly situated to Thomas in that they each falsified
one count slip-while Thomas falsified three-Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that
either Officer-1 or Officer-2 were outside of a "protected class" to which Thomas belongs.7 Nor
could he: Officer-1 and Officer-2 are the same race, gender, and nationality as Thomas. Thomas
also questions why his supervisors or other MCC personnel who received and reviewed Thomas's
false count slips were not also prosecuted with making false statements, but those supervisors or
personnel are not similarly situated to Thomas because they did not actually make the false
statements-Thomas did. In addition, Courts have repeatedly held that the "suspicion [and]
surmise" contained in Thomas's motion simply do not constitute "objective evidence" warranting
discovery. See United States V. White, 972 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1992) (conclusory allegations as to
timing of indictment, Government's failure to follow internal guidelines, and improprieties of
7 In so noting, the Government does not intend to comment on its deliberative process or
the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. It notes these facts simply in response to Thomas's
claim that the lack of charges against Officer-1, Officer-2, or Thomas's supervisors is in and of
itself sufficient to meet the defendant's burden of establishing evidence of a similarly situated
defendant who was not charged.
27
EFTA00031294

=== Page 33 ===
prosecutors not "objective evidence" warranting discovery); Moon, 718 F.2d at 1230 ("to engage
in a collateral inquiry respecting prosecutorial motive, there must be more than mere suspicion or
surmise"). Thomas's failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of the first required prong
means that his motion for discovery on his selective prosecution claim must be denied. See, e.g.,
Bass, 536 U.S. at 863.
As to the second required prong, Thomas has failed to even allege, let alone establish, that
the decision to prosecute him was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To make such a
showing, a defendant must establish that the Government's "selection of the defendant for
prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations
as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights." Fares, 978 F.2d at
59 (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration incorporated). Thomas has not put forth any
evidence whatsoever that the Government's decision to prosecute Thomas was based on anything
other than his guilt. Instead, Thomas challenges the Government's decision to prosecute him at
all, based on his wholly unsupported claim that the criminal conduct with which he is charged is
"rampant" within the BOP. (Mot. 7). But the mere fact that other people were not prosecuted for
committing the crime that Thomas committed does not mean that the Government harbored
discriminatory intent in prosecuting Thomas.8
8 Even if Thomas had not failed to carry his burden on his discovery motion (and he has
failed), he would still not be entitled to put such evidence or argument regarding selective
prosecution before a jury because the "selective prosecution defense is an issue for the court rather
than the jury." Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082. The Second Circuit's directive makes sense. A claim of
improper prosecutorial motive, whatever its ground or grounds, "is not a defense on the merits to
the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge
for reasons forbidden by the Constitution." Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463. Instead, it is self-
evidently "unrelated to factual innocence of the crime charged," which is the sole issue to be
decided by the jury, and, as a result, the Court alone must resolve a claim of selective prosecution.
Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082; see also United States V. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984)
(criticizing admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away
28
EFTA00031295

=== Page 34 ===
Having failed to meet the "rigorous standard" required to obtain discovery on a selective
prosecution defense, Thomas's requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents
in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517
U.S. at 464.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to compel should be denied.
Dated: New York, New York
April 24, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorneys
from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues
in a criminal trial"). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising
these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 ("[W]e agree with the district court's
decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan
from presenting evidence on that subject."); United States V. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt.
622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States V.
Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting
motion to preclude the defendant from "presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the
jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting" the defendant); United
States V. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) ("Defendant will
be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government's motive for prosecution in the
instant case as such evidence is not relevant."); United States V. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012
WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).
29
EFTA00031296


c1: EFTA00029648
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029648.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted:
proffer (re abuse)
Start Date: 2019-12-04 19:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2019-12-04 22:00:00 +0000
Location: Winston & Strawn offices, 200 Park Ave
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2019-12-03 07:51:44 +0000
Date Modified: 2019-12-03 07:51:44 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2019-12-02 23:48:31 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00029648


c1: EFTA00029699
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029699.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Subpoena to Lockheed Martin
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:11:46 +0000
Attachments: 2021.06.22_Court_Subpoena_-_Lockheed_Martin.pdf
Thank you for the call yesterday. Attached please find the subpoena we discussed.
We'd be happy to answer any questions. Also, if you find that the responsive records are voluminous, please let us know
and we can work with you to triage them.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00029699


c1: EFTA00030880
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030880.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
To:
Cc:
Christian
Everdell
>, "Mark S. Cohen"
,
Subject: Re: URGENT re: Ghislaine Maxwell
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 19:07:01 +0000
I missed your email yesterday.
Enjoy the weekend.
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10011
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message. Thank you.
On Jan 15, 2021, at 1:30 PM,
wrote:
Good afternoon Bobbi:
As I previously noted, the legal department is not involved in the
processing of legal or regular mail. Additionally, there are BOP
policies and procedures that must be complied with when processing
mail.
Have a good weekend.
Best,
EFTA00030880

=== Page 2 ===
BOBBI C STERNHEIM
1/15/2021 1:27 PM
I am on the VTC with Ms. Maxwell.
She has not received the time-sensitive legal mail referenced in my
earlier email.
Please assist in getting this legal mail provided to her today.
Thank you-
Enjoy the long weekend.
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10011
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
This message and any attached documents contain information from the
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
On Jan 15, 2021, at 11:01 AM, BOBBI C STERNHEIM
wrote:
Good morning-
The "next-day" express mailing (referenced in yesterday's email
below)
was delivered to the MDC today at 7:25 am (see tracking information
below).
As requested, it is imperative that Ms. Maxwell be given this legal
mail containing time-sensitive
documents TODAY.
Thank you-
EFTA00030881

=== Page 3 ===
Bobbi
<image004.png>
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10011
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
**Covid-19 Notice: The West 19th Street office is currently closed
but we continue to work remotely.
Please use email or fax, instead of regular mail, for all
correspondence during this time.
We continue to work regular business hours throughout this
situation.
Thank you for your consideration. Our best wishes for your good
health and well being.
This message and any attached documents contain information from the
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
EFTA00030882

=== Page 4 ===
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
On Jan 14, 2021, at 2:38 PM, BOBBI C STERNHEIM
wrote:
Good afternoon-
Yesterday, we expressed mailed time-sensitive documents to Ms.
Maxwell for delivery today.
We are requesting that this legal mail be given to Ms. Maxwell
immediately.
She must have them by tomorrow, Friday, for review over the
weekend.
I received no response to the email regarding these documents (see
below).
The courtesy of a response to today's email is appreciated.
Thank you-
Bobbi
On Jan 12, 2021, at 11:12 PM, BOBBI C STERNHEIM
wrote:
Good morning-
On Thursday, 12/14, we are express mailing time-sensitive documents
for next-day delivery for review by Ms. Maxwell. We need to discuss
these documents with Ms. Maxwell on Tuesday 12/19, in order to comply
with a court-ordered filing deadline. We understand that legal calls are
suspended on holidays (Monday, 1/18, is Martin Luther King Day).
EFTA00030883

=== Page 5 ===
To ensure that Ms. Maxwell receives the documents on Friday for
review over the weekend, we are requesting permission to send them to
the attention of the Legal Department for prompt delivery to Ms.
Maxwell.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.
In addition, we are requesting that Ms. Maxwell be given access to
the laptop
computer provided by the government for use over the weekend.
The MDC computers are not capable of opening discovery documents
provided by the government,
which is why the laptop has been provided. Without access to a
computer that allows her
to review discovery, Ms. Maxwell is effectively denied the ability
to assist in her defense.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Bobbi
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
New York, NY 10011
Main:
Cell:
Fax:
EFTA00030884

=== Page 6 ===
This message and any attached documents contain information from
the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
EFTA00030885


c1: EFTA00030338
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030338.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject:
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 23:39:25 +0000
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-judge-berman-epstein-bar-bop-20200506-
a6p4hvl3tncpndjbz2pda2hsde-story.html
EFTA00030338


c1: EFTA00030788
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030788.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Please read - child exploitation/sex crimes case updates
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:30:34 +0000
Ha no worries at all!!
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 15:08
To:
Subject: RE: Please read - child exploitation/sex crimes case updates
Thanks. I did do a quick scan for the obvious ones but I guess I missed this one.
e
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:39 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Please read - child exploitation/sex crimes case updates
Epstein case is charged and nolle submitted post-death.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 14:30
To:
Subject: Please read - child exploitation/sex crimes case updates
It's that time again...
EFTA00030788

=== Page 2 ===
If you are in the "to" line of this email, you have a Project Safe Childhood case for which we need an update. Because of
the sensitive nature of these cases, it's critical that we don't let cases linger, and, in consultation with your supervisors, we
close cases when necessary.
Please review the attached list, noting the most recent entry for any case under your name. Then
If the case is uncharged, please advise me of the status of any expected charges and/or come by to discuss next
steps.
If the case has been charged, please send me a quick email with any updates to the case status (e.g., pled,
sentenced, on appeal) or, if the status is up to date, please confirm that no changes need to be made.
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply to this email. (Read: Please don't make me hunt you down for updates - this will
take approximately 5 minutes.)
Thanks,
EFTA00030789


c1: EFTA00029991
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029991.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: My Contact Information
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:53:34 +0000
Attachments: SDNY_AG_Briefing_Overview_(to_JF_10.7.19).pdf
Thanks again
As discussed, I've attached the overviews of the three case briefings (and pictures of the anticipated
briefers). Let me know if there's anything else we can do, and I look forward to seeing you Thursday.
From:
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 1:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: My Contact Information
Thanks
appreciate all the assistance and look forward to the visit.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 7, 2019, at 1:01 PM,
wrote:
Pleasure meeting you and the agents from the AG's detail. Apologies again for the lack of card, but my contact
information is below. Please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything we can get you that would be helpful.
Counsel to the U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, New York 10007
Des
Cell
EFTA00029991


c1: EFTA00031090
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031090.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:04:37 +0000
We haven't gotten a formal request yet because we haven't told them what form it needs to take. But I'll come by.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 14:04
To:
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
Yes, and bring the request
From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 2:03 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
I am indeed. Want me to swing by?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 12:42
To:
Subject: RE: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
You in today?
From:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 3:49 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
V.
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: plaintiff counsel request for documents, Epstein case
Following up on our brief discussion of this issue earlier this month, I wanted to see if you had any additional thoughts on
how to handle requests from counsel for plaintiffs who are suing Epstein and his estate who ask us for information or
materials in connection with our investigation - I think you had said we should instruct them to submit Touhy Requests,
and that you would designate a Civil Division person to whom we could have them direct those requests. If that's right,
could you please let us know who that person will be? So far we've just gotten the request from one plaintiff's counsel,
Robbie Kaplan at Kaplan Hecker, and her request is very narrow but we want to set up the system in a way that will work if
we get additional and/or more expansive requests going forward. And we would like to let her know how she should
proceed relatively soon because that case has a status conference on January 10 and I think they'd like to make the
request before then.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
EFTA00031090

=== Page 2 ===
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00031091


c1: EFTA00030177
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030177.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
SANYS)"
To:
)"
Subject: Re: updates
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 15:35:51 +0000
Importance: Normal
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2019, at 11:10 AM,
)
wrote:
Good morning all-
asked me to pass along two quick updates. First, Judge Moses signed the search warrant this morning. Second,
our case agent told us that FBI received a flight manifest from CBP last night. The passengers listed are Epstein and two
pilots. Of course, that is subject to change, and I'm told that FBI will try to get confirmation of the passengers after the
flight takes off.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030177


c1: EFTA00030516
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030516.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Martin Weinberg
To:
)"
Subject: Re: 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) - Discovery Production
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:29:34 +0000
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:11 PM,
)
wrote:
Counsel,
The Government's first discovery production in this case has been loaded onto the drive you provided this afternoon
and is ready for pickup at our office. If you are sending a runner to pick up the production, he or she should just ask for
the envelope with Michael Miller's name on it. I've also attached a copy of the accompanying discovery and disclosure
letter to this email.
Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the discovery on the drive.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
<2019.07.31 Epstein Discovery Letter.pdf>
EFTA00030516


c1: EFTA00031883
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031883.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
)"
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:57:36 +0000
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 5, 2019, at 4:56 PM,
wrote:
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission for the team to travel next week for an interview in Los Angeles on November 14. We expect to be traveling,
respectively, some combination of the 13th to the 15th (and no conference room necessary for this trip).
thanks,
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 13:55
To:
Cc:
>;
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Similar to prior requests in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request
permission to travel next week for an interview in West Palm Beach on November 4. It will just be me and
and we'll travel some combination of the 3rd to the 5th. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to
reserve a conference room at the hotel on that Monday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 14:51
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
EFTA00031883

=== Page 2 ===
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation (2018R01618), we'd like to please request permission to travel next
week for a victim interview in Los Angeles. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Wednesday and return no later
than Friday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows). The trip will be some combination of me,
and/or
as previously. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a conference
room at the hotel on Thursday for the interview, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 14:57
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Again in connection with the Epstein investigation, we'd like to please request permission to travel for approximately
three days next week for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly
down Tuesday night and return on Wednesday or Thursday (and will keep the timeframe as short as scheduling allows).
Unfortunately we're still trying to pin down timing for interviewing the victims, so depending on the timing it will either
be me and
or
and
but we wanted to ask for permission now either way so we weren't doing it
super last minute after the holiday on Tuesday. And also same as last time, we'd like to ask permission to reserve a
conference room at the hotel for the interviews, please.
thanks very much,
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:57
To:
Subject: RE: travel approval request
Thank you
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 20:46
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Re: travel approval request
Approved
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 3, 2019, at 8:02 PM,
wrote:
EFTA00031884

=== Page 3 ===
For the same case as below, United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an investigation relating to enticement of minors for
sexual activity,
and I would like to please request permission to travel for approximately three days next week
for meetings and interviews in West Palm Beach, Florida. As of now we tentatively expect to fly down Tuesday night
and return on Friday, though we will shorten the timeframe if scheduling allows.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 18:32
To:
Cc:
Subject: travel approval request
and I would like to please request permission for travel for United States V. Epstein, 2018R01618, an
investigation relating to enticement of minors for sexual activity, for two days of meetings and interviews in West Palm
Beach and/or Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of now we're hoping to fly down next Wednesday night and return on
Saturday.
Please let us know if any other information would be helpful, and thanks as always.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00031885


c1: EFTA00031356
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031356.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: 20 Cr 330
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 20:05:16 +0000
Attachments:
letter_to_the_court.pdf
Hi
,
Attached is the statement I read - it has not been filed with the Court, so it's not public, but happy to share it to make
sure the transcript is accurate. If you need any spellings or clarifications, I'd be happy to provide them. Separately, what is
the best way to order a transcript?
Thanks very much--
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:42 PM
To:
Subject: 20 Cr 330
Hi
May I please have the victim statement that you read for starters and I will reach out with my other spellings
that I need if I don't find them in the papers
Thanks,
EFTA00031356


c1: EFTA00031852
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031852.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:13:41 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Thanks very much.
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:26 PM
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN
TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Congratulations guys. Amazing work.
From
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
UNITED QUI PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA OF SOFFICE JESTICE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
EFTA00031852

=== Page 2 ===
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
EFTA00031853

=== Page 3 ===
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00031854


c1: EFTA00030260
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030260.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: "Martin G. Weinberg"
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 00:33:50 +0000
Importance: Normal
I'm here, give a call -
From: Martin G. Weinberg
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 20:33
To:
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
You around? Or is tomorrow morning better?
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
This Electronic Message contains information from the Law Office
of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee
only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
of this message is prohibited.
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 2:36 PM
To: Martin G. Weinberg
Cc: Reid Weingarten
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
Hi Marty,
We do expect to produce them as part of Rule 16 discovery. I expect we may reference financial information in
connection with filings as necessary appropriate, as we did in Friday's submission, but we'll of course provide the full
materials to you as discovery.
thanks,
From: Martin G. Weinberg
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 18:28
To:
Cc: 'Martin Weinberg'
>; Reid Weingarten
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
we request a copy of the records obtained from Institution 1. We would request that they be provided as discovery
and not as part of a public filing. Let me know if you consent to that production.
Otherwise enjoy your weekend
EFTA00030260

=== Page 2 ===
Marty
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
This Electronic Message contains information from the Law Office
of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee
only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
of this message is prohibited.
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 5:40 PM
To:
Cc:
>; 'Martin Weinberg'
>; 'rweingarten@steptoe.com
V.
i
Subject: RE: U.S. V. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Government bail memorandum
To the Chambers of Judge Berman:
With apologies for the delay, attached please find a courtesy copy of the Government's reply in support of its detention
memo and in opposition to the defendant's motion for bail, including exhibits, filed this afternoon in the above-captioned
case. Defense counsel is copied.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
Thank you,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030261


c1: EFTA00030601
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030601.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: "Epstein Murder Evidence"
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:51:37 +0000
Embedded: RE:_"Epstein_Murder_Evidence".msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: "Epstein Murder Evidence"
Message-Id:
OM>
To:
Cc:
Cc:
EFTA00030601


c1: EFTA00030344
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030344.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
HOMELAND SECURITY
Person Encounter Detail
06/30/2020 13:10 EDT
Generated By:
Page 1 of 1
Encounter Person Detail
Last Name
First Name
Middle Initial
Gender
Date of Birth
MAXWELL
GHISLAINE NOELLE MARION
F
Document Number
Document Type
Document Country
Class of Admission
Admit Until Date
PASSPORT
UNITED KINGDOM
Encounter Person Detail
Encounter Line Type
Encounter Date
Encounter Time (Eastern)
Terminal Lane
Site/Encounter Location
ADVANCED PASSENGER
06/02/2019
00:00
RECORD
Inbound/Outbound
Inspector
Processing Result
Primary Query Result
Referred To Agency
OUTBOUND
3
Manifest Data
Manifest Indicator
Passenger Status
Flight/Vessel Number
Departure Location
R
ON BOARD
212
BOS BOSTON / LOGAN INTL
Transmitted By
Carrier Code
Arrival Location
ALTEA*CM
BA
LHR LONDON / HEATHROW INTL
For Official Use Only / Law Enforcement Sensitive
EFTA00030344


c1: EFTA00029688
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029688.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Department of Homeland Security
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
THE ATTACHED MATERIALS CONTAIN DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
INFORMATION THAT IS "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY," OR OTHER TYPES OF
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION REQUIRING PROTECTION
AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE. THE ATTACHED MATERIALS WILL BE
HANDLED AND SAFEGUARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DHS MANAGEMENT
DIRECTIVES GOVERNING PROTECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF SUCH
INFORMATION.
AT A MINIMUM, THE ATTACHED MATERIALS WILL BE DISSEMINATED ONLY ON A
"NEED-TO-KNOW" BASIS AND WHEN UNATTENDED, WILL BE STORED IN A
LOCKED CONTAINER OR AREA OFFERING SUFFICIENT PROTECTION AGAINST
THEFT, COMPROMISE, INADVERTENT ACCESS AND UNAUTHORIZED
DISCLOSURE.
I
MD 11042
EFTA00029688

=== Page 2 ===
Ghislaine Maxwell
Case No. 96-EU-00021510
Numéro du Départ
700514513 04
U.S. IMMIGRATION
NEW YORK, N.Y. 2412
Service de l'Immigration
et de la Naturalisation
SEP 19 1995
I-94
Régistre de Départ
ADMITTED
HIB
UNTIL Nov.041995
14. Nom MAXWELL
15. Prénent GNISAINE
16.
17. Paysics BRITISH Nationalité
Voir au Verso
FRENCH
STAPLE HERE
A vertissement Une personne non immigrante qui accepte un emploi non autorisé
est passible d' expulsion.
Avis Important Gardez ce permis en votre possession et rendez le en quittant les
Etats-Unis. Défaut de conformité pourrait retarder votre admission aux E.U. a
une date ulterieure.
Vous avez été autorisé a rester aux E.U. jusqu'à la date écrite sur ce permis. Tout
séjour au dela de cette date sans permission des autorités d'immigration sera une
infraction à la loi.
Retournez ce permis en quittant les E.U.:
Par mer ou par air, à la compagnie de transport:
Par la frontière canadienne, a un agent officiel canadien:
Par la frontière mexicaine, a un agent officiel des E.U..
Les étudiants projetant de regagner leurs écoles aux Etats-Unis dans les 30 jours
doivent se référer a la section "Arrival-Departure" en page 2 du Formulaire 1-20
avant de rendre ce permis.
Record of Changes
Port:
Departure Record
Date:
Carrier:
Flight #/Ship Name:
PRINTED AND SOLD BY YANKEE SCHOONER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
231 WEST 29TH STREET, NEW YORK NY 10001-5209 U.S.A.
TEL: (212) 239-8200 FAX (212) 239-8203

=== Page 3 ===
Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell
U.S. Department of Justice
Case
96-EU-00021510
anmigration and Naturalization Service
Notice of Action
Applicant/Petitioner A #
Application/Petition
I129
PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
Receipt #
Applicant/Petitioner
EAC-92-204-50733
J EPSTEIN
Notice Date
Page
Beneficiary
November 5, 1992
1 of 1
MAXWELL, GLISLAINE
FRANCE
J EPSTEIN
C/O JEFFREY EPSTEIN CHAIRMAN
Approval Notice
Class: H1B
NEW YORK NY 10022
Valid from 11/05/92 to 11/04/95
Consulate: LONDON
Notice also sent to:
IRS
The above petition has been approved. It is valid for the period shown above. We have
sent a cable to the consulate listed above to notify them of the approval of the
petition.
This completes all INS action on this petition. If you have any questions about visa
issuance, please contact the consulate directly.
Approval of this petition in itself does not authorize the employment of the named
worker(s). If a visa is issued, upon admission in this classification the workers will
be authorized to be employed by the petitioner for the authorized period pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the petition. This notice, and a copy of the Form I-94,
Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document, for each worker, should be kept by the
petitioner for record purposes to demonstrate that the employment of each of the workers
included in this petition is authorized.
If plans change, and the person(s) this petition is for will apply for a visa at a
consulate other than that listed above, the petitioner should file Form I-824,
Application for Further Action on an Approved Application or Petition, with this office
if you wish us to notify the new consulate. If the worker (s) have entered the U.S. in
the interim, and now seek to change status to this new classification, file a new Form
I-129 petition with a copy of this notice.
Please read the back of this form carefully for more information. If you have questions
concerning tax withholding, contact the Internal Revenue Service.
If any of the worker(s) included in this petition do not actually enter the United
States, and substitutions of different workers are not made, the petitioner must notify
this office so the allocated nonimmigrant visa numbers can be re-used.
if you write to us about this case, or if you file another application based on this decision. Our address is:
You will be notified separately about any other applications or petitions you filed. Save this notice. Please enclose a copy of it
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Tel: (802) 527-3160
EASTERN SERVICE CENTER
75 LOWER WELDEN STREET
SAINT ALBANS VT 05479-0001
orm I-797 (8/03/90) Y
Please see additional information on the back.
EFTA00029690

=== Page 4 ===
14 st. IMMIGRATION
2368
32
UNTIL
ADMITTED
200 DAL 5
U. U.S. IMMIGRATION
U
JUL 20 2 0 1993
APR 20 1993
DEC
UNTIL
JAN16 MAY 6 1993
ADMITTED
UNTIL
17
on
U.S. IMMIGRATION
U.
S.
APR 1 1994
250 WAS 257
NEW
UNTIL
ADMITTE
05 1993
AUG MAY 14 1995
04
10 NYC
VISAS
060 MIA
ADMITTED
HNO
SCLASSI
UNTIL
UNITED STATES AMERICA
VA V
VISA
Issuing Post Name
Control Number
LONDON
Surname
MAXWELL
Given Name
Visa Type/Class
CHISLAINE NOELLE MARION
R
H1B
Passport Number
Sex
Birth Date
Nationality
F
GRBR
VISAS
Entries
Issue Date
Expiry Date
15JAN1993
04NOV1995
Annotation
Case No. 96-EU-00021510
Ghislaine Maxwell
M
PET: NAME J EPSTEIN
PET. DATA EAC9220450 PET. EXP.DATE 04NOV1995
VNGBRMAXWELL<<CHISLAINE<NOELLE<MARION<<<<<<<
33


c1: EFTA00031613
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031613.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted: FBI / SDNY Epstein update mtg
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 23:26:07 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00031613


c1: EFTA00030053
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030053.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Case blurbs for transition team
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 19:04:37 +0000
Attachments: Transition_Team_Write_Up_v3.docx
Here is a revised version. Thanks.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 2:00 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Case blurbs for transition team
Here is a revised version addressing your comments and
comments.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 10:50 AM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Case blurbs for transition team
Thanks,
I tried to shorten the description a bit (please see the attached) but I'm told that the description should
only contain public information (i.e., what could be gleaned from the public docket and press announcements). Can you
please look it over and send me back a revised version. Also, if you think that I removed anything that is critical please
reinsert it.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 10:34 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Case blurbs for transition team
Attached is a draft of the Purdue write up. Please let us know if you have any edits or questions.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 5:31 PM
EFTA00030053

=== Page 2 ===
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Case blurbs for transition team
Sure.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 4:51 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: Re: Case blurbs for transition team
Thanks! Can we go longer? There's a lot to explain.
On Dec 29, 2020, at 4:46 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
Just passing this along for the Perdue description.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 4:45 PM
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
Subject: Case blurbs for transition team
In case it's helpful for your formatting of the Purdue blurb, I've pasted below the current drafts of the two Criminal
Division case write ups we've prepared for the transition team. Thanks!
Case name: United States V. Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS, a/k/a "Halkbank"
Docket number: S6 15 Cr. 867 (RMB)
Brief description of the charges/claims: In October 2019, USAO-SDNY charged Halkbank with fraud, money laundering,
and sanctions offenses related to the bank's participation in a multibillion-dollar scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on
Iran. As set forth in the indictment, an investigation by USAO-SDNY and the FBI revealed that Halkbank and its officers,
agents, and co-conspirators directly and indirectly used money service businesses and front companies in Iran, Turkey,
the United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere to violate and to evade and avoid prohibitions against Iran's access to the U.S.
financial system, restrictions on the use of proceeds of Iranian oil and gas sales, and restrictions on the supply of gold to
the Government of Iran and to Iranian entities and persons. Halkbank knowingly facilitated the scheme, participated in
the design of fraudulent transactions intended to deceive U.S. regulators and foreign banks, and lied to U.S. regulators
about Halkbank's involvement. USAO-SDNY previously tried and convicted Halkbank's former Deputy General Manager
of International Banking at Halkbank for his participation in the scheme.
Current case status: Trial is scheduled for May 2021. On December 23, 2020, the Second Circuit stayed proceedings in
the district court pending expedited resolution of Halkbank's mandamus petition challenging the district court's denial
of a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Link to most recent press release (if applicable): https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/turkish-bank-charged-
manhattan-federal-court-its-participation-multibillion-dollar
Case name: United States V. Ghislaine Maxwell
Docket number: 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Brief description of the charges/claims: In July 2020, USAO-SDNY charged Maxwell in a six-count indictment with
facilitating the sexual abuse of three minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997. The
charges resulted from a multi-year investigation by the USAO-SDNY and the FBI into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-
conspirators, including Maxwell. Maxwell played a critical role in the scheme by helping to identify, entice, and groom
EFTA00030054

=== Page 3 ===
minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein. Her presence as an adult woman normalized Epstein's abusive behavior,
and she took part in at least some acts of sexual abuse. Maxwell and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel
to Epstein's residences in different states, which Maxwell knew and intended would result in their grooming for and
subjection to sexual abuse, resulting in charges related to the enticement and transportation of minors to participate in
illegal sex acts, and conspiracy to do the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 2422, 2423, and 371. In a later effort to cover
up her crimes, Maxwell lied under oath during a civil deposition, including when asked about her interactions with
minor girls, resulting in two perjury charges, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1623.
Current case status: Maxwell has been detained since her arrest, and the Court has denied two separate bail motions,
most recently as of December 28, 2020. Trial is scheduled for July 2021, and pretrial motions are due in January 2021.
Link to most recent press release (if applicable): https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-charged-
manhattan-federal-court-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually
EFTA00030055


c1: EFTA00029659
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029659.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Maxwell superseder
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 15:45:04 +0000
Attachments:2021-03-29_Govt_Letter_to_GM_Counsel_re_S2_Indictment.pdf;_2021-03-
29_GM_Govt_letter_to_AJN_re_S2_Indictment.pdf
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00029659


c1: EFTA00030432
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030432.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
i
)"
Subject: RE: updated draft
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 21:24:31 +0000
Attachments: 2020-08-
13_GM_letter_to_Judge_Nathan_re_victim_names_and_prison_privileges_revisedebd.docx
Thanks
Some small combined stuff from us both.
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 4:07 PM
To:
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
Subject: updated draft
Attached - thanks.
EFTA00030432


c1: EFTA00030918
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030918.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:03:21 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Great, thank you! I handled the rest of the requests, so 6 was the only one you guys needed to handle.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 9:42 AM
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
This completes request number 6 that defense made. There were a number of other requests that defense made beyond
number 6 but we only addressed that one specifically. Please let us know if we should be working on any of the other
requests that defense made.
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:51 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Thanks so much! To confirm, does this complete everything that the defense asked us for?
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:14 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
i
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
The two cover letters heading to MDC today with the disc are attached. Thanks, all!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:56 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Hi all - I just checked PROD011 and it contains all the requisite ranges. I'll go ahead and burn a CD for MDC containing the
PROD011 and PROD015 .dat files and the re-bates stamped items, and I'll have that sent out today. Thanks!
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:37 AM
EFTA00030918

=== Page 2 ===
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
We have all of the materials just about prepared to go out.
is doing a last check of the PROD011 that
exported
to the shared and then everything will be all set.
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:40 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
i
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Thanks so much,
and my apologies for the delayed response. I've been traveling for work and fell behind on emails
as a result. I will email defense counsel to ask them to send a link where they'd like the materials uploaded.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:29 AM
To:
)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
I can upload these files for defense counsel today and will be able to load a disc for Maxwell when I'm back at the office
tomorrow. I recall that the last time we produced to defense in this manner they preferred to use their FTP site. Would
you mind asking them to send over a link to where they'd like the materials uploaded? Thanks!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:27 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Thanks so much! Once you have the renumbered files, would you please prepare them for production to the defense?
Ideally, they could go on a disc for Maxwell and USAfx for defense counsel, but let me know if it's too large.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:45 PM
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
The materials from 6a have been re-stamped with the range: SDNY_GM_00327069.001 - SDNY_GM_00327069.794. They
are currently being loaded here: \Usa.doj.gov\cloud\NYS\StAndrews\Shared\USvEpstein-2018R01618\Discovery\GM\13
Re-Bates
Once we have 6b and 6c sorted out we will let you know.
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:21 AM
To:
)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
EFTA00030919

=== Page 3 ===
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Discovery Requests
Hey
We will take care of 6a today.
6b and 6c will require us to check the drives that we have at the office. Neither
nor I will be at the office today or
tomorrow. I plan on going in on Thursday and will be able to check on those issues that defense points out. Not to jump to
conclusions but I believe that PAE's .DAT files typically include only the beginning number in a range which would give the
appearance of gaps in the production. As such there is a decent chance that defense is incorrect about the gaps as they
list them although we will not know until we actually check the productions.
Thanks,
From:
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:02 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
i
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: FW: Discovery Requests
Hi
and
Would you please take a look at request number 6 below and figure out how to address it? I believe you may need to
work with
for some of these issues.
Thanks,
From: Christian Everdell
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:13 PM
To:
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc: Mark S. Cohen
>; Bobbi Sternheim
>; Jeff Pagliuca
>; 'Laura Menninger'
Subject: Discovery Requests
-
We write to raise a number of discovery issues. Please let us know your position on these issues at your earliest
convenience.
1. In our email correspondence on 11/18/2020, you agreed to create a new hard drive containing the entire discovery
production. We provided you with a 4TB hard drive for that purpose on 11/20/2020. It is very important for Ms.
Maxwell to have this drive as soon as possible to prepare her defense. Do you have an update on when the drive
will be ready?
2. We also informed you that the CD produced on November 18, 2020 did not work on the prison computer at the
MDC (as you know, the laptop provided to Ms. Maxwell does not have a CD drive). Accordingly, we asked you to
include the material on the CD in the new 4TB hard drive. We followed-up with you about this issue on December
30, 2020. Given that the new hard drive is still not ready, we ask that you download the material on the CD onto
a separate thumb drive or hard drive and provide it as quickly as possible to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC so that she
EFTA00030920

=== Page 4 ===
can review the materials this weekend. Alternatively, you can provide an external CD drive to Ms. Maxwell at
the MDC so that she can read the files on the MDC computer. We will provide whatever media device you
require to facilitate this production.
3. Unlike the November 9, 2020 discovery cover letter, the November 18, 2020 discovery cover letter (attached) does
not correlate the Bates numbers to the particular "Subject Device" from which the documents were recovered.
Instead, the cover letter indicates that the documents came from "SDNY_PROD015" or "SDNY_PROD016." We do
not know what those terms refer to. We request that the government produce a list that correlates the Bates
numbers for all of the documents in SDNY_PROD015 and SDNY_PROD016 to the particular devices from which the
documents were recovered.
4. We request that the government provide an unredacted version of the FBI report, dated December 6, 2006,
bearing Bates number SDNY_GM_02050812-14 (attached). We also request that the government produce a log
identifying all of the redacted documents in the discovery and the bases for each of the redactions.
5. There are a few documents that seem to be missing from the discovery. For example, the AT&T documents
(SDNY_GM_00001015-3637) do not seem to include subscriber information for the various phone numbers. Also,
the flight logs produced by David Rodgers begin at Bates number "Rodgers000028," suggesting that
Rodgers000001-000027 were not produced to us. Please produce these documents to us or provide an
explanation why you are not producing them to us. Please confirm whether there are other documents that were
removed from the grand jury subpoena productions that we have not yet identified and the basis for their removal.
6. There are a few Bates number/metadata issues with some of the documents:
a. There is an overlap between the fourth and fifth document productions. The fourth production ends at
SDNY_GM_00328863, the fifth production begins at SDNY_GM_00328070. We propose renumbering the
range from the fifth production (i.e., renumber SDNY_GM_00328070-328863).
b. The metadata load files (*.DAT) for PROD011 had a number of gaps which are detailed in the attached Excel
file. We propose that you send us a new DAT file covering only the missing documents.
C. The metadata load files (*.DAT) for PROD015 had a gap from SDNY_GM_00723971 to SDNY_GM_00723981.
We propose that you send us a new DAT file covering only the missing documents.
7. To the extent that the government has created an index of the documents produced on November 9 and
November 18 that is more detailed than the production cover letters, we request that you provide a copy to the
defense.
8. We request that the government provide copies of the grand jury subpoenas for documents issued by the
government in this case. Also, please identify the date range of documents you requested in each subpoena.
There is one other issue we'd like to raise. An article in the Daily Beast on Monday referenced the search warrant affidavit
for the cell-site simulator used to track Ms. Maxwell's cellphone before her arrest (https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-
the-fbi-tracked-down-ghislaine-maxwell-alleged-madam-of-jeffrey-epstein). The article stated that the affidavit appeared
in a "newly unsealed court filing." I don't recall this affidavit being unsealed or referenced in anything that was filed on
the court docket. Please confirm whether or not the government unsealed this affidavit or any other materials from the
criminal discovery, and whether any discovery materials were released pursuant to FOIA requests.
Regards,
EFTA00030921

=== Page 5 ===
Christian R Everdell
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
view bio
www.cohengresser.com
New York
Paris
Washington DC
London
CG
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed initially by only
the individual named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or a representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify
the sender by telephone and permanently delete this e-mail. Thank you.
PRIVACY: A complete copy of our privacy policy can be viewed at: https://www.cohengresser.com/privacy-policy.
EFTA00030922


c1: EFTA00029864
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029864.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
"
=
,
Subject: RE: Documents for
302
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:00:26 +0000
Attachments:
-_Vol.pdf
Attached, thanks!
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:42 PM
To:
Subject: Documents for
302
Hey
,
Can you please send me the transcript that was shown to
during our first interview with her?
Thanks,
Detective
NYPD/FBI
Child Exploitation Human Trafficking Task Force
Office:
EFTA00029864


c1: EFTA00030343
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030343.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(NY) (FBI)"
To:
)"
Cc:
) (FBI)"
Subject: Maxwell Travel Information
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:42:50 +0000
Attachments: UK_citizenship.pdf; France_citizenship.pdf;
OUTBOUND_travel_record_6.2.2019_with_UK_PP.pdf;
OUTBOUND_travel_record_1.19.2010_with_France_PPpdf
Hi
summary: Travel review for Ghislaine Maxwell, DOB:
from 1/1/2017 to 6/29/2020 identified the following
information:
Traveled 15 times with 7 OUTBOUND flights
United Kingdom: 5 times
Japan: 1 time
Qatar: 1 time
I have attached two travel records showing international travel with both a UK passport and a French Passport.
I have also attached two inspection documents citing her citizenship in both the UK and France.
Thanks,
EFTA00030343


c1: EFTA00030896
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030896.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: new materials for Maxwell upload to Relativity
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:47:34 +0000
Attachments: evidenceStatus20200729.xlsx
I know you're on vacation this week, but wanted to very briefly follow up on the below - I'm going to ask
to mail
you the thumb drive referenced below, which has folders for five devices (NYC024332, NYC024369, NYC024369_1,
NYC024372, and NYC024384) on this coming Monday, so that you'll be around when it arrives (and in case you have to
sign for it). Per usual, if you could please take a look at it when you receive it, and then send on to PAE for processing and
upload to Relativity, that would be great. Thank you!!
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 13:44
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
is
<
is
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
Following up on the below, thanks for those responses, that's very useful. In terms of the one outstanding item, in the
thumb drive I received from
yesterday with CART materials, NYC027913 is not included, so we are still missing that
one.
But I do see that each of the items with the "Included next round" label from the most recent spreadsheet (attached, with
those items highlighted in red) are included, so that's helpful, thanks.
In terms of any of the folders that have been produced so far, I know that you've sent supplemental materials on a
handful of them (approximately seven total, I think) - do you currently expect to send any other supplemental materials
for any of the devices we've received so far? Or are we fully complete?
And then assuming those are all fully complete, or once they are, the only items pending will be the devices highlighted in
gray in the attached, which we understand are being processed for hardware recovery.
thanks,
EFTA00030896

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 19:17
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
is
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
,
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. It's been kinda crazy. I'll answer your questions in order, so match them up. I'm
going off what I can see on my phone.
The final items were given to
She should have them. Reach out to her for delivery.
The 3 folders you mention contain supplemental files, do not ignore them.
I am pretty sure NYC027913 is included with the items
has. If not, please let me know.
As far as the old questions, you should have everything now.
The zero byte files are just that. Sometimes the software will recover either file headers, or items off the
directory listings, but no actual content. It lists them as zero length files.
Need anything further, let me know.
On Aug 3, 2020 3:33 PM,
)"
wrote:
I know you may still be traveling, but I wanted to check in on a handful of outstanding issues. If you're not available,
perhaps
can assist?
1. On this past Sunday and Monday, you had said you had you had additional materials you planned to get to us on
Monday. I don't believe we ever received anything additional this past week. Are those still pending, and if so,
when can we get those materials?
2. There were three folders that were included in the first disc you provided to us, but then also provided again on
the most recent disc. Those folders are: NYC024328, NYC024366, and NYC024392. Can you please let us know
why those were provided twice? In particular, we need to know whether any supplemental information is in the
new folders with those NYC numbers, or whether we can ignore them on the recent disc because we already
received them.
3.
One item is listed on your spreadsheet as having been provided on 7/23, but it was not on the most recent disc
you sent. That item is: NYC027913 (row 40 in your spreadsheet).
In case it's useful, I'm attaching a version of the spreadsheet you put on the disc, but with all the items we received
folders for on the most recent hard drive highlighted in yellow.
Separately, we're still waiting on answers to the questions from Thursday and Friday, July 23 and 24. To refresh, those
questions are:
4. Comparing your most recent spreadsheet to the prior one, and leaving aside the "Nothing for Southern"
designations as well as the NYC numbers that look like they're for the desktops that held the actual drives we're
looking at (such as NYC024385, 387, 389, 391, and 393, and NYC027909), I think there are just three additional
EFTA00030897

=== Page 3 ===
devices listed here that weren't on the spreadsheet you previously sent. I have those as: NYC024328 (row 10),
NYC024367 (row 62), and NYC027910 (row 96). Please confirm that these were added, and also that we're not
missing any? I believe those were all provided on the first disc.
5.
As previously mentioned, the vendor has advised that in the initial seven devices provided, there were
approximately 71,000 documents that are zero bytes (i.e., empty files). They are listed in the second attached
spreadsheet. Is that accurate? Or does that reflect some issue with the extraction process?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 15:09
To:
Cc:
is
is
is
is
is
is
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Epstein Evidence status
I don't have the evidence in front of me, but it is probably accurate. It is not unusual for the software to find such
files. I will review Monday to make sure. As to your questions from last night, the sheet should be
comprehensive. I only recall 1 addition, but I am sure that what I have is reflected in the sheet. As for the items
in dark grey, there are 2 servers with multiple drives. Some of those drives have physically failed. We have to get
them to one of our HQ specialists for recovery. Since they are physically broken, data recovery may or may not
be possible. It can be a very long process. We will get that moving ASAP. Need anything else, let me know.
On Jul 24, 2020 2:20 PM,
)"
wrote:
In addition to the pending questions below, we've been advised by the vendor that is reviewing the initial seven devices
(that were provided on a per-device extraction basis, as previously discussed) that those materials include approximately
71,000 documents that are zero bytes (i.e., empty files). They are listed in the attached spreadsheet.
Is that accurate? Or does that reflect some issue with the extraction process?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 18:08
To:
EFTA00030898

=== Page 4 ===
Cc:
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein Evidence status
This is very helpful, thank you. Comparing this to the prior spreadsheet, and leaving aside the "Nothing for Southern"
designations as well as the NYC numbers that look like they're for the desktops that held the actual drives we're looking at
(such as NYC024385, 387, 389, 391, and 393, and NYC027909), I think there are just three additional devices listed here
that weren't on the spreadsheet you previously sent. I have those as:
1. NYC024328 (row 10)
2. NYC024367 (row 62)
3. NYC027910 (row 96)
Could you please confirm that I have those additions correct, and that I'm not missing any? And it looks like all of those
were included in the drive you provided today.
I also see there are some drives that are still being processed, including NYC024376 through 380 and several drives in
NYC024395 - could you please let us know what that means?
Thanks very much, and we'll circle back if any issues with anything we received today, which should get to
in the
next day or two.
thanks again,
Original Message
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 14:44
To:
Cc:
is
Subject: Epstein Evidence status
Here is the up to date spreadsheet. I color coded things to hopefully make it easier. There are 5 items I have to
get you (as we discussed this morning) Those should take another day or 2, so looking at Monday/Tuesday for that. Any
questions, let me know.
EFTA00030899


c1: EFTA00031614
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031614.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Accepted: FBI / SDNY Epstein update mtg
Start Date: 2020-01-08 18:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2020-01-08 19:00:00 +0000
Location: 1SA (conf room TBD)
Class: X-PERSONAL
Comment:
Date Created: 2020-01-09 01:47:27 +0000
Date Modified: 2020-01-09 01:47:27 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2020-01-06 23:26:05 +0000
Attendee:
EFTA00031614


c1: EFTA00030392
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030392.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
Subject: FW: Epstein search warrant documents
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:55:05 +0000
Attachments: EpsteinNYEvidence.xlsx
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 9:07 AM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
See attached.
NYO CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
(office)
(cell)
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor] [mailto:
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 8:59 AM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Hello
I just got the hard drive and I have some questions about what is on the hard drive. Do you have a moment to talk?
Thank you.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:42 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Thanks
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jul 8, 2020 12:41 PM,
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
wrote:
EFTA00030392

=== Page 2 ===
As soon as I have the hard drive I will reach out to you.
Thanks.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:38 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Thats what I hear,they are going to get it to you.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jul 8, 2020 12:33 PM,
"
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
wrote:
I am assuming you are sending the data to One Saint Andrews correct?
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:31 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
The drive will begin its journey to you in minutes. Reach out when you get it to go over stuff so you aren't
looking at it like a dog looking at a tuba.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jul 7, 2020 5:34 PM, "
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
wrote:
Hello
Our office is not open and I am still working from home. Is it possible to have this data sent to my home?
Thank you.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 5:14 PM
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
EFTA00030393

=== Page 3 ===
is
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Everything with the exception of a couple of items are ready. I will get you an actual number before I send it over.
We can send it over tomorrow. There will be ReadMe files included so it will be easy to see where the items came from. I
am a little worried about how the e-mail will present. While looking through on a spot check, the attachments are not
connected to the e-mails in the forensic tool. I believe it is a function of the e-mail client they were using to begin with. I
know that the attachments are a concern of yours. We may have to massage things a bit to get it right. Now that we are
working every day, and everything has been processed, it shouldn't be too big a deal. So far the export is about 350 GB. It
copies slowly because it is a ton of pretty small files. You are getting the whole ball of wax, here, Macs, Windows boxes,
loose media, etc. There will be a few iPhone and iPad reports, but unsure if I can get you those tomorrow as they very
often take a LONG time to copy. Again, lots of small files. If not tomorrow, the next day.
Are you around tomorrow? Reach out to me when you get the production so we can correct any problems we might
encounter. Thanks.
NYO CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
(office)
(cell)
From:
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 3:42 PM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
V.
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I understand that some number of the devices are ready to come to us as early as today or tomorrow. Could you please
let us know the following information, so we can figure out who the hard drive should go to in the first instance:
1. How many total devices are coming to us in this initial production?
1. What are those devices - i.e., type of device and which ones, from the spreadsheets you've sent?
2. What's the total volume of data coming in this round of production?
Once we know that, I can let the agents know where the drive needs to go in the first instance.
thanks,
From:
)
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 16:23
To:
(NY) (FBI)'
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
i
(NY) (FBI)
i
)
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
EFTA00030394

=== Page 4 ===
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Checking in for the estimate of when we can expect to get all the USVI materials?
thanks,
From:
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 13:00
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
V.
)
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Okay thanks - good luck with the cardiologist! And if you can let us know tomorrow that would be great. Thanks again.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:59
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
-
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
i
)
is
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
When I'm in the office tomorrow, I will be better able to estimate. I'm at my cardiologist right now.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 29, 2020 12:56 PM,
)"
wrote:
Great, thanks. Is there even a rough estimate of when we will get the USVI materials? Or an estimate of when you'll be
able to see how many items to export, so we'll have a better sense of when we'll get those?
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:55
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
)
is
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
^
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Yep
EFTA00030395

=== Page 5 ===
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 29, 2020 12:52 PM,
)"
wrote:
Okay, and I'm sorry to ask again, but to make sure, in this production, you're sending us new versions of what you
previously sent?
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:50
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
Cc:
(USANYS)
in
(NY) (FBI)
i
)
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
You are getting both NY and USVI. The biggest stumbling block are the newer Mac items that are in APFS
(there are a bunch from the Island,) so it is difficult to estimate how long those will take until I see how many
items I have to export.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 29, 2020 12:40 PM,
)"
wrote:
Okay thanks, and just to clarify, a few days to finalize the New York materials, and then what about the USVI materials?
I
think that is quite a bit more. Just looking for an estimated completion date for everything.
And on my other question - does this mean you're giving us a new, complete copy of everything from both NY and USVI?
thanks,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:34
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
i
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I am in the process of exporting the materials (documents, spreadsheets, emails, etc) for your review as per my
discussions with
Most of the NY stuff is done, just Mac items left. This might take a few days as 1 item in
particular has over 500,000 emails. We will be able to provide discovery once Defense Council has provided
drives for us to copy items over to. This goes quicker as there is no processing involved. I'll let you know when
everything is complete.
EFTA00030396

=== Page 6 ===
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 29, 2020 11:03 AM,
)"
wrote:
Following up on this, I understand from
that she was able to provide you with a 12 TB drive last week - could you
please let us know when we will be able to get the materials? I expect a judge will ask us about discovery as early as this
week.
Also, the related critical question that I don't think we have clarity on is whether you're giving us a copy of everything that
was collected (including reproducing the materials that you previously gave us, but which are not searchable), or have you
and
figured out a way to categorize the prior productions so they're useful for us? We would strongly prefer to just
get everything at once in a usable format, but please let us know if you expect to produce materials differently than that.
thanks,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 13:14
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
>;
i
)
in
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
We are going every other day now, ramping up to 75% week after next. I need drives to put things on like
and I discussed earlier. Once I have those drives, it will take me a couple days to copy stuff. LMK when I can
expect the drives. Thanks.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 19, 2020 1:09 PM,
)"
wrote:
following up on the below - please let us know? Given case developments in recent days, this has become
urgent. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 14:28
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)
i
)
in
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
EFTA00030397

=== Page 7 ===
Wanted to circle back on this and check in, particularly because we desperately need to get the results from the July and
September searches before moving forward with possible additional charges in the case. I know you had mentioned you
needed to push back your prior estimate of complete production by early June, by a couple weeks, so wanted to see what
the current estimate is? I don't think we've started to get anything yet but please correct me if I'm wrong.
thanks,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 16:28
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)
is
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Will do.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Jun 1, 2020 4:26 PM,
)"
wrote:
Understood, and thanks for letting us know. Let's keep in touch both on timing and also on whether there's a way to
identify and categorize what's already been produced, or if we'll need to just get all the raw data at this stage and go from
there.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 16:23
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)
is
)
is
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Unfortunately, recent events and our staffing levels have conspired to put a kink in just about everything. If we
can't make heads or tails of the stuff I've already produced, we'll do it again. They have told us that our staffing
levels will be steadily increasing over the next few weeks, but I'm going to have to push back my estimate by a
week or 2. Sorry about that. My next day in the office is Thursday, so I'll be able to see if I can easily identify
what I already gave you and marry it to a reliable identifier.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
EFTA00030398

=== Page 8 ===
On Jun 1, 2020 4:13 PM,
)"
wrote:
Thanks for this update - we'll take a look and circle back if any questions.
Separately, to follow up on a question from the May 15 email below, the list 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.
And related to that question, are we still on track to get the full range of data in the next week or so? I don't think we've
gotten any updates on that status in the past few weeks, and we're eager to be able to start reviewing.
thanks again,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:53
To:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
>;
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: Re: Epstein search warrant documents
Updated item descriptions. Just a side note, many thumb drives and SD cards will not have a serial number
visible externally, but will report one through our tools. I included those electronically reported serial numbers.
Any questions, let me know.
FBI NY CART Coordinator
Senior Examiner
From:
)
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 4:11 PM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
in
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
>;
(NY) (FBI)
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
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 (NYC024323 and NYC024324)
-
The two Sony Vaio laptop / Fujitsu hdd (NYC024336 and NYC024337)
EFTA00030399

=== Page 9 ===
-
the following loose storage devices:
Micro SD card (NYC024339)
Flash Drive (generic) (NYC024340)
Thumbdrive (Emtec) (NYC024341)
hard drive (loose) (NYC024342)
verbatim thumbdrive (NYC024343)
-
The four San Disk cruzer-thumbdrives (NYC024344-47)
-
The three Seagate IDE hard drives (NYC024348-50)
-
The camera SD card (NYC024351)
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,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 15:54
To:
)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
V.
(NY) (FBI)
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: Re: Epstein search warrant documents
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)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
EFTA00030400

=== Page 10 ===
Cc:
in
>;
(NY) (FBI)
i
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
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 us! 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:
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
V.
(NY) (FBI)
is
(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.
EFTA00030401

=== Page 11 ===
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)
is
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
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]
is
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Like
said in his earlier email. It will be the raw data and it will be marked so it is easier to attribute it to a
particular device. Problem now is how to get the data to
since he is teleworking.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On May 12, 2020 11:15 AM,
)"
wrote:
I have no doubt you do, but can you please tell us what that plan is? Thanks!
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:11
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
Cc:
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I will use the spreadsheet, no problem.
and I ironed out all the details. We've got a good plan moving
forward that will meet your needs.
EFTA00030402

=== Page 12 ===
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On May 12, 2020 10:34 AM,
)"
wrote:
it would be very helpful for us if you could please use the attached spreadsheet in transmitting that info so we
make sure we get all the info we need. I think you had previously sent us a list of certain information that unfortunately
wasn't helpful for us, so we want to make sure we're all on the same page.
In terms of data transfer,
are you just sending a literal copy of all the raw data, and we'll process and upload it on
our end? I ask to make sure we don't lose any searchability - when FBI sent versions before, it had already been
processed. I think what we talked about on the phone a month ago was getting, for example, data from one device to
make sure it transfers correctly, before sending over literally everything - is that still the plan?
thanks,
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:27
To:
Cc:
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Hello
Me and
just finished our phone call regarding the data.
will put together a list of the all of the data and
where the data was collected. I will work to send some hard drives to
so he can begin to copy the data and send
it to us. I will need to figure out a way to get the data off of the hard drives.
Please let us know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 2:15 PM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
is
is
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Okay thanks - please do let us know if at any point that changes, otherwise we'll look forward to being able to review the
returns in early June. Thanks again.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 14:14
EFTA00030403

=== Page 13 ===
To:
(USANYS)
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
>;
is
)
i
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
There has been talk of us returning to normal soon, so I don't think it will effect the timeline I initially gave you.
If it does, I'll let you know.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On May 8, 2020 1:58 PM,
)"
wrote:
Understood, thanks-it will be great to get that list on Thursday. As a refresh, the info we are looking for is in the
attached spreadsheet template.
On the returns themselves, do the changes you mentioned mean that the estimate of a month from now for complete
transmission of the search warrant returns is no longer likely? If so could you please let us know what the current
estimate would be, so we can factor that in? Thanks very much.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 13:50
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
is
(NY) (FBI)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
>;
i
)
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Sorry for the delay, they reduced us to 1 day a week, so things have been stretched out by a factor of 5. I will be
back in the office on Thursday and will be able to get you the list then as I have to access some of our systems to
do so.
Also,
,
please reach out to me at one of the numbers below so we can brain storm. Thanks.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
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
EFTA00030404

=== Page 14 ===
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,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 15:27
To:
)
>;
(USANYS)
>;
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
)
>;
>;
i
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Ok let's plan on 11am tomorrow morning, I am trying to get an FBI line with a larger capacity but I won't know until
tomorrow am. I will push it out when confirmed.
Thanks
From:
)
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 3:15 PM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
in
(USANYS)
>;
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
i
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Yes, I can do anytime tomorrow, and
can also join anytime tomorrow. So whenever is good on your end.
Also, we can host a conference call, but only up to six lines at a time - so if FBI has larger capacity than that let us know,
otherwise I'd propose we do:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
/
6)
/
if either of you wants to join (and if not, one of
/
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 14:13
To:
(USANYS)
>;
(NY) (FBI)
>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
>;
>;
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
EFTA00030405

=== Page 15 ===
Are you available tomorrow for a conference call to discuss this issue?
SSA
Watson
FBI New York
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,
From:
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2020 12:00
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
>;
V.
V.
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Unfortunately I don't think this is very helpful to us. Did you take a look at the example spreadsheet I sent on 2/24? The
excel file you sent has descriptions that don't match up to the items listed in the search warrant returns (that we sent on
2/23), and we don't have the 1B or CART numbers to be able to cross-reference. We also can't tell what you mean by
"loose media" without a specific comparison to what was seized, we don't know which items you're referring to as
"Windows machines," and we can't tell whether the entirety of any particular item has been transferred, or just partial.
For example, it looks like we have gotten very, very few image files, which is surprising.
We have also encountered some very significant problems in trying to review the more than 1 million documents we
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.
EFTA00030406

=== Page 16 ===
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,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2020 16:36
To:
)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
is
is
i
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Here is a listing of what I have already handed over in load files to the US Attorney's Office for taint review. Some points of
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.
NYO CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
(office)
(cell)
From:
[mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 12:25 PM
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
i
i
is
is
(NY) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I could do Thursday morning, but I think it would be helpful for us to get the accounting in advance of the meeting so we
can figure out in advance what (if any) additional steps we need - is that possible?
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 09:59
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
is
EFTA00030407

=== Page 17 ===
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
in
>;
y
i
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Can we do Thursday morning? My network should be back by then and I can give you a good accounting.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
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,
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 17:38
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
is
(NY) (FBI)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
in
>;
i
is
(NY)
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
Totally understand about the network issues-we can relate. I do still think it will be helpful to all sit down together to
have an in-person discussion, to make sure everybody is on the same page. Are folks available for that next week? And
what I think would be most helpful to facilitate that would be a spreadsheet of each separate device referenced in the two
search warrant returns, with columns for whether we've dumped the contents, whether they've been reviewed and/or
transferred, what portions were transferred, etc.
Something roughly like the attached, with any other categories you think would be useful - and the info on the attached is
mostly hypothetical, obviously, just as examples. That will help us fully understand what's been reviewed, transferred,
and received so far, and what remains.
(Also just on the pictures, we do want copies of those as well, please including from the discs and the devices - I think FBI
was going to do an initial screen to make sure no CP, and since I think the answer was no, we'll need to get those to be
able to review them as well.)
many thanks,
From:
(NY) (FBI)
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 09:24
To:
(USANYS)
is
)
>;
(NY) (FBI)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
in
>;
is
is
(NY)
EFTA00030408

=== Page 18 ===
(FBI)
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
,
Sorry for the delayed response. They are tearing out our old network and giving us a new one, they mandated we
delete old stuff (about 400 TB worth). Now that they are working on replacing the network, we can do only local
work. I should be able to give you an accounting of what is what. I can say, off the top of my head, that all
windows based items from the NY search have been handed over as well as all loose media. The CDs from NY
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.
NY CART Coordinator
Senior Forensic Examiner
cell
desk
On Feb 23, 2020 12:21 AM,
)"
wrote:
Team,
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,
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 16:30
To:
(NY) (FBI)
is
(NY) (FBI)
Cc:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
is
>;
is
Subject: RE: Epstein search warrant documents
I'm not sure who's the exact right person to ask this, so wanted to get everybody on one email chain about it - I have the
hard drive that
dropped off that has new Epstein search warrant materials, but it looks like there are also old
materials (that I think we had previously received and uploaded??) on the hard drive, and so I'm not sure what's new.
EFTA00030409

=== Page 19 ===
Just generally, and
and I talked about this last week too, but it's basically impossible for us to keep track of what
we're getting, and what has been completed, without some kind of identification or labeling system, along with a list of
which devices have been extracted and downloaded.
So for example on the hard drive currently, there are 38 folders labeled "loadFiles" through "37loadFiles" with a modified
date of 11/14/19, which I think we may have already previously received - but I'm not sure, because we haven't gotten
any info on which folders match up to which devices, etc. And then there's another folder titled "NYC024362" that has a
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
EFTA00030410


c1: EFTA00030435
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030435.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Accepted: Epstein Oral Argument-- Second Circuit
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 16:59:55 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: unnamed
EFTA00030435


c1: EFTA00030847
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030847.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
Cc:
Christian Everdell
Subject: Re: Ghislaine Maxwell 02879-509
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:19:34 +0000
Good morning Bobbi:
While I understand the mail you have sent is time sensitive, there are
BOP policies that must be complied with. All mail must be processed in
a particular manner prior to being provided to an inmate. The legal
department is not involved in the processing of mail for any inmates in
Institution. The institution is not allowing visitors, therefore the
mail may not be hand delivered, but again, the mail must be properly
processed before provided to the inmate. Unfortunately, this is not
something I can assist with.
Best,
BOBBI C STERNHEIM
1/20/2021 1:27 PM
Ms. Maxwell needs to review time-sensitive documents for filing on
Monday 1/25.
It appears that overnight express mail is not received next day and
delivery to Ms. Maxwell is further delayed.
Please let me know if we can hand-deliver legal mail for Ms. Maxwell to
the MDC for direct deposit in the legal mail box.
If so, can delivery to Ms. Maxwell be expedited?
Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Bobbi
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
This message and any attached documents contain information from the
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
that may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
distribute, or use this information.
EFTA00030847

=== Page 2 ===
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Thank
you.
> On Jan 19, 2021, at 7:48 AM,
wrote:
>
> Confirmed.
>
>>>> BOBBI C STERNHEIM
/18/2021 8:32 PM
> Hope you enjoyed the weekend.
> Confirming this week's VTCs
> Tues- Fri. 12:30- 3:30.
> Thank you-
> Bobbi
>
> BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
> Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
> This message and any attached documents contain information from the
> Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
> that may be confidential and/or privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy,
> distribute, or use this information.
> If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
Thank
> you.
V
>
EFTA00030848


c1: EFTA00029706
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029706.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Final Voucher 11061344-1(1) prepared by a travel arranger is pending your review
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:27:14 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Final voucher 11061344-1(1) has been prepared by your travel arranger and is ready for your review. Please log
into E2 Solutions to review the document.
Trip ID: 11061344-1
Voucher ID: 1
Voucher type: Final
Traveler name:
Purpose: R20NYS13402 - Epstein Investigation - Witness interview
Destination: Beverly Hills, CA, United States
Dates: 2020-02-26 - 2020-02-29
Current status: Pending Voucher Approval
Voucher total expenses: 1059.52
Estimated trip cost: 1621.65
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0012
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00029706


c1: EFTA00031829
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031829.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Jill Greenfield
To:
Subject: Epstein [FFW-DOCS.FID6003375]
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:48:41 +0000
Inline-Images: imagefd1874.PNG; imagebf9faa.PNG
Hi
Can we discuss something please.
Kind regards,
Jill
Jill Greenfield
Partner
D: +44 207 861 4557
M:+44 7739 664765
Click here for information relating to Covid-19 business impacts
Fieldfisher Logo
f
in
Fieldfisher, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London EC4R 3TT.
www.fieldfisher.com
We do not intend to change our bank details. If you receive any communication that any of our bank details have changed, telephone us and speak
to your contact at our office before transferring any funds. We do not accept responsibility for monies paid into a wrong bank account in any
circumstances.
This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender
immediately, destroy the email and any attachments and do not use, copy, store or disclose this email and any attachments for any purpose.
Fieldfisher does not accept service of documents by electronic means without express prior agreement.
For details about what personal information we collect and why, please see our Privacy Notice on our website at www.fieldfisher.com.
Fieldfisher is the trading name of Fieldfisher LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC318472) and
is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority. A list of its members and their professional qualifications is available at its
registered office, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London EC4R 3TT. We use the term partner to refer to a member of Fieldfisher LLP or an
employee or consultant with equivalent standing or qualifications.
EFTA00031829


c1: EFTA00029863
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029863.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Maxwell
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 16:00:29 +0000
Thank you so much man, really appreciate it.
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 11:48
To:
Subject: FW: Maxwell
Wow, congratulations! Amazing work in an outrageous case. Thank you for making all of us proud.
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 10:43 AM
To:
Subject: Maxwell
PCU - Please join me in congratulating
on the arrest this morning of Ghislaine Maxwell.
spoke a bit about the case on our call on Tuesday and the truly remarkable job the team has done in bringing it. I won't
repeat all of that, buy you should know, as you read press coverage today that already is making it seem like these charges
were inevitable, that they were anything but, and that they are instead the result of an extraordinary amount of work and
perseverance and creativity by
in building a case based on conduct that I'm pretty sure is older
than all of our paralegals.
will be holding a press conference at 12, and while it is sadly not possible for all of us to be there to join her given
current conditions, I hope we can all take a moment to remotely congratulate the team on a terrific accomplishment in
bringing an extremely important case against a woman very worthy of criminal prosecution.
EFTA00029863


c1: EFTA00030498
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030498.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
Subject: Prince Andrew 'a person of interest' in Epstein probe - source I Reuters
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:56:22 +0000
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-andrew-a-person-interest-epstein-probe-source-2021-08-16/
Sent from my iPhone
EFTA00030498


c1: EFTA00031209
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031209.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: updated protective order
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 18:00:40 +0000
Attachments: 2020-07-25,_GM,_protective_order_clean_version.docx
Would one or both of you be able to take a glance at this in the next hour? Obviously apologies for the turnaround time,
and if you can't, no worries at all, but wanted to check. Thanks.
EFTA00031209


c1: EFTA00031730
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031730.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From
To
Cc
Subject: RE: Maxwell Financial Report Appendices
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:42:13 +0000
Attachments: 2015-19_Tax_Returns.zip
Hi
It was great chatting with you earlier this morning! Attached you'll find a smaller zip folder containing just the tax returns,
for each year from 2015 to 2019. You shouldn't need a password to open the folders, but in case it prompts you, the
password defense counsel provided us is:
The entirety of the Financial Report Appendices are still loading onto USAFx, and it appears as if there is less than a third
left to download. I'm estimating it will take about another hour to an hour and a half for everything to finish downloading
there. Once they've downloaded, l'll share the folder with you.
Thank you so much for your patience,
and please let me know if you encounter any issues viewing these tax
returns!
From:
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 6:47 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Maxwell Financial Report Appendices
Yesterday, I was out of the office. Please burn the ZIP file to a DVD. Once the DVD is ready, call me at
2
and I
will walk over to your office to pick it up.
Best
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 12:58 PM
To
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Maxwell Financial Report Appendices
Hi
I hope you're well! I am writing to follow up on my previous email from yesterday. Please let me know what works best for
you to receive the below materials. Thanks very much, and have a great afternoon!
EFTA00031730

=== Page 2 ===
From
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Maxwell Financial Report Appendices
Hi
I hope you're doing well!
ave received the financial report
appendices from Maxwell's defense team. The materials were provided in a 3GB zip folder, which unfortunately is too
large to email. Depending on what works best for you and your work set-up, I believe we have a few options to get these
materials to you. I can forward you the original email from Maxwell's defense team that contained a link to view and
download the materials, I can upload the materials to USAFx for you to view, or I can have our IT department copy the
materials onto a hard drive. Please let me know what you prefer, and I will get these materials to you as soon as I can.
Thanks very much!
EFTA00031731


c1: EFTA00031351
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031351.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
:
Subject: Read: FW: USA V. Jeffrey Epstein -- 9 East 71st, New York, NY -- Pre-Seizure Package
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:05:46 +0000
Importance: High
EFTA00031351


c1: EFTA00030511
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030511.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: SF SUN SENTINEL: Some of Jeffrey Epstein's victims don't want new charges in South Florida
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:20:48 +0000
Some of Jeffrey Epstein's victims don't want new
charges in South Florida
By Marc Freeman
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN SENTINEL
JUL 30, 2019 2:34 PM
After the recent arrest of financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on federal sex trafficking charges, a number
of his victims want more. They want him to be prosecuted in South Florida as well.
But according to federal prosecutors, some of the minor girls he abused at his Palm Beach mansion before 2008
do not want to see him face new criminal counts here. And those government lawyers say they fully support that
position.
Advertisement
The debate about prosecuting Epstein in South Florida will be resolved soon enough. A federal judge in West
Palm Beach is considering whether to strike down parts of Epstein's controversial 2007 deal that gave him and
unnamed co-conspirators immunity from federal charges.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in February that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement
violated the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act. Dozens of victims were improperly kept in the dark
about it until after it had been finalized.
Marra ust decide how to rectify this violation 12 years later, after receiving arguments from lawyers for
two of Epstein's victims, prosecutors and Epstein.
The victims in the case, cited as Jane Does, say the necessary remedy is for Epstein to face what they say are
long overdue charges in Florida.
EFTA00030511

=== Page 2 ===
"To be sure, Jane Doe 1 and 2 very much appreciate the laudable efforts of the diligent prosecutors in New
York," their lawyers wrote. "But those New York charges, important though they are, still leave Epstein's crimes
in Florida uncharged and all of his co-conspirators at large."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin of West Palm Beach said he represents one victim who met with the U.S. Attorney's
Office in April.
"She said she'd like to see him prosecuted and put in jail," Kuvin said. "She said, 'I don't know if that's a
realistic possibility, but that's what I want."
He said it's not surprising that other victims are less inclined to participate.
"When you have so many victims, you're going to have just as many different opinions as to how it should be
handled," Kuvin said. "But that shouldn't stop the prosecution of a predator. One victim that wants to come
forward is enough to put him away."
The federal prosecutors explained that while some victims "would like to see Epstein prosecuted for his crimes,
they valued anonymity above all and were not willing to speak with law enforcement or otherwise participate in
any criminal or civil litigation due to the risk that their involvement may become known to family, friends, or the
public."
This is not to say there aren't many victims who are eager to see Epstein face new charges in South Florida,
wrote Byung J. Pak, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Jill E. Steinberg and Nathan P.
Kitchens, special attorneys for the Southern District of Florida.
[Popular on SunSentinel.com] Batter up: Here's the 2020 South Florida Fair's theme »
But they conclude that reopening their cases against Epstein in South Florida still "exacerbates the harm to
victims who have attempted to readjust their lives in the interim."
Kuvin said he agrees, "It's a valid concern for some of the victims."
Attorneys for two victims in the pending Crime Victims' Right Act litigation blasted the government's reasoning
to leave Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in place.
Lawyers Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell and Jack Scarola say any South Florida victims who are not willing to
prosecute Epstein because of privacy concerns can simply decline to do so and remain anonymous.
The lawyers say there's no way that prosecuting Epstein for some victims would harm other victims unless the
prosecutors somehow disclose their identities in the process.
"The Government's argument thus boils down to a stop-us-before-we-do-something-bad claim that deserves no
credence from the Court," wrote Edwards and his co-counsel on behalf of the two women, identified as Jane Doe
1 and Jane Doe 2.
[Popular on SunSentinel.com] Boynton police officer kills armed robbery suspect
EFTA00030512

=== Page 3 ===
They also pointed out that the prosecutors weren't asserting the alleged "risk" to some victims outweighs
obtaining justice for their clients.
"But in any event, on closer examination, the Government's argument turns out to be vaporous," they wrote this
month.
Epstein's lawyers told the judge they support the South Florida prosecutors' arguments that the once-secret deal
shouldn't be blown up to allow new charges.
Public Affairs
United States Department of Justice
EFTA00030513


c1: EFTA00030267
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030267.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To: Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Cc: Alex Conlon
Subject: RE: Scheduling a proffer
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 01:51:03 +0000
Importance: Normal
Received and confirmed, thanks, and please don't hesitate to reach out in the interim if that would be helpful in advance
of meeting. Looking forward to putting faces to names on Friday.
From: Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 21:39
To:
Cc: Alex Conlon
Subject: RE: Scheduling a proffer
Hi
Alex C, Jenna, and I are available on Friday at 11 to meet at your office. We'll let you know if we have any questions about
the form proffer agreement.
Thanks,
Alex
Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess I Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
Associate
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:14 PM
To: Alex Conlon
Cc: Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Subject: RE: Scheduling a proffer
Alex,
That makes sense, thanks. Our team is available to do Friday at 11:00, and we can host here at our offices,
if that still works for you both (and Jenna if she's able to join). On our end I expect it will be prosecutors
and me, and FBI Special Agent
Separately, as promised, attached is our form proffer agreement-when we meet with your client we'll add her name and
counsel information (and also change all the he / him to she/ her, obviously). Please let me know if any questions on that.
Thanks again, and looking forward to meeting in person on Friday.
EFTA00030267

=== Page 2 ===
Original Message
From: Alex Conlon
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 15:15
To:
Cc: Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Subject: RE: Scheduling a proffer
Hi,
Thanks so much for your email. Fully agree -- Jenna is the best. This is for an attorney proffer and if possible, Jenna will
probably join us.
I'm not sure whether
legally changed her name, or if I was just given her husband's last name
(
). I'll ask
her about it tonight. Also happy to ask her about phone numbers for anyone associated with Epstein.
Thanks,
Alex
Alex Conlon I Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
Original Message
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:07 PM
To: Alex Conlon
Cc: Alexandra Elenowitz-Hess
Subject: Re: Scheduling a proffer
That's great, thanks - and Jenna is fantastic, happy to have her involved. Just to clarify, and to help with our scheduling, I
take it we'll start with an attorney proffer? Or let me know if I misinterpreted and we're talking about a meeting with the
client. Either one totally fine but wanted to confirm- - let me know and I'll circle back in timing, and will also send you a
copy of our standard proffer agreement so you have it for your meeting with her this afternoon.
Two other quick things - first, we know your client as
but I think you mentioned her name has changed?
Could you please let me know her current last name?
And second, one very helpful thing for us would be to have any phone numbers she utilized with Epstein or anyone
associated with him at that time, and/or numbers for him or others she communicated with in connection with him.
Primarily, that could help to corroborate and confirm her recollections, and it's something we don't need to talk to her
directly about to get started working on. If you think it would concern her to provide that at this stage, no problem at all,
we can circle back to it later, but wanted to mention it.
thanks,
On Apr 3, 2019, at 14:30, Alex Conlon
<mailto:
wrote:
EFTA00030268

=== Page 3 ===
Hi there,
Sorry for the delay on our end. Robbie is going to be out of town, but Alex Hess (cc'd here) and I, and our colleague Jenna
Dabbs (former member of your office), would love to do a proffer with you tomorrow or Friday. We can do it by phone or
in person, but would prefer to do it in person.
On Thursday, we are available from 9 to 11AM or after 4PM. On Friday, we are available any time after 11AM.
What works best for you?
Thanks!
Alex
Alex Conlon Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP
<mailto:
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client, work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please
be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or
any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client, work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please
be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or
any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other
applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
EFTA00030269


c1: EFTA00031855
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031855.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
Subject: RE: unsealing and wheel request
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 01:21:45 +0000
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 20:56
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: unsealing and wheel request
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 1, 2020, at 8:49 PM,
wrote:
I gotta get out of here - I'm unfortunately
already walking or riding home in the dark, but hoping to avoid any protests shutting down the bridge later.
<2020-07-02, GM, government unsealing request and proposed order.docx>
EFTA00031855


c1: EFTA00031427
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031427.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Call in Epstein FOIA
Start Date: 2021-04-13 17:30:00 +0000
End Date: 2021-04-13 18:00:00 +0000
Organizer:
Location:
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2021-04-13 14:58:36 +0000
Date Modified: 2021-04-13 14:58:36 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2021-04-13 14:42:54 +0000
Attendee:
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
Reminder
please let us know if we need to move the time. Thanks!
EFTA00031427


c1: EFTA00030606
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030606.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc: "USAHUB-USAJournal111"
Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:04:28 +0000
Embedded: RE:_GM__search_warrant_returns.msg
Sender:
Subject: RE: GM -- search warrant returns
Message-Id:
<SN5P110MB0542F6900B21438575DD5DDF921C0@SN5P110MB0542.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
>
To:
To:
Cc
Cc
EFTA00030606


c1: EFTA00029681
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029681.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:22:08 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg
Yes, I spoke with her for a while yesterday, we basically had the same conversation we've had previously a couple times
now. She's going to talk to her client specifically on the issue of the friend and get back to us this week.
From:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 12:06
To:
is
Subject: FW: Epstein investigation
Did you hear from her?
From: Jill Greenfield
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 5:09 PM
To:
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
is
)
>;
Subject: Re: Epstein investigation
Thanks
Understood
I will call tomorrow
Regards
Jill Greenfield
Partner
D:
M:
Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Feb 2020, at 21:51,
)
wrote:
Jill,
EFTA00029681

=== Page 2 ===
No problem at all, we understand this takes time, and we appreciate you getting back to us, and we're very grateful that
your client is open to speaking with us.
On your questions, we are certainly fine with the first two questions / requests - we're happy to meet with you and your
client in an initial conversation, during which we can do the kind of introductions and explanations we've done with you
(and that we do with all victim witnesses we meet), including answering any questions to the best of our ability, and
then to take a break and have a more substantive discussion later on.
Regarding the friend, does that individual also represent her as counsel? We aren't normally able to include individuals
in addition to the witness and counsel in an interview-what does sometimes work is for someone who is providing
support (a parent, friend, etc.) to be close by for any discussions, assistance, etc. anytime that a witness wants to speak
with that person, which would of course be totally fine in this instance. Or if he represents her in his capacity as an
attorney then he of course could be in the interview in that role (with the only caveat that we would just want to
confirm that he himself is not separately a witness of some sort in the case). We unfortunately are not able to pay for
third parties (including counsel) to travel in connection with witness interviews, though - if it's preferable, we certainly
could pay for your client's travel to the U.S. for the interview, including airfare and lodging, if that makes it easier for the
friend to be present? And we're happy to discuss any of this further by email or phone if that's useful - I'll be at my
desk for the next several hours and most of tomorrow, at
or we could also set a time to chat, whatever
would be helpful.
thank you,
From: Jill Greenfield
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 13:55
To:
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation
Hello
Apologies for the slight delay. My client is willing to help but asks the following:
That there be a morning meeting at which introductions with a discussion as to the investigation and my clients
involvement. I appreciate that you have explained this to me but I think further verbal clarification would assist.
In the afternoon and after a break, my client would be willing to answer questions, in so far as she can.
That a friend of hers be allowed to be present as well. However that friend is based in the US and would need to
be flown over to London. He is a US lawyer.
Perhaps you could let me know if this is possible?
Kind regards,
Jill
Jill Greenfield
Partner
D:
M:
Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017
EFTA00029682

=== Page 3 ===
<image001.jpg>
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 7:08 PM
To: Jill Greenfield
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
i
is
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation
Understood - thanks very much.
From: Jill Greenfield
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 07:22
To:
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
i
is
)
Subject: Re: Epstein investigation
Thanks
This is helpful. I've gone back to my client with this. I will be back in touch shortly.
Regards
Jill
Jill Greenfield
Partner
D:
M:
Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017
<image003.jpg>
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Feb 2020, at 21:43,
)
wrote:
Jill,
Following up on our phone call, thank you for talking with us again, and we wanted to get back to you regarding some
of the additional follow-up questions you asked, and to describe in more detail for your client how we would expect to
approach any discussion with your client if she were comfortable meeting with us.
The absolute most important thing is that any discussion would be entirely voluntary, and by that we mean the
decision to meet with us but also as to any topic or question-your client would be absolutely free to determine what
topics she felt comfortable discussing. There is absolutely no pressure on victim witnesses to address anything that
would make them uncomfortable at any time, and even if your client was willing to meet with us, we would tell her, as
EFTA00029683

=== Page 4 ===
we do for any witness, that if any topic comes up that she wants to skip, or discuss with you privately, that is no
problem at all.
In fact, if you and she would prefer, we would be happy to have a meeting where we simply introduced ourselves,
explained the status of our investigation, talked about how a discussion would proceed if your client ended up being
comfortable with that, and answered in person any questions she. We have done that previously, where we do the
talking rather than asking questions in an initial meeting, and that would of course be without any requirement for
anything additional if she preferred not to. As I mentioned on the phone, we have consistently found that we are able
to reassure individuals when we have the opportunity to meet in person so they can see directly our interest in
approaching these discussions with great sensitivity and care. As I also mentioned on the phone, even if your client
were willing to speak with us, there would be absolutely no need or requirement for her to talk about any assault or
victimization she experienced. We wrote in our first email that we would primarily be interested in talking about
topics such as the general scope of her employment, directions she received from Epstein or Maxwell, etc., and as
always we would be guided by her comfort level.
In terms of who would attend a meeting, we almost always work in pairs, so two prosecutors and two officers, and
that's not to have extra people, but rather because it helps us to be as efficient as we can, and so witnesses can meet
the people on the team. Our team is also majority female, and we always tell witnesses that if topics come up in a
discussion that they would prefer to speak about just with women, that's fine and we can be flexible in the moment
and are always guided by the comfort level of the victim. But I also want to stress that in terms of your client in
particular, we don't expect to initially address issues of a very personal or sexual nature, and we certainly would tell
you in advance if there came a time when we thought that might be important to address, and how we could facilitate
that. Who exactly from our team would be at any meeting would depend on schedules, but we can assure you that
every one of us has now spoken with dozens of victims in this case, and every one of us has extensive experience more
generally working with victims and working on cases involving sex offenses. We are proud of how we have been able
to work with victims in this case especially, given all of the circumstances, and we absolutely would take the same
sensitive approach with your client as we have with the many other victims in this case who have spoken with us.
Again, if it would be helpful even for us to just come to the U.K. and introduce ourselves and explain in person how our
process works, and answer any questions your client has in person, we would absolutely be happy to do that with no
obligation at all from her. We also could do that with the possibility that if she felt comfortable, we could just address
the general subject of her employment, for example. But no obligation and no pressure. We continue to appreciate
your and her willingness to even broach the possibility of a discussion, and we hope this is helpful.
thank you very much,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
From:
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 14:25
To: Jill Greenfield
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
is
is
Subject: RE: Epstein investigation
Jill,
Thanks for circling back, and we'll do our best to answer these questions. In terms of who would be in the room, the
most likely answer is that it would be two of the prosecutors and the two law enforcement officers on the case. The
EFTA00029684

=== Page 5 ===
only reason I saw "most likely" rather than having a definitive answer is that when we're interviewing in a foreign
country, it sometimes is the case the local law enforcement also insists on having representatives present. I don't
believe that's required in the U.K., but we can check on it and give you a definitive answer in the coming days if that's
useful. (Also, if she preferred to be interviewed in the U.S., we certainly could guarantee that the room would be just
the case team, and we could arrange for travel and lodging for her. Let us know if that's the case, but otherwise we're
of course happy to travel to her.)
Regarding access to notes, it would principally be the investigative team-so again, the prosecutors and the FBI team
working on the case. Our respective supervisors also theoretically have access to our files, but the reports are not
generally widely disseminated. The basic logistics are that an agent takes notes during an interview, and then types up
those notes into a formal report (called an FBI Form 302). We don't ordinarily share notes with other entities, but I
can also check on that to see if I can make a more specific representation with respect to your client.
With respect to anonymity, I confess that I'm not familiar with the distinction you're referring to. In terms of our
investigation, we don't publicly disclose the names of individuals we meet with, and we don't disclose to any other
witnesses, for example, the identities of victims or witnesses we are meeting with. (And our policies on that don't
change even for individuals who are in the position of your client, who have been widely publicly reported to have
been connected to Epstein and/or his employees or associates). But if that doesn't answer your question, we're of
course happy to discuss further. Let me know if it might be useful to have a call? Or if not, also happy to address any
follow-up via email.
thanks,
From: Jill Greenfield
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2020 13:17
To:
Cc: Kyle Phillips
>; Louise Scott
is
Subject: Re: Epstein investigation
Hi
Thanks for this. I've been asked who would be in the room and thereafter who would have access to any
notes made. Would her permission be sought before disclosing to any other parties or officials?
As you know there is a real difficulty in relation to her anonymity in the US versus the UK. Are you able to
provide any comfort on this?
Many thanks
Jill
Jill Greenfield
Partner
D:
M:
Personal Injury Team of the Year - Solicitors Journal Awards 2017
<image001.jpg>
EFTA00029685

=== Page 6 ===
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Feb 2020, at 21:53,
)
wrote:
Ms. Greenfield,
Thank you again for speaking with us earlier today regarding our interest in talking with your client in connection
with our investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein.
As requested, we wanted to briefly memorialize our current views and understandings of your client, and also to
reiterate our interest in approaching any discussion with great care and sensitivity, particularly to avoid adding to her
trauma or causing re-victimization.
As we mentioned on the phone, your client is not a target of our investigation-it sounds like the analogue in the
U.K. may be the "suspect" category-and we currently do not have reason to believe that she has committed any
U.S. federal crime. As we discussed, our knowledge of your client specifically is somewhat limited, having never
spoken to her-and therefore knowing about her only through other witnesses and records-but it certainly has
been our experience that the overwhelming majority of young women and girls who were in the orbit of Jeffrey
Epstein during the relevant periods were subject to his abuse. It does not surprise us, nor do we have any trouble
believing, that your client was similarly a victim. I hope that is helpful in understanding the capacity in which we
hope to speak with her.
Separately, and as we also discussed, any discussion with our team would be entirely voluntary-and that extends
not just to whether she would be willing to meet with us at all, but also including her ability to decline to discuss
particular topics or even particular questions, and to talk with her counsel at any time, to take any breaks that would
be beneficial while we're meeting, etc.
In terms of topic areas, we would be hoping to learn about the general narrative of her interactions with Epstein and
his other associates and employees, including Ghislaine Maxwell, whom we understand she may have worked
directly for. That would broadly include how she came to be in contact with them, the nature and scope of her
employment, any instructions she was given relating to other women or girls, and just generally her experiences and
observations in interacting with them. We ordinarily would also be interested in understanding the general nature of
the abuse she was subjected to, but I want to emphasize that we would not need to discuss with her the specifics if
she weren't comfortable with that, and in particular we often don't even broach that subject in a first meeting.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions, and in particular whether any other information from us
would be useful, and we look forward to speaking with you again soon.
Regards,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
Fieldfisher, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London EC4R 3TT.
www.fieldfisher.com
We do not intend to change our bank details. If you receive any communication that any of our bank details have changed, telephone us and speak to your
contact at our office before transferring any funds. We do not accept responsibility for monies paid into a wrong bank account in any circumstances.
This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you receive this message in error, please contact the
sender immediately, destroy the email and any attachments and do not use, copy, store or disclose this email and any attachments
for any purpose. Fieldfisher does not accept service of documents by electronic means without express prior agreement.
For details about what personal information we collect and why, please see our Privacy Notice on our website at
www.fieldfisher.com.
EFTA00029686

=== Page 7 ===
Fieldfisher is the trading name of Fieldfisher LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC318472) and is authorised and regulated
by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority. A list of its members and their professional qualifications is available at its registered office, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London
EC4R 3TT. We use the term partner to refer to a member of Fieldfisher LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing or qualifications.
EFTA00029687


c1: EFTA00029935
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029935.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:23:08 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
This is now belated, but thank you!!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 17:32
To:
Subject: FW: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN
TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Nice work team!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
UNITED QUI PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA OF SUPPLICE JESTICE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
EFTA00029935

=== Page 2 ===
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
EFTA00029936

=== Page 3 ===
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00029937


c1: EFTA00030849
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030849.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Subject: Re: In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena_19-mc-00179
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:12:59 +0000
Attachments:
Counsel,
Please see the attached Order that was filed under seal today in 19-mc-179.
Thank you,
Courtroom Deputy to the Hon. Sarah Netburn
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena_19-mc-00179
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Attached is a letter in response to the Court's July 27, 2020 Order. We respectfully request that the letter be filed under
seal.
Thank you,
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 9:54 PM
EFTA00030849

=== Page 2 ===
Subject: Re: in Re: Grand Jury Subpoena_19-mc-00179
Good evening,
Attached is an endorsed Order that will be filed under seal in this case.
Thank vou,
-
Courtroom Deputy to the Hon. Sarah Netburn
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena_19-mc-00179
To the Chambers of Judge Netburn:
Please see the attached letter in connection with the order referenced below, in the above-captioned case.
From
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 09:09
To:
Subject: In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena_19-mc-00179
Please see the attached PDF for an Order that was filed under seal today in 19-mc-179.
Thank you,
EFTA00030850

=== Page 3 ===
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking on links.
EFTA00030851


c1: EFTA00030563
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030563.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
Subject: RE: Response to Rule 16/Brady Letter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 21:56:53 +0000
Attachments: 2020-10-19_Discovery_Letter_Draft_vl.agm.docx
Thanks,
As we discussed, here are my comments, and we can discuss once
has added her comments to this
draft.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:50 PM
To:
>;
)
Subject: Response to Rule 16/Brady Letter
Hi team,
Attached is a draft letter in response to
October 13, 2020 letter (his letter is attached here for your convenience).
Since you are both much closer to the discovery and the investigation, please feel free to edit as much as you would like.
Thanks,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
One St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Tel:
EFTA00030563


c1: EFTA00031323
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031323.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:15:19 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.png
Thanks man!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 13:26
To:
Subject: RE: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN
TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Congrats, guys!!
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:22 PM
Subject: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO
SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
DEP UNITED QUI PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA OF OFFICE JESTICE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Southern District of New York
STATES
GHISLAINE MAXWELL CHARGED IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT FOR
CONSPIRING WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO SEXUALLY ABUSE MINORS
Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions
-
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F.
Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"), and Dermot Shea, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"),
announced that GHISLANE MAXWELL was arrested this morning and charged with enticing a minor to travel
to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,
conspiracy to commit both of those offenses, and perjury in connection with a sworn deposition. The Indictment
unsealed today alleges that between at least in or about 1994 through 1997, MAXWELL and co-conspirator
Jeffrey Epstein exploited girls as young as 14, including by enticing them to travel and transporting them for the
purpose of engaging in illegal sex acts. As alleged, knowing that Epstein had a preference for young girls,
EFTA00031323

=== Page 2 ===
MAXWELL played a critical role in the grooming and abuse of minor victims that took place in locations
including New York, Florida, and New Mexico. In addition, as alleged, MAXWELL made several false
statements in sworn depositions in 2016. MAXWELL is expected to be presented this afternoon in the in federal
court in New Hampshire. This case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: "As alleged, Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated, aided, and
participated in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, and then
delivered them into the trap that she and Jeffrey Epstein had set. She pretended to be a woman they could trust.
All the while, she was setting them up to be abused sexually by Epstein and, in some cases, Maxwell herself.
Today, after many years, Ghislaine Maxwell finally stands charged for her role in these crimes."
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: "Preserving the innocence of children is among the
most important responsibilities we carry as adults. Like Epstein, Ms. Maxwell chose to blatantly disregard the
law and her responsibility as an adult, using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into
behavior they should never have been exposed to, creating the potential for lasting harm. We know the quest for
justice has been met with great disappointment for the victims, and that reliving these events is traumatic. The
example set by the women involved has been a powerful one. They persevered against the rich and connected,
and they did so without a badge, a gun, or a subpoena - and they stood together. I have no doubt the bravery
exhibited by the women involved here has empowered others to speak up about the crimes of which they've been
subjected."
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said: "The heinous crimes these charges allege are, and always will
be abhorrent for the lasting trauma they inflict on victims. I commend our investigators, and law enforcement
partners, for their continuing commitment to bringing justice to the survivors of sexual assault, everywhere."
If you believe you are a victim of the sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein, please contact
the FBI at 1-800-CALL FBI, and reference this case.
According to the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From at least 1994 through at least 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated
in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, groom, and
ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as
young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that their victims were in fact minors. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims,
MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states,
which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.
As alleged, MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways. For example,
MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, taking them to the movies or
taking them on shopping trips, and encouraging their interactions with Epstein. MAXWELL also acclimated
victims to Epstein's conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at
ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein's behavior.
Additionally, to make victims feel indebted to Epstein, MAXWELL would encourage victims to accept offers of
financial assistance from Epstein, including offers to pay for travel or educational expenses. MAXWELL also
normalized and facilitated sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics with victims, encouraging them to massage
Epstein, and undressing in front of a victim.
As MAXWELL and Epstein intended, these grooming behaviors left minor victims vulnerable and
susceptible to sexual abuse by Epstein. MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between
minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately MAXWELL
was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages
during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein
involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present.
EFTA00031324

=== Page 3 ===
As alleged, minor victims were subjected to sexual abuse that included, among other things, the touching
of a victim's breasts or genitals, placing a sex toy such a vibrator on a victim's genitals, directing a victim to
touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL and
Epstein's victims were groomed or abused at Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as
well as MAXWELL's residence in London, England.
Additionally, in 2016, while testifying under oath in a civil proceeding, MAXWELL repeatedly made
false statements, including about certain specific acts and events alleged in the Indictment.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 58, is charged with one count of enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of conspiracy to entice a minor to
travel to engage in illegal sex acts, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, one count of
transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, which carries a maximum sentence of
10 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and two counts of perjury, each of which
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational
purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant would be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
, and
are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
20-138
###
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PRESS OFFICE
AT (212) 637-2600.
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter SDNY website YouTube
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein,
constitute only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent
unless and until proven guilty.
EFTA00031325


c1: EFTA00031827
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031827.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Stan Pottinger
To:
)"
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein's disregard for environmental protections showed his disrespect for the law,
Virgin Islands says - CNN
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 01:04:15 +0000
This lawsuit is nearly hilarious
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message
From:
)"
Date: 1/16/20 4:24 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Stan Pottinger
Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein's disregard for environmental protections showed his disrespect for the law, Virgin
Islands says - CNN
Ah yes, Jeffrey Epstein, the world-historically appalling
polluter.
From: Stan Pottinger
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 18:58
To:
Subject: Jeffrey Epstein's disregard for environmental protections showed his disrespect for the law, Virgin Islands says -
CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/us/jeffrey-epstein-virgin-islands-environment/index.html
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
EFTA00031827


c1: EFTA00031903
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031903.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. V. Ghislaine Maxwell
MAXWELL HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH FACILITATING
THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF UNDERAGED GIRLS BY
JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
THE CHARGED CONDUCT OCCURRED IN NEW YORK CITY,
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO, AND
LONDON, ENGLAND.
IF YOU RECOGNIZE EITHER OF THESE PERSONS AND
FEEL YOU MAY BE A VICTIM, PLEASE CALL THE
FOLLOWING NUMBER:
1-800-CALL FBI
DEPARTMENT SISTITA OF
EFTA00031903

=== Page 2 ===
U.S. V. Ghislaine Maxwell
Properties Owned by Epstein Where Alleged
Grooming and/or Abuse of Minor Victims Occurred:
New York, New York
Palm Beach, Florida
Santa Fe, New Mexico
EFTA00031904


c1: EFTA00029949
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029949.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
)"
To:
"
)"
Subject:
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 23:54:24 +0000
Attachments: 2021-03-29_Letter_Re_Discovery_Requests_Re_FOIA.pdf
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00029949


c1: EFTA00030781
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030781.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Automatic reply: Epstein
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:44:55 +0000
I am out of the office and can respond to your email at the end of the day. Should you need assistance regarding a Human Trafficking
matter, please contact AUSA
at
For all other assistance, please contact AUSA
at
Thank you,
EFTA00030781


c1: EFTA00031207
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031207.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
Subject: FW: Revised MILs and letters
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:10:11 +0000
Attachments: Government_MIL_[final,_proposed_redactions].pdf;,2021-10-
18_SEALED_Govt_letter_re_to_accompany_MILs_[final],pdf;2021-10-
18_Gov't_letter_re_Proposed_Redactions_to_MILs_[final].pdf
Here are our MiLs
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:11 AM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Revised MILs and letters
Thank you so much, Janis! Not that you want to see them again, but here are the final versions we filed.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:04 PM
To:
(USANYS)
>;
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Revised MILs and letters
Guys - I think these are in great shape. The MILs were a major undertaking (on top of intense ongoing witness prep,
getting 3500 etc. out, and the various miscellaneous issues you've also had to fend off recently). I hope you can all take a
(brief) breath once this is filed, and relish a bit all you've already accomplished on the road to trial!
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:53 PM
To:
>;
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: RE: Revised MILs and letters
Thanks team. Here are a few last nits or comments.
From:
)
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:46 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Revised MILs and letters
Hi
and
Attached for your review are:
1. Revised MILs
2. A redline
3. A draft cover letter
4. A draft index letter with victim information
EFTA00031207

=== Page 2 ===
Thanks!
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
EFTA00031208


c1: EFTA00031099
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031099.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: "etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com" <etravelservices@cwtsatotravel.com>
To:
Subject: Voucher for Trip 10643456-2 is late
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 04:02:49 +0000
Importance: Normal
Dear
Your travel voucher for the trip below is now late based on your customer settings. Please submit your voucher
for this trip and mark it as Final if you have no additional expenses to claim.
Trip ID: 10643456-2
Traveler name:
Destination: Santa Monica
Purpose: R19NYS13842 - U.S. V. Epstein - Witness Interviews
Trip Dates: 2019-09-17 - 2019-09-20
Current status: Authorization Approved
E2 Single Sign On Login (within DOJ Network Only):
https://dojnet.doj.gov/jmd/fs/e2-redirect.html
E2 Manual Login (User ID and Password):
https://e2.gov.cwtsatotravel.com
Thank you for using E2Solutions. Help and support is available online by selecting the 'Online Help' link.
Please note: Replies to this mailbox are not monitored.
Some E2 email notifications are optional. To manage your email notifications, go to E2 Solutions to change your
email settings. Click 'Profile' on the task bar and then click the 'Edit Email Notifications' link to manage the
emails that you receive from us.
Reference ID# V0013
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail and any attachments;
any further use of such e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited.
EFTA00031099


c1: EFTA00029774
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029774.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Google
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:07:01 +0000
Thanks, agree that shouldn't be a problem.
From:
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:00 AM
To:
is
Subject: Google
FYI, our NDO for the subpoenas we cut at the beginning of the case for Epstein's email accounts has expired, so they're
going to notify (unclear to me who they'll notify, of course). I have no problem with that, but let me know if you think
there are any issues there.
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00029774


c1: EFTA00029811
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00029811.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
e (USANYS)" <LFogelman@usa.doj.gov>
To: "
ANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
Subject: Re: Epstein
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 18:25:42 +0000
We also need to figure out who can make this filing in a local court in the US Virgin Islands. John, you expressed
concern that I couldn't file since I'm not admitted there. I know there was a desire not to ask the local USAO for
help.
On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:13 PM,
USANYS)
wrote:
Yes. We need to apply for a new order with an application that would discuss why we need to disclose; privacy
concerns; potential protective orders; should we give notice to the people we got the trust agreements from (and
if not why not), etc.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:05 PM
To:
NYS)
Cc:
(USANYS) <LFogelman@usa.doj.gov>
Subject: FW: Epstein
This is the original order, which does seem to suggest we need "further order of the court" to further disclose.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:33 AM
To:
USANYS)
Subject: Epstein
Will come by in a second.
Co-Chief, Public Corruption Unit
U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York
Tel.
EFTA00029811


c1: EFTA00030608
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030608.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS) [Contractor]"
To:
)"
Cc:
)"
(USANYS)"
Subject: RE: Call re Epstein responsiveness review
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:53:55 +0000
Good Morning
I am available for a call between 9 - 11 am this morning and between 12:30 and 2 PM today. Please let me know what
time works for you.
Thank you.
From:
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 7:54 PM
To:
(USANYS) [Contractor]
Cc:
is
(USANYS)
Subject: Call re Epstein responsiveness review
Hi
Hope you're having a nice weekend. Is there a time on Tuesday when you would be available for a call to discuss the
responsiveness review of the Epstein SW returns on Relativity, please?
I'm available the entire morning if there's a time that would work for you.
Thanks,
EFTA00030608


c1: EFTA00030336
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030336.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Request for Information Relating to Jeffrey Epstein
Start Date: 2020-05-04 17:45:00 +0000
End Date: 2020-05-04 18:15:00 +0000
Organizer:
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2020-04-30 20:04:49 +0000
Date Modified: 2020-04-30 20:04:49 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2020-04-30 19:51:05 +0000
Attendee:
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
Reminder
-- Do not delete or change any of the following text. --
Join Webex Meeting
Meeting number (access code): 470 899 616 Meeting password: RxPNmCtV685
Join from a video system or application
Dial 470899616@khf.webex.com
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.
Join by phone
Tap to call in from a mobile device (attendees only)
+1-415-655-0001 US Toll
Global call-in numbers
Can't join the meeting?
If you are a host, go here to view host information. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this
EFTA00030336

=== Page 2 ===
Webex service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which
may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such
recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do
not join the session.
This email and its attachments may contain information that is confidential and/or protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client, work product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are
not the intended recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and destroy all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you.
EFTA00030337


c1: EFTA00030491
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030491.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
August 16, 2021
prep
AUSA
Det.
Attorneys
&
shown photobook containing 20 photographs. Asked to see if recognize anyone in
the book. Instructed that just because someone is in the book, does not mean
knows
them or that they have anything to do with this case. Instructed just to look and see if
recognizes anyone.
1 - DNR (do not recognize)
2- DNR
3 - DNR
4 - DNR
5 -
(bad picture of her)
6 - DNR
7- Jeffrey Epstein
8 - DNR
9 - DNR
10 - DNR
11- - DNR
12 - DNR
13 - - DNR
14 — DNR
15 - DNR
16- - Ghislaine Maxwell (bad picture of her;
recalls her having longer hair)
17 - DNR
18- — DNR
19 - DNR
20 — DNR
shown additional photographs and asked if he recognized them:
1 - Little St. James
2- Big House at Zorro Ranch
3 - 9 E 71st Street
4 - Building in Paris where JE's apartment was
5 - DNR (looks somewhat like GM's townhouse, but can't be sure)
did not know how old
was when he met her. He believes she looked
like she was in her 20s, but he had no idea of her actual age.
did not know how old
was when he met her. He believes she looked
like she was in her 20s, but he had no idea of her actual age.
1
EFTA00030491

=== Page 2 ===
confirmed that he does not have any flight records for JE's planes from before 1999.
All were turned over to JE's attorney in or about 2006.
[At this point, AUSAs
&
joined] Prepared for trial testimony.
previously undisclosed, clarifying, or different recollections below.
JE had the G2B from approximately 1994 through approximately 2012 or 2013.
G2B was silver with burgundy strip at first, then painted black. Inside had
burgundy carpet.
JE had the Boeing form approximately 2000 through approximately 2017
JE bought the G4 in approximately 2012 or 2013
JE bought firs helicopter in approximately 1999 or 2000. Between approximately
1999 and the mid-2000s, GM flew JE's helicopter at least 30 times.
would be
in the helicopter with GM. To
knowledge, JE owned all the helicopters,
GM never owned any of the helicopters.
also flew JE's
helicopters.
does not recall being told any rules for him or other pilots regarding how to
interact with passengers on JE's planes.
does remember having to sign
confidentiality forms, which
understood meant he could not write a book
about his employment.
GM seemed to like
and was nice to
remembers GM as a nice person.
reported to GM, and GM was second in charge under JE above JE's other
employees. In JE's office, JE had his own separate office; GM had a desk in the
office but not her own separate office room.
During initial meeting with SDNY,
may have had trouble remembering which
he met first
(
or
), but in thinking about the context in
which he saw those two passengers since then,
has remembered that he only
saw
on the G2 (not the Boeing) and he only saw
on the
Boeing (not the G2). That recollection helped
confirm in his own mind that
he met
first and
second.
Over time
knew GM, her hair length varied from about shoulder length to
shorter cuts.
JE primarily took the Concord to go to Paris in the 1990s.
visited JE's home in Columbus, OH
recalls that JE purchased the 71st Street NY residence in approximately the
mid-1990s (recalls it was 7 stories); the Palm Beach residence in approximately
the early 1990s; the NM ranch in approximately 1996 or the late 1990s (recalls it
had approximately 11,000 acres); Little St. James in approximately the 2000s; and
the Apartment in Paris in approximately the 2000s.
recalls meeting
in approximately the late 1990s/early 2000s
recalls meeting
in approximately the late 1990s
2
EFTA00030492

=== Page 3 ===

=== Page 4 ===
is

=== Page 5 ===
⑉
MEMO
<<<01
1171

=== Page 6 ===

=== Page 7 ===
PUI
Im
III


c1: EFTA00031576
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031576.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
"
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
N
(USANYS)"
)"
N
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
(USANYS)"
i
(USANYS) 1"
Subject: RE: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:54:45 +0000
Absolutely - we'll send around another update as soon as we know the substance of our response.
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 4:42 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
)
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
V.
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
^
is
(USANYS) 1
Subject: RE: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
Thanks,
Can you keep me posted on what we think will be the substance of the draft declaration when you know
(that is, before we are submitting anything on 12/31)? And how much of this is attributable to differences between MCC
and MDC, as well as specific differences in their housing situations?
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 4:35 PM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
V.
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
)
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
^
is
(USANYS) 1
Subject: Disparities in Counsel and Discovery Access for Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera
All:
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent issue that's surfaced in United States v. Rivera et al., a sex
trafficking case pending before Judge Engelmayer. As I'll describe in more detail below, Judge
Engelmayer has asked us to submit a declaration from the BOP explaining why the discovery and
counsel access accommodations provided to Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at the MDC outside the
general population) cannot be extended to Justin Rivera (detained at the MCC in the general
population).
EFTA00031576

=== Page 2 ===
Justin Rivera was charged in February 2019 with sex trafficking conspiracy. He's been detained at the
MCC since April 2019 on consent (he's also serving a state sentence). His trial, which was originally
scheduled for April 2019, is expected to start on February 16, 2020. In July 2020, he had new counsel
appointed, citing an irreconcilable breakdown with his former counsel.
Since this fall, Judge Engelmayer has become increasingly frustrated with the MCC's treatment of
Rivera. In particular, he's cited their failure to provide Rivera with adequate accommodations to
review discovery and meet with his lawyers, who refuse to visit Rivera at the MCC for personal health
concerns. We have two court orders in place to address these issues: (1) a laptop order, which requires
the MCC to provide Rivera access to a laptop for three hours per day; and (2) a videoconference order,
which requires the MCC to make available four hours of videoconferencing each week, in addition to
any telephone or videoconference calls obtained through the Federal Defenders.
At the moment, there's not a concern, at least from Judge Engelmayer, that the amount of time Rivera
has for videoconferences and electronic discovery review is insufficient for trial preparation, although
defense counsel has stated that they may request more time in the future. However, in a letter last
night and during a court conference this morning (transcript attached), defense counsel cited the
accommodations that the MDC has provided to Maxwell, describing them as "strikingly different and
far superior" to those afforded to Rivera. Defense counsel further suggested that Rivera was being
treated differently on account of his race, gender and class. Judge Engelmayer stated that the
disparity in access "jumped off the page" and that the optics were "terrible," and asked us to explain
the rationale for the differing treatment. After conferring with
and
before
our conference, we explained our understanding that the disparity comes down to the fact that
Maxwell and Rivera have very different housing situations, with Maxwell's situation being more
amenable to greater access to electronic discovery review and legal visits.
Judge Engelmayer asked us to submit a declaration, from an appropriate person at the BOP,
explaining in more detail why the accommodations provided to Maxwell cannot be extended to Rivera.
Based on the recent bail opposition in the Maxwell case, I believe the differences in counsel/discovery
access are as follows:
Accommodation
Maxwell
Rivera
Review of electronic
13 hours per day/7 days per
3 hours per day/7 days per
discovery (NB: each
week (91 hours total)
week (21 hours total)
defendant has laptop access)
Counsel visits (by video)
3 hours per day/5 days per
Four hours per week (plus an
week (15 hours total)
additional two hours
scheduled through the
Federal Defenders) (6 hours
total)
Weekend legal calls
As needed
Not available
The declaration is due by December 31. Because Judge Engelmayer's request implicates at least two
criminal cases, and potentially the ongoing civil litigation with the MCC, we wanted to make sure that
you were all aware of this issue. We are also happy to set up a call to discuss this further. In the
meantime, we are working with
to identify the appropriate declarant and draft an
explanation for the Court.
Best,
EFTA00031577

=== Page 3 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Tel:
EFTA00031578


c1: EFTA00030757
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030757.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
To:
Subject: Re: FW: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Order
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:28:16 +0000
Thanks
)"
12/8/2020 12:45 PM >>>
Good afternoon,
Best,
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov<NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:03 PM
To: CourtMail@nysd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA V. Maxwell Order
EFTA00030757

=== Page 2 ===
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this
e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 12/8/2020 at 12:02 PM EST and filed on 12/8/2020
Case Name:
USA V. Maxwell
Case Number:
1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Filer:
Document Number: 92
Docket Text:
ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC
legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020
letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal
counsel's letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden
Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant's
conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions,
along with the MDC legal counsel's December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant's
request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves
Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall
continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of
Ms. Maxwell's confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including
legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall
also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby
ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the
Government shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive
adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel.
(Signed by Judge
J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap)
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Laura A. Menninger Imenninger@hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com
Bobbi C Sternheim bc@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com, ecf@sternheimlaw.com
Christian R. Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com
Mark Stewart Cohen mcohen@cohengresser.com, Mark-Cohen-1234@ecf.pacerpro.com,
autodocket@cohengresser.com, managingclerksoffice@cohengresser.com
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov,
USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
EFTA00030758

=== Page 3 ===
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1008691343 [Date=12/8/2020] [FileNumber=25049471-
0][4e2f0541bc896e461bd043db68fe94f5538c87c7f408faa5d11202151b70a7a980
3e9613969adcd785259ef1112c8e0ede95ad58040bd30229e0b4eb35d9f3de]]
EFTA00030759


c1: EFTA00030786
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030786.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
Event: Epstein-related Touhy request
Start Date: 2020-05-18 18:00:00 +0000
End Date: 2020-05-18 18:30:00 +0000
Organizer:
(USANYS)
Class: X-PERSONAL
Date Created: 2020-05-16 03:11:26 +0000
Date Modified: 2020-05-16 03:11:26 +0000
Priority: 5
DTSTAMP: 2020-05-15 21:19:37 +0000
Attendee:
Alarm: Display the following message 15m before start
I
Reminder
EFTA00030786


c1: EFTA00030021
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030021.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>
To:
)"
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>, "Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP
(ceverdell@cohengresser.com)" <ceverdell@cohengresser.com>, 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
<bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential
materials, scenes
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 19:30:17 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg
Thank you for the updated spreadsheets and the information regarding the timing of the review at 500 Pearl.
I believe we will be able to have an attorney, investigator and paralegal present at the Bronx warehouse to take photos of
the "excluded from transportation" items. Please let us know the particulars for that visit when you have a moment.
Thank you,
Laura
Laura A. Menninger I Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10th Avenue I Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
Imenninger@hmflaw.com
From:
)
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:06 AM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Good morning,
Attached please find the revised spreadsheets, which reflect designations under the Protective Order for the three mini-
VHS tapes that I referenced below.
I learned this morning that the Marshals intend to bring Ms. Maxwell back to the MDC each review day at 4:30pm. So we
can plan for the review to take place at 500 Pearl Street from 9:30am to 4:30pm each day beginning on April 13th.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00030021

=== Page 2 ===
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 12:09 AM
To: 'Laura Menninger' <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: 'Jeff Pagliuca' <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; 'Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)'
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Good evening,
Today, the Marshals confirmed that they will produce Ms. Maxwell to 500 Pearl Street on April 13, 2021 and every day
thereafter until the evidence review is complete. My understanding is that Ms. Maxwell should arrive to 500 Pearl Street
at approximately 9:30am each morning. So we are confirmed for evidence review in the proffer rooms on the 5th floor of
the 500 Pearl Street courthouse beginning at 9:30am on April 13th. I will plan to be present and to continue assisting with
logistics. If any questions or concerns arise, please feel free to call my cellphone at
To assist in preparing for this review, attached please find annotated versions of the three evidence spreadsheets I
previously emailed to you: (1) a spreadsheet of New York evidence; (2) a spreadsheet of Florida evidence; and (3) a more
detailed spreadsheet of the sub-items contained in the Florida evidence spreadsheet. A couple things to note:
These spreadsheets now indicate the Protective Order designation, if any, for each item to be reviewed. As you will
see, there are three mini-VHS tapes that I need to double check before assigning a final designation. I expect to be
able to access a mini-VHS cassette player later this week, at which point I will be able to provide an updated
spreadsheet with a confirmed designation for those three items. Additionally, please note that there is one item
about which we plan to provide you with a letter later this week.
These spreadsheets also indicate where each item will be made available for the defense to review. As you will see,
we have now learned that one item (consisting of shredded paper) is currently at FBI headquarters and will not be
available for review next week. Please let me know if you believe you need to review that item, and I will inquire as
to whether and how it can be relocated to New York. Additionally, all 1D items consist of electronic data (as
opposed to 1B items, which are physical items). As is noted in the spreadsheets, the electronic data that constitute
the 1D items in this case have either already been produced to you in discovery (e.g., pen register data, GPS data,
and aerial footage), or are digital recordings of interviews that will be produced as non-testifying witness
statements. Because these 1D items are data files stored in the FBI system, there is no corresponding physical item
to produce for you to review.
Please let me know when you would like to schedule a time for a smaller group from the defense team to review evidence
at the Bronx warehouse.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00030022

=== Page 3 ===
From:
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:48 PM
To: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
i
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Laura,
Thank you for your email and for your understanding as we work through the logistics of arranging this review. Your
modifications and clarifications are acceptable to us. Below I address each specifically:
The FBI can arrange for a lawyer, investigator, and paralegal to inspect and photograph the precluded items at the
Bronx warehouse either next week or the week after. Please let us know what day you would like to arrange for
that inspection, and I will coordinate with the FBI accordingly. I would suggest trying to schedule this visit early
next week if possible so that if there are items that you believe need to be produced to 500 Pearl Street, we will
have time to do so during a subsequent day of review at 500 Pearl if the FBI agrees to transport the item(s).
Tomorrow, I will send you evidence spreadsheets with annotations of which items the FBI will not be producing to
500 Pearl Street, and which items we are designating under the Protective Order. Please note that certain items
will be designated "Confidential," in which case they may be photographed, but the photographs should be treated
as Confidential under the Protective Order. Other items will be designated "Highly Confidential," in which case they
may not be photographed, absent specific authorization from an AUSA. I note the possibility of authorization to
photograph this latter category because some Highly Confidential evidence items include both nude and non-nude
portions, in which case we would permit photography of the non-nude portions.
In light of our decision to produce non-testifying witness statements beginning on April 12, 2021, we are no longer
segregating any electronic media that contain witness statements during this review. This is because all of the
witness statements on the electronic media in the FBI's possession are from witnesses whom the Government does
not expect to call at trial in this case. Please note that we intend to produce digital audio files to you containing the
contents of the electronic media with these non-testifying witness statements, but you are of course welcome to
review the original recordings themselves.
In terms of space, I have been informed that we will not be permitted to conduct this review in a courtroom and
will instead be required to do so in the proffer rooms. I have reserved the two largest proffer rooms available at
500 Pearl. We can use the largest proffer room for evidence review, and the slightly smaller proffer room as a
private meeting space for the defense team.
Confirmed, I will ask the FBI to bring all electronic highly confidential images to 500 Pearl Street, including the
2,100 that were not previously reviewed and the electronic images that were previously provided for review at the
MDC.
Confirmed, I will ask the FBI to bring the 7 hard-copy highly confidential materials to 500 Pearl Street.
As I mentioned earlier today in a separate email, the FBI and AUSAs are prepared to facilitate this review beginning April
13th and continuing every day thereafter until your review is complete. I have also formally requested that the Marshals
produce Ms. Maxwell to 500 Pearl Street on April 13th and every day thereafter until the review is complete. The
Marshals previously confirmed their willingness to produce Ms. Maxwell for such a review in general, but they have not
yet confirmed their ability to do so on any particular dates. I will let you know as soon as the Marshals inform me
whether they can accommodate these specific dates.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00030023

=== Page 4 ===
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 5:36 PM
To:
is
V.
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Thank you for your email. Your proposal is largely acceptable to us, with the following modifications and clarifications.
For the items that you propose below to exclude from the evidence transported to 500 Pearl Street (with the
exception of the cash held at 26 Federal Plaza), we will need to have access for a lawyer, investigator and paralegal
to inspect and photograph those items at the Bronx warehouse. This seems to include the bulky items, electronic
devices and "fragile" items.
Once they are photographed and shared with the team and our client, we can decide whether a separate
inspection by our client and/or any expert is necessary at a later time. To be clear, the government's photos
of these same items are insufficient.
If there are any items we are not permitted to photograph (and perhaps you will be able to tell us by April 5
which those are), we likely will need to have those transported because there is no way for our client to
inspect the evidence. We can wait to finalize this issue until you have finished deciding what items you
consider non-photographable, and if we can't agree, then discuss next steps.
Please let us know when these "non-transportable" items can be inspected and photographed at the Bronx
warehouse. It makes sense that it would be done soon so that we can raise any issues as necessary with the
Court.
For playing any of the electronic media, we will obtain the necessary equipment to play at 500 Pearl Street and
seek permission to bring those devices into the Courthouse. You can segregate out the section of recordings that
contain "witness statements" and advise us then which ones cannot be played, but we still need to inspect the
outside of those recordings.
As far as space, can you please advise whether the largest proffer room will be available for review of evidence? It
is my understanding that it can accommodate a large number of the team members at one time. If not, is a locked
courtroom available for us to review the evidence? The agents could bring out a limited number of boxes at a time
for inspection.
We understand that the evidence will not be taken outside of the monitoring of the agents or your staff and
appreciate that you will have a separate room for us to consult with our client privately (without the evidence).
We understand that all of the highly confidential materials, including not only the 2,100 images not previously
disclosed as well as the electronic images that were only shown to NY counsel and the client at the MDC, will be
available for review on a singular laptop at 500 Pearl Street.
We also understand the 7 hard-copy highly confidential materials will also be available for inspection at 500 Pearl
Street.
Please let me know if you have any questions or disagree with my understanding. If you agree, we can then proceed as
scheduled on April 12 and continue day to day until we are finished, with a break if necessary for the arraignment.
Laura A. Menninger I Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
EFTA00030024

=== Page 5 ===
150 E. 10th Avenue I Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
Imenninger@hmflaw.com
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Counsel,
Thank you for your email. Below please find our response. If this is acceptable to you, then we will proceed with
arranging the logistics of having your client produced to 500 Pearl the week of April 12th and the week April 19th. We will
also arrange for the FBI to transport evidence to 500 Pearl for review the week of April 12th.
Physical Evidence
It is not reasonable or feasible to insist that the FBI bring all physical evidence to 500 Pearl Street. That said, we are
certainly willing to work with you to ensure that your client can review any physical items that are material to the
preparation of her defense.
We would propose excluding the below items from production to 500 Pearl:
We appreciate your note that the massage tables are not needed, which will certainly help with the logistics
of transport.
We also appreciate your indication that the cash items from 26 Federal Plaza do not need to be produced.
Those are the only items not located in the Bronx warehouse.
The FBI has seized dozens of electronic devices, including desktop computers, servers, and laptops, from
Jeffrey Epstein's residences in 2019. Photographs of those devices were produced in our August 2020
productions as part of the search warrant photographs, and you have received copies of the data that was
seized from those devices pursuant to a warrant. The production of these devices would be very
cumbersome, and we do not see any value in looking at an electronic device that cannot be turned on.
The framed pictures are bulky and cumbersome to transport. These are also very delicate and are difficult
to transport. Photographs of those seized images were already provided to you as part of the photographs
from the searches of Epstein's residences.
Certain items seized from the New York residence are bulky, fragile, and/or difficult to transport. These
include plaster busts of female torsos and a stuffed dog. Photographs of these items were already provided
to you from the search of the New York residence.
The remaining physical items of evidence would fit into approximately 15 to 20 boxes. The FBI has indicated that it
would be feasible to transport those boxes to 500 Pearl Street.
Regarding your request for equipment that can play the recordings, we believe they would require a VCR, a cassette
player, a CD player, an adapter for a micro VHS tape, and a microcassette player. If you wish to play these
recordings at 500 Pearl, you will need to provide that equipment. We have asked the FBI whether any other
equipment would be necessary and will let you know if that is the case prior to the date of your review. It is our
understanding that any recordings that are not witness statements and that are not highly confidential have been
produced to you in discovery. We are not aware of any discoverable, non-highly confidential, recordings that were
not produced to you as part of the Government's discovery productions in the fall. To confirm that understanding,
we are working with the FBI to physically doublecheck each recording. If we identify any discoverable recordings
that have not already been produced, we will promptly provide them to you.
EFTA00030025

=== Page 6 ===
The segregation of highly confidential material will require the FBI and an AUSA to physically review each item to
confirm the item's status. We will endeavor to do so by your requested date of April 5, 2021.
We can confirm that neither the AUSA(s) nor the agent(s) will record or attempt to record any part of the evidence
review or conversations among the defense team or with the defendant during this review. Although the evidence
cannot be left outside of the presence of an agent, we will ensure that a room is available for the defense team and
the defendant to confer privately away from the agent(s) and the AUSA(s) without monitoring.
As for your request for a space large enough to fit 8 members of the defense team, the defendant, an agent, an
AUSA, and the evidence, my office cannot control the space that the Marshals allow us to use at 500 Pearl outside
of the proffer rooms. We will certainly request as large a space as possible, but if we are required to use the
proffer rooms, then members of the defense team may need to rotate in and out of the room. I know members of
the defense team have been in those proffer rooms before, and they can hopefully provide some thoughts on how
we might use the proffer room space effectively for your purposes. If the Court grants authorization for the
defense to bring electronic devices into 500 Pearl, that is certainly fine with the Government, and you may note our
consent in your request to Judge Nathan for such authorization.
Highly Confidential Electronic Images
The 2,100 electronic images were recovered during the responsiveness review of images and videos seized from
Jeffrey Epstein's devices, which review was not complete until early November 2020. We indicated on page 4 the
cover letter to our November 9, 2020 production, which included all other images and videos from those devices,
that "the Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI') seized multiple nude and partially nude images from several for the
above-listed electronic devices. All such images have been designated Highly Confidential. The FBI will make these
images available for review by the defense upon request." We did not receive a request from the defense to review
these images until your March 8, 2021 letter, which requested to "view and inspect all materials designated by your
office as 'Highly Confidential' under the terms of the Protective Order".
We did not ask the FBI to bring the 7 hard copy images to the MDC in the fall because we did not understand you to
be requesting a review of physical, non-electronic evidence during those meetings. Our understanding of the
defense request at that time was to review the electronic highly confidential images that were recovered from CDs
from Epstein's residence. We will ensure that the 7 hard copy images are available to you for review at 500 Pearl.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 5:19 PM
To:
)
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
All,
EFTA00030026

=== Page 7 ===
We have considered your proposal. Unfortunately, it does not permit us an adequate ability to review the evidence in the
case and does not permit our client to meaningfully participate in her own defense.
First, we are unable to meaningfully review the evidence without the benefit of our laptops and other electronic devices
which are needed to take notes of our review. We also need access to our devices during the review to compare the
physical evidence with the electronic discovery and with our work product.
Second, we need to provide our client the ability to review all discovery, including any recordings, in order to assist in her
own defense. Presuming that she will not be taken to the FBI downtown office, then your proposal offers no means by
which she can both inspect a recording in its physical form and listen to the recording at the same time.
In order to address the deficiencies in your proposal, we believe the following are necessary:
Physical Evidence
All of the physical evidence currently located in the FBI Bronx warehouse will be transported to 500 Pearl Street
and made available during the week of April 12, with our client present, in a room sufficiently large to
accommodate 8 attorneys and investigators.
We do not need the "bulky" massage tables transported; if there are any other extremely large evidence
pieces, let us know what they are and we can consider whether we can have someone review and
photograph those at the Bronx warehouse at an earlier time.
From your email, it appears that only two items are not located at the Bronx warehouse - both envelopes
with cash. Please confirm this. We do not need the two "cash" evidence items transported to 500 Pearl.
If there are other evidence items housed somewhere other than the Bronx, please let us know what they are
and where they are.
We will be permitted to bring our laptops, and a camera, into 500 Pearl Street; we are happy to seek permission
from Judge Nathan to do so.
Either the FBI can provide the equipment necessary to listen to any of the recordings at 500 Pearl Street or we can
bring the necessary equipment. If we are to provide the equipment, we will need to know in advance the formats
of each recording so that we can be prepared. You can note that on your Excel spreadsheet by the item number by
March 29 to give us adequate time to secure the necessary equipment.
The FBI can segregate any physical evidence that you deem "highly confidential." You can identify any "highly
confidential" physical evidence items on your Excel spreadsheets by April 5 (one week before the evidence view). If
we need to photograph or reproduce any such item for expert evaluation, we will seek leave of court. Otherwise,
we will not photograph any such items during the review during the week of April 12. This will ensure the evidence
review proceeds smoothly and there will not be any need to ask permission to photograph on an item by item
basis.
The FBI also can segregate any recordings which we will be able to inspect, but not listen to, during the evidence
view the week of April 12. You can note such designation on your Excel spreadsheet. If we disagree, we can seek
leave of the Court in advance.
We understand that an FBI Agent and/or AUSA may be present during our physical evidence review at 500 Pearl
Street but of course must ensure that no recordings are made of our conversations and also ensure that there is a
separate, secure room in which we can confer with our client during the evidence view without monitoring by the
government.
Please confirm whether all electronic recordings (other than the highly-confidential images and videos described
below) have previously been produced to us, and if not, please explain which ones were not produced by the
discovery deadlines last fall and why.
Highly Confidential Electronic Evidence
Can you please explain why 2,100 + 7 "highly confidential" images have not been shared with us yet? It was our
understanding that you previously provided all "highly confidential" images to our client - and to defense counsel
for review at the MDC in November. We are confused about where these previously undisclosed items were
located and why they have not yet been made available for inspection and review.
During the week of April 19, Ms. Maxwell should be produced to 500 Pearl Street to review (with counsel and a
defense staff member, on the 1 laptop provided) all of the 5,507 electronic images and video marked "highly
EFTA00030027

=== Page 8 ===
confidential". These should be segregated into the three categories you describe (never-before produced,
previously produced, and the 7 hard-copy images).
Please let us know if you will not agree to any of these steps so that we can address the issues with the Court.
Thank you.
Laura A. Menninger Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:40 PM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
All,
Attached please find two spreadsheets documenting all physical evidence in the FBI's custody, as well as a corresponding
discovery cover letter. We are sending a copy of these files to the MDC for your client as well.
In response to your questions, the FBI has informed me of the following:
Regarding the Highly Confidential nude/partially nudge images to be reviewed at 500 Pearl:
There are three categories of these images:
Approximately 2,100 electronic images and videos seized from Epstein's electronic devices (which have not
been previously provided to you)
Approximately 3,400 electronic images from discs seized from Epstein's residences in 2019 (which have
previously been provided to you and your client for review at the MDC)
Approximately 7 hard copy nude images located in the file from the FBI Florida office's investigation of
Epstein (which have not been previously provided to you)
The FBI will make all three of those categories available to you. The electronic files will be provided on hard drives,
and the FBI will provide you with the hard copy images for review as well.
All electronic images should be viewable as thumbnails, except those seized from Apple devices, which must
be viewed using Cellebrite.
The Cellebrite software will be provided on the drive for your review of images and videos seized from Apple
devices.
The electronic files have the same metadata on the hard drive that was available when the FBI seized each
image. For images that were carved or deleted, no metadata was recovered, so none is viewable. For all
other images, the metadata recovered should be viewable on the hard drive.
The approximately 2,100 electronic images and videos seized from Epstein's devices are separated by folder
to indicate which device each image was seized from.
Because these images are considered obscene material, the FBI is not permitted to make duplicates of them, and
there is a limited number of clean laptops on which these images can be reviewed. As a result, the FBI is only able
to provide a single laptop for review of these images.
Regarding the physical evidence:
Attached are two lists of all physical items in the FBI's custody relating to this case. The first list relates to items
associated with the FBI Florida office's investigation of Epstein. The second list relates to items associated with the
FBI New York office's current investigation.
EFTA00030028

=== Page 9 ===
The vast majority of physical evidence in the FBI's custody is located at the FBI's warehouse in the Bronx. Two
items (1B 77 & 1B 79) are located at 26 Federal Plaza, but the case agents can check those items out from 26
Federal Plaza and bring them to the Bronx warehouse on whatever day you choose to conduct your review so that
you will have all evidence in one place.
The FBI is able to arrange for the defense team to review all physical evidence at the Bronx warehouse under the
following conditions:
The warehouse requires at least two weeks' notice in order to pull all of the items for the entire case and
place them in a location where a large group of people can view them.
The warehouse is open during normal business hours between 9am and 5pm on weekdays.
At least two FBI agents and an AUSA will be present at the Bronx warehouse to assist and answer questions.
The evidence will be placed in a loading dock at the warehouse to provide additional space for the review.
To ensure that there is sufficient space, please let me know how many members of the defense team intend
to be physically present for this review.
Electronic devices such as cellphones and laptops are not permitted in the warehouse. The defense team
may bring a digital camera that is not connected to the Internet or a cellular network into the warehouse. If
the defense team wishes to photograph an item of evidence, the defense will need to inform the agents who
are present, so that they may confirm that the photographed item is not Highly Confidential based on the
presence of nudity.
Electronic media such as VHS tapes, cassette tapes, and CDs will not be playable at the warehouse.
To the extent the defense requests that the FBI bring any physical items to 500 Pearl Street for your client to review,
the FBI is prepared to bring items that are reasonably sized to 500 Pearl Street. With respect to bulky or large
items, the defense team should be able to photograph those for your client to review, unless they are deemed
Highly Confidential, in which case the FBI can make arrangements to transport the item to 500 Pearl Street if
necessary.
The FBI is in the process of confirming that it can provide devices to play all of the electronic media in the case in a
single location at the FBI's offices in downtown Manhattan. We are also double-checking to confirm that all media
that does not contain witness statements have already been produced to you and your client in discovery. The FBI
anticipates that we can arrange for you to review all non-witness statement electronic media at the FBI's office in
downtown Manhattan in approximately three weeks.
To the extent you wish to review all of the discs containing photographs, which were seized from Epstein's
residences in 2019, we note that all of those images have already been produced to you in discovery. For
your awareness, the FBI has informed me that it took their team several weeks to review all of the images on
all of those discs.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:00 PM
To: 'Laura Menninger' <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
EFTA00030029

=== Page 10 ===
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Laura,
I expect to be able to answer all of your questions about the evidence review by tomorrow.
We have been looking into the discovery request you made last week, and we hope to have a response ready to provide
to you by next week.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:01 PM
To:
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
-
Now that the FBI team is back, when do you expect to have answers to all of the questions posed? If I had an idea of
when you would have answers, it could help me answer your question.
At a minimum, it would not seem to take too much time to know when someone can open the FBI vault and allow the
attorneys to make an initial view of the evidence. Also, I understand the FBI did not prepare an inventory of their
evidence when they seized it from NY and LSJ, so I don't think we need to wait for them to now prepare an inventory
before we start reviewing evidence.
Also, when do you believe you will have a response regarding the discovery I requested last Monday?
Thanks,
Laura
Laura A. Menninger I Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10th Avenue I Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
Imenninger@hmflaw.com
EFTA00030030

=== Page 11 ===
From:
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:44 AM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Counsel,
The FBI team on this case has been out of the office this week and will not be able to answer all of the questions you
asked during our Wednesday call until they are back in the office next week. Please let me know if you would like to wait
until all of those questions can be answered to schedule a day for your client to be brought to 500 Pearl Street to review
the highly confidential images. My understanding is that the FBI is able to provide at least one laptop containing those
highly confidential images in time for such a review to take place on Thursday 5/18, but I may not have the answers to all
of your questions about those images before that date, and I do not know whether you will also be able to visit the
evidence vault that same week.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. I will reach back out once I have answers to your questions.
Thank you,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
That is the only excel spreadsheet indexing physical evidence that we have produced in discovery. That spreadsheet does
not include every physical item currently in the FBI's custody related to this case. For example, the August 20, 2020
discovery production also included search warrant returns listing the physical items seized by the FBI's New York Office
during the 2019 searches of Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the U.S Virgin Islands (see Bates range
SDNY_GM_00166007-SDNY_GM_00166043), but they are not contained in a spreadsheet.
As a courtesy, I have asked the FBI whether it would be possible to provide us with a similar excel index reflecting the
physical evidence seized by the FBI's New York Office, though it may take some time to compile such an index.
Best,
EFTA00030031

=== Page 12 ===
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:44 PM
To:
)
is
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Thank you. Is that the only index of physical evidence available?
Laura A. Menninger I Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10th Avenue I Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
Imenninger@hmflaw.com
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:38 PM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Counsel,
In advance of our call tomorrow, I wanted to send a copy of the attached index of physical items in FBI custody from the
FBI-Miami office, which we previously produced to you as part of our August 21, 2020 discovery production. Also
included in that August 21, 2020 production were scans of numerous items listed on the index. Those scans can be found
within Bates range SDNY_GM_00172218-SDNY_GM_00173007. It may be useful to reference some of those items during
our conversation tomorrow, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of them.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
EFTA00030032

=== Page 13 ===
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:03 PM
To: 'Laura Menninger' <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Yes, that works for us, thank you very much. We can use the below dial-in:
Dial-in:
Code:
Best,
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:19 AM
To:
)
is
)
V.
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Good morning,
We are free at 1:30 p.m. ET / 11:30 a.m. MST tomorrow. Would that work? We are generally free thereafter, so please
suggest another later time if not.
Thank you,
Laura
Laura A. Menninger I Partner
Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.
150 E. 10th Avenue I Denver, CO 80203
+1 303 831 7364 (Office)
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:36 AM
To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>;
)
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com>; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: RE: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Good morning,
It would be helpful to have a call to discuss the requests contained in this letter. Are there times tomorrow when you
would be available to speak, please?
EFTA00030033

=== Page 14 ===
Thank you,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
From: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:03 PM
To:
is
is
(USANYS)
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; Christian R Everdell - Cohen & Gresser LLP (ceverdell@cohengresser.com)
<ceverdell@cohengresser.com; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <bcsternheim@mac.com>
Subject: US V. Maxwell - 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) - Request to view evidence, highly confidential materials, scenes
Counsel -
Please see attached correspondence.
-Laura
Laura A. Menninger
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
Imenninger@hmflaw.com
www.hmflaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
EFTA00030034


c1: EFTA00031200
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00031200.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
From:
(USANYS)"
To:
(USANYS)"
)"
(USANYS)"
Cc:
)"
)"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 17:29:24 +0000
Attachments: 2021-10-15_GM_letter_re_MDC_legal_mail_v2_[to_chiefs].docx;
Ltr_to_Ct_re_Legal_Mail_10-14-21.pdf
Attached is a draft response due today at 5 pm. We still need to send this letter to
and
at the
MDC to review for accuracy. Do you think you will be able to review shortly or should I send them this draft
simultaneously? We highlighted some language for your consideration about Judge Nathan's deadlines, happy to discuss.
We haven't engaged with the defense's footnote 1 about the volume of the materials delivered because that is a little
more complicated and we want to make sure any representations are fully accurate, but happy to discuss.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:30 AM
To:
is
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Thanks. (We've really got to talk to Nathan about these deadlines!)
From:
)
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:30 AM
To:
(USANYS)
i
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Hi
Judge Nathan just ordered us to respond to this letter as soon as possible but no later than 5 pm today. We've reached
out to BOP to set up a call.
Thanks,
From:
(USANYS)
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:31 PM
To:
(USANYS)
is
(USANYS)
Cc:
is
is
EFTA00031200

=== Page 2 ===
)
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
FYI, letter filed by Bobbi Sternheim tonight.
From: BOBBI C STERNHEIM
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:46 PM
To:
is
(USANYS)
i
>;
Cc: Christian Everdell
>; Laura Menninger
>; Jeff Pagliuca
Subject: [EXTERNAL] U.S. V. Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Good evening-
Attached is a courtesy copy of this evening's ECF filing.
Bobbi
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM, ESQ.
New York, NY 10007
Main:
This message and any attached documents contain information from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim that may be
confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message. Thank you.
EFTA00031201


c1: EFTA00030832
c2: DataSet 8
c3: VOL00008
c4: DataSet 8/VOL00008/IMAGES/0007/EFTA00030832.pdf
c6: pdf
c7: images
c0:
=== Page 1 ===
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
July 8, 2019
VIA ECF
The Honorable Henry Pitman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:
United States V. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
Dear Judge Pitman:
The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the bail hearing scheduled
for July 8, 2019, in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should
order that the defendant be detained pending trial; he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the
presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued
appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released.
As set forth below, the charges in this case are exceptionally serious: the defendant is
alleged to be a serial sexual predator who preyed on dozens of minor girls over a period of years,
and he now faces a potentially massive prison sentence predicated on substantial and multifaceted
evidence of his guilt. In light of the strength of the Government's evidence and the substantial
incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction, there is an extraordinary risk of
flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private
planes capable of international travel, and his significant international ties. Indeed, the arrest of
the defendant occurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned
from a multi-week stay abroad.
Finally, and as detailed herein, the Government has real concerns-grounded in past
experience with this defendant-that if allowed to remain out on bail, the defendant could attempt
to pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses in this case, including victims and
their families, and otherwise attempt to obstruct justice. As a result, he poses both an acute danger
to the community, including some of its most vulnerable members, and a significant risk of flight.
The defendant thus cannot overcome the statutory presumption that detention is appropriate in this
case, and the Court should order that he be detained pending trial.
EFTA00030832

=== Page 2 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 2
BACKGROUND
A. Overview
On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed
indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1591, and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 371.
As charged by the grand jury, the facts underlying the charges in the Indictment arise from
a years-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls. In particular, beginning in at least 2002, the
defendant enticed and recruited dozens of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him, for which he
paid the victims hundreds of dollars in cash.
He undertook this activity in at least two different locations, including his mansion in
Manhattan, New York (the "New York Residence") and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the
"Palm Beach Residence"). In both New York and Florida, the defendant perpetuated this abuse in
similar ways. Victims were initially recruited to provide "massages" to the defendant, which
would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and
would typically include one or more sex acts, including groping and direct or indirect contact with
victims' genitals. The defendant paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each separate
encounter.
Moreover, the defendant actively encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional
girls to be similarly sexually abused. He incentivized his victims to become recruiters by paying
these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars for each additional girl they brought to him. In this
fashion, the defendant created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit, in locations
including New York and Palm Beach.
The defendant's victims were as young as 14 years old when he abused them. Many of his
victims were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation. The defendant
intentionally sought out-and knew that he was abusing-minors. Indeed, in some instances, his
victims expressly told him they were underage before or during the period in which he abused
them.
In creating and maintaining a network of minor victims whom he abused, the defendant
worked with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his exploitation of minors
by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the
defendant, both in New York and in Florida.
B. The Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein designed, financed, and perpetrated this scheme, both as its main participant
and through his direction of others, including certain of his employees, to further facilitate his
rampant abuse of underage girls.
EFTA00030833

=== Page 3 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 3
As has been widely reported, the defendant is extraordinarily wealthy, and he owns and
maintains luxury properties and residences around the world, including in Manhattan, New York;
Palm Beach, Florida; Stanley, New Mexico; and Paris, France. Additionally, Epstein owns a
private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands which, as noted above, is believed to be his primary
residence in the United States. His mansion in Manhattan alone-a multi-story townhouse
reported to be one of the largest single residences in all of Manhattan, which previously housed a
school and which he owns through an LLC-has been valued at approximately $77 million.
Entities controlled by the defendant also own at least two private jets in active service, at least one
of which is capable of intercontinental travel.
As described further below, the defendant possesses three active United States passports,
and his international connections and travels are extensive. For example, in addition to
maintaining a residence in Paris, France, as described above, in the past 18 months alone, the
defendant has traveled abroad, via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately
more than 20 occasions.
C. The Prior Florida Investigation
In or about 2005, the defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida, in
connection with allegations that he had committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The
investigation ultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") and the FBI's Miami Office, and included interviews
with victims based in the Palm Beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to Count
One of the instant Indictment.¹
In fall 2007, the defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the SDFL in
connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement
identified as including investigations into the defendant's abuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach
area. The Southern District of New York was not a signatory to that agreement, and the defendant
was never charged federally.2 In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count
of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and one count of solicitation
of prostitution, a felony. As a result, the defendant was designated as a sex offender with
registration requirements under the national Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
1 The non-prosecution agreement, further discussed below, was entered into at the conclusion of
the SDFL investigation and did not purport to cover any victims outside of the State of Florida.
As noted above, the instant Indictment expressly alleges the existence of dozens of victims who
were abused in this District in addition to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida.
2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the
Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is
not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a defendant and a U.S. Attorney's
Office in another district. See page 6, infra.
EFTA00030834

=== Page 4 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 4
ARGUMENT
I.
Applicable Law
Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to
order a defendant's detention pending trial upon a determination that the defendant is either a
danger to the community or a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e) ("no condition or combination of
conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any
other person and the community"). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States V. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987);
United States V. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985). A finding of dangerousness must
be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States V. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540,
542 (2d Cir. 1995); Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405. In addition, a court may also order detention if
there is "a serious risk that the [defendant] will attempt to obstruct justice, or to threaten,
injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(f)(2)(B); see also United
States V. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988).
The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character
[and]
financial resources"; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See
18 U.S.C. $ 3142(g). Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings and the government is
entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(f)(2);
see also United States V. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled
to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United States V.
Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same).
Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any
other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before
trial." 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(1). Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with
committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. $ 1591, it shall be presumed,
subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C.
$ 3142(e)(3)(E).
II.
Discussion
The defendant should be detained pending trial. For the reasons set forth below, it is
difficult to overstate the risk of flight and danger to the community if the defendant is released,
and for those reasons, the defendant cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of
detention in this case.
EFTA00030835

=== Page 5 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 5
A. The Defendant Poses an Extreme Flight Risk
Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk - the nature and circumstances
of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant -
counsel strongly in favor of detention.
1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Strength of the Evidence
The "nature and circumstances" of this offense plainly favor detention. 18 U.S.C.
$
3142(g)(1) (specifically enumerating "whether the offense. involves a minor victim" as a
factor in bail applications). Indeed, the crime of sex trafficking of a minor is so serious that for a
defendant charged with that offense, there is a presumption that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the
community. 18 U.S.C. $ 3142 (e)(3)(E). Here, as specified in the Indictment, the defendant's
conduct was committed serially, over a period of years, and affected dozens of victims.
The seriousness of the charge is also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which
include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two of the Indictment.³ As the Second
Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of
flight. See Jackson, 823 F.2d at 7; see also United States V. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 618 (10th Cir.
2003) (defendant was a flight risk because her knowledge of the seriousness of the charges against her
gave her a strong incentive to abscond); United States V. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990)
("Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even
greater incentive to consider flight."). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades
in prison. Even in the absence of means-which, as discussed in detail below, the defendant has
in abundance-this fact alone would provide a compelling incentive for anyone to fail to appear.
It is particularly compelling for a defendant who is 66 years old and therefore faces the very real
prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison if convicted.
The likelihood of a substantial period of incarceration is buttressed by the strength of the
evidence. As set forth in the Indictment, the evidence in this case is strong. The Indictment alleges
that the defendant sexually abused dozens of minor victims, and the conspiracy count lists
numerous overt acts committed in furtherance of the defendant's crimes.4
3 The current penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C. $ 1591 include a 10 year mandatory minimum
sentence. However, that punishment was created through an amendment to the statute in 2006.
The penalty for a violation of Section 1591 during the period charged in the Indictment, and
therefore relevant here, was a maximum of 40 years' imprisonment.
4 With respect to the evidence in this case, the Court should start its analysis by accepting that the
Indictment is sufficient, on its own, to establish probable cause that the defendant committed the
crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. Contreras, 776 F.2d at 54. ("Were an
evidentiary hearing addressing the existence of probable cause required in every § 3142(e) case in
which an indictment had been filed, the court would spend scarce judicial resources considering
that which a grand jury had already determined, and have less time to focus on the application of
EFTA00030836

=== Page 6 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 6
Multiple victims, including several specified in the Indictment, have provided information
against the defendant. That information is detailed, credible, and corroborated, in many instances,
by other witnesses and contemporaneous documents, records and other evidence-including, as
further detailed below, evidence from a search of the New York Residence on the night of the
defendant's arrest that reflects an extraordinary volume of photographs of nude and partially-nude
young women or girls. Such corroborating evidence also includes documents and other materials,
such as contemporaneous notes, messages recovered from the defendant's residence that include
names and contact information for certain victims, and call records that confirm the defendant and
his agents were repeatedly in contact with various victims during the charged period. Put simply,
all of this evidence - the voluminous and credible testimony of individuals who were sexually
abused by the defendant as minors, each of whom are backed up by other evidence - will be
devastating evidence of guilt at any trial in this case and weighs heavily in favor of detention.
Finally, it bears noting that neither the age of the conduct nor the defendant's previous non-
prosecution agreement ("NPA") with a different federal district pose any impediment to his
conviction. As an initial matter, all of the conduct is timely charged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283,
which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for conduct that was timely as of the
date of the amendment, to any time during the lifetime of the minor victim. See United States V.
Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because Congress extended the statute
of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still
running, the extension was permissible); United States V. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018
WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same).
Moreover, with respect to the NPA, that agreement, to which the Southern District of New
York was not a party, which by its express language pertained exclusively to the SDFL
investigation, and which did not purport to bind any other Office or District, does not preclude
prosecution in this District for at least two reasons. First, it is well settled in the Second Circuit
that "a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind
another." United States V. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("A plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it
affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.") (citing United States
V. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). This is true even if the text of the
agreement purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis
similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States V. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851,
854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement
to the contrary, it is presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices of the United States
Attorney that are not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with the law in this Circuit,
which presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can
affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated.") (citing Annabi,
771 F.2d at 672). Second, the Indictment charges conduct not covered by the NPA, namely
the presumptions and the $ 3142(g) factors in deciding whether the defendant should be
detained.").
EFTA00030837

=== Page 7 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 7
conduct that occurred in New York. The prior NPA included a list of several dozen victims
identified in the prior investigation, all of whom were abused in the State of Florida, and none of
whom are a part of the conduct charged in Count Two of the instant Indictment.
Each of these factors-the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and
the possibility of lengthy incarceration-creates an extraordinary incentive to flee. And as further
described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so.
2. The Characteristics of the Defendant
The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. The
defendant is extraordinarily wealthy and has access to vast financial resources to fund any attempt
to flee. Indeed, his potential avenues of flight from justice are practically limitless.
As the defendant acknowledged in his most recent New York State sex offender
registration, he has six residences, including two in the U.S. Virgin Islands (including his own
private island), and one each in Palm Beach, Florida; Paris, France; New York, New York; and
Stanley, New Mexico. The most recent estimated value of the defendant's New York City mansion
alone is more than $77 million. The most recent tax-assessed value of the defendant's Palm Beach
estate is more than $12 million. The defendant's primary residence is a private island in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, a place where any sort of meaningful supervision would be all but impossible.
Moreover, the defendant has access to innumerable means to flee. His sex registration
documentation of "current vehicles" lists no fewer than 15 motor vehicles, including seven
Chevrolet Suburbans, a cargo van, a Range Rover, a Mercedez-Benz sedan, a Cadillac Escalade,
and a Hummer II. These cars are registered in various states and territories including the Virgin
Islands, New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The defendant also has access to two private jets,
giving him the ability to leave the country secretly and on a moment's notice and to go virtually
anywhere he wants to travel. He is a very frequent international traveler and regularly travels to
and from the United States by private plane. In particular, between January 1, 2018, and the
present, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has logged approximately more than 20 flights in which
Epstein was traveling to or from a foreign country. Indeed, he was arrested at Teterboro Airport
arriving on just such a private international flight after having spent approximately three weeks
abroad. Extensive international travel of this nature further demonstrates a significant risk of
flight. See, e.g., United States V. Anderson, 384 F. Supp. 2d 32, 36 (D.D.C. 2005). There can be
no assurance that, upon release, the defendant would suddenly lack access to such means of travel.
Finally, the defendant has no meaningful ties that would keep him in this country. The
defendant has no known immediate family. He is not married and has no children. He has friends
and associates worldwide, as demonstrated by his extensive international travel, and his
professional obligations, if any, can and seemingly are plainly capable of being handled by the
defendant remotely. Simply put, there would be no meaningful reason for the defendant to remain
in the country, while he would have every incentive (and every resource needed) to flee.
Nor would home confinement with electronic monitoring reasonably assure the
defendant's presence as required. At best, home confinement with electronic monitoring would
EFTA00030838

=== Page 8 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 8
merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States V. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773,
2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application
for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best
limits
a
fleeing
defendant's head start"); see also United States V. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744,
at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States V. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C.
2005) (same); United States V. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 10, 2002) (same).
Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to abandon millions of
dollars in cash and property securing any potential bond and still live comfortably for the rest of
his life. These resources, and the ease with which the defendant could flee and live outside the
reach of law enforcement-particularly considering his vast wealth and lack of meaningful ties to
this District-make the risk of flight exceptionally high in this case, particularly when considered
in conjunction with the strength of the government's case and the lengthy sentence the defendant
could receive if convicted.
B. The Defendant Poses a Risk of Danger to the Community and of Engaging in
Obstruction of Justice
The release of the defendant, under any conditions, would pose a significant threat to the
community and to the ongoing investigation.
As described above, where there is probable cause to believe that an individual has
committed an offense under 18 U.S.C. $ 1591, it is presumed that no condition or combination of
conditions can reasonably assure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. $ 3142(e)(3). Here, not
only is the defendant charged with very serious sex crimes against minors, he has already
previously admitted to-and been convicted of-engaging in related conduct. Specifically, in
June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count of procuring a person under the
age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and he currently is a registered sex offender, under
classification level three in New York-defined as presenting a "high" risk of committing another
sex crime and harm to the community. While the conduct presently alleged does not post-date the
2008 conviction, it nevertheless underscores the risk he poses to the community if released.
Additionally, and in connection with the investigation of the defendant's offense in Florida,
there were credible allegations that the defendant engaged in witness tampering, harassment, or
other obstructive behaviors. In fact, according to publicly-filed court documents, there were
discussions between prosecutors and the defendant's then-counsel about the possibility of the
defendant pleading guilty to counts relating to "obstruction," as well as "harassment," with
reference to 18 U.S.C. $ 1512, which criminalizes "[t]ampering with a witness, victim, or
informant." For example, in a communication from the defendant's then-counsel to prosecutors
in SDFL, his counsel set forth a possible factual proffer that included statements that the defendant
had "attempted to harass both [redacted] delay and hinder their receipt of a [redacted] to attend an
official proceeding" and that the defendant "in particular, changed travel plans and flew with both
[redacted] to the United States Virgin Islands rather than to an airport in New Jersey in order to
attempt to delay their receipt of what Mr. Epstein expected to be a [redacted]" and "further verbally
EFTA00030839

=== Page 9 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 9
harassed both [redacted] in connection to this attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process
all in violation of 18 USC 1512(d)(1)."5 Doe V. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkts.
361 at 3-4, 361-7 through 361-11. In addition to 18 U.S.C. $ 1512(d), prosecutors also proposed
that the defendant could plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. $ 403, that is, a knowing or intentional violation
of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses, to which the defendant's then-
counsel replied: "Already thinking about the same statutes." Id. Dkt. 361-11. They also discussed
a possible obstruction plea that "could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private
investigators followed [redacted] father, forcing off the road." Id. Dkt. 361-10.
The defendant's apparent previous willingness to obstruct a federal investigation, harass or
tamper with witnesses, and hire private investigators that "forc[ed] off the road" the father of an
individual relevant in the investigation is alarming. It should especially weigh on the Court's
consideration here because the defendant was apparently willing to take those steps before even
being charged and thus facing federal indictment; the incentive to interfere in the Government's
case here, where an Indictment has been returned, is exponentially greater. And as discussed
above, the defendant has nearly limitless means to do so.
Finally, despite having been previously convicted of a sex offense involving an underage
victim, the defendant has continued to maintain a vast trove of lewd photographs of young-looking
women or girls in his Manhattan mansion. In a search of the New York Residence on the night of
his arrest, on July 6-7, 2019, pursuant to judicially-authorized warrants, law enforcement officers
discovered not only specific evidence consistent with victim recollections of the inside of the
mansion, further strengthening the evidence of the conduct charged in the Indictment, but also at
least hundreds-and perhaps thousands-of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partially-
nude females. While these items were only seized this weekend and are still being reviewed, some
of the nude or partially-nude photographs appear to be of underage girls, including at least one girl
who, according to her counsel, was underage at the time the relevant photographs were taken.
Additionally, some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked safe, in which
law enforcement officers also found compact discs with hand-written labels including the
following: "Young [Name] + [Name]," "Misc nudes 1," and "Girl pics nude." The defendant, a
registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not repentant;6 rather, he is a
continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting
deeply serious charges.
5 The redactions above are contained in the publicly filed version of the quoted document.
6 See, e.g., Amber Southerland, Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I'm a sex offender, not a predator,
N.Y. Post (2011) ("I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an "offender," the financier told The Post
yesterday. 'It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel."); Philip
Weiss, The Fantasist, New York Magazine (2007) ("It's the Icarus story, someone who flies too
close to the sun,' I said. 'Did Icarus like massages?' Epstein asked.").
EFTA00030840

=== Page 10 ===
Honorable Henry Pitman
United States Magistrate Judge
July 8, 2019
Page 10
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, in this case, the risk of flight in this case is extraordinarily real. The
defendant is extremely wealthy, has extensive foreign contacts, and is charged with serious
offenses that carry a potential statutory sentence of up to 45 years' imprisonment-even a fraction
of which could result in the defendant, who is 66 years old, spending the rest of his life in jail. In
sum, the defendant's transient lifestyle, his lack of family or community ties, his extensive
international travel and ties outside the country, and his vast wealth, including his access to and
ownership of private planes, all provide the defendant with the motive and means to become a
successful fugitive. Further, the nature of the offenses he is alleged to have perpetrated-the abuse
dozens of underage, vulnerable girls-along with his demonstrated willingness to harass,
intimidate and otherwise tamper with victims and other potential witnesses against him, render his
dangerousness readily apparent.
Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot and will not
be able to meet his burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of detention, that there
are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings in this
case or protect the safety of the community, and that any application for bail should be denied.
Very truly yours,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
By:
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Tel:
Cc:
Martin Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingarten, Esq., counsel for defendant
Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge
EFTA00030841


