From: '

From: ' (USANYS)" <=l To: (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:15:13 +0000 K thanks From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:15 PM To: -, (USANYS) Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production Got it, but some of these records relate directly to the July 23 incident. I will identify pages that refer to that incident or otherwise to his suicidality. From: =, (USANYS) < Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:13 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production I think the position ultimately settled on is that medical records unrelated to things we care about (i.e., that aren't about suicidality or his ultimate suicide) are fine to produce. From: (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:11 PM To: =, (USANYS)< > Subject: FW: Times v BOP - Additional Production Are we okay with disclosing Epstein's medical records? Some of the records are directly related to the July 23 incident, although others relate to other conditions. I had thought that all of his medical records were being withheld. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:48 AM To: =, (USANYS) (USANYS) >; • S (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production (USANYS) c > < >; >; (USANYS) Yes, you should have seen all this before, but it now has BOP's has segmented redactions. As with prior rounds, I am circulating to the Crim teams and OIG before the production version actually goes out. This is mainly emails, but also includes at the start redacted medical records, not withheld in full under 7(A). Thanks. From: =, (USANYS) < Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:39 AM To: (USANYS) < (USANYS) < (USANYS) ) >; >; (USANYS) < (USANYS) EFTA00072704 Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production This is stuff we've seen before, you just want us to double check? From: (USANYS) < > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:34 AM To: (USANYS) , (USANYS) (USANYS) <= > >, > • (USANYS) < Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production All, >; (USANYS) BOP has provided a production version of what I hope is the last set of documents to be released in Times v. BOP, 20-cv- 833 I have saved the combined production file, named "2nd August 2020 Production, Times v BOP, 20-cv-833," here: from BOP \ 2nd August Production Could the teams please review and confirm that this file can be released to the Times? Given the timing, it would be best to release these by the end of the week. Please let me know if you don't think review by Friday will be possible. Thanks, From: =, (USANYS) < Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 12:35 AM To: (USANYS)< (USANYS) Cc: Ma(USANYS)< > Subject: RE: Times v BOP - Additional Production This looks fine. From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 6:20 PM To: (USANYS) (USANYS) caa'; Cc: (USANYS) < M,• Subject: Times v BOP - Additional Production Hi all, (USANYS) < <■ (USANYS) (USANYS) c >; (USANYS) As you know, we agreed with the Times that BOP would produce some documents after the SJ papers were filed in Times V. BOP. It looks like it is going to take BOP through the end of next week to get the emails together. In the meantime, we are going to produce what should be the remaining non-email documents (with redactions) and a portion of the remaining emails. EFTA00072705 The production version of these documents is attached here. Can you please review and confirm that it is okay for the attached to be sent to the Times? It should all be documents you've seen before—and I think I circulated most of the attached production version to you earlier this week. But there are now some new pages at the end—also not sure I got sign off from everyone on the production versions of the earlier stuff. We'd like to send this out by Tuesday, August 11, at latest if possible. Also, I'm copying EM here. I will be out 08/12-08/18, and has graciously agreed to cover this case while I am out. (If all goes according to plan, not much will be happening then anyway). Please copy her going forward so she can get up to speed. Thanks and have a great weekend, EFTA00072706