Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00090023DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: ".=,

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00090023
Pages
2
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: ".=, To: ' (USANYS) [Contractor]" < Cc: (USANYS) [Contractor]" < Subject: RE: materials Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:49:28 +0000 Attachments: 2021.11.18_Maxwell Discovety_Lettendocx SANYS Sorry for the delay on prepping these materials for production—I noticed one discrepancy (one empty folder) that I asked the agents to check on, and they did confirm that it was empty originally rather than due to any sort of error. These roduction is saved here for our review: And the draft cover letter is attached (saved Because there are several deposition video clips that we could not find as having been produced the production is around 13GB, we will need a hard drive from defense counsel. While we haven't produced these clips, the transcript for this deposition was produced in April as 3500, specifically 3501.183-020. We should request a hard drive of at least 32GB from defense counsel (we still have two hard drives for Maxwell, both of which are sufficiently large to acco

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: ".=, To: ' (USANYS) [Contractor]" < Cc: (USANYS) [Contractor]" < Subject: RE: materials Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 00:49:28 +0000 Attachments: 2021.11.18_Maxwell Discovety_Lettendocx SANYS Sorry for the delay on prepping these materials for production—I noticed one discrepancy (one empty folder) that I asked the agents to check on, and they did confirm that it was empty originally rather than due to any sort of error. These roduction is saved here for our review: And the draft cover letter is attached (saved Because there are several deposition video clips that we could not find as having been produced the production is around 13GB, we will need a hard drive from defense counsel. While we haven't produced these clips, the transcript for this deposition was produced in April as 3500, specifically 3501.183-020. We should request a hard drive of at least 32GB from defense counsel (we still have two hard drives for Maxwell, both of which are sufficiently large to accommodate the production). Let me know what you think or if you have any questions. From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 5:03 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor] < (USANYS) Cc: Subject: RE: (USANYS) [Contractor] < > materials < M> Ah, okay. Rule 16, please. Thanks! From: (USANYS) [Contractor] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:25 PM To: <= >; (USANYS)O -I< ; Cc: (USANYS) [Contractor] < Subject: RE: materials No. All of the files at the link below were not produced in 3500, though it seems like some of the longer ones may have been produced in Rule 16 (a few hundred page dots that appear to be subpoena returns that we have not checked every page of which, for example, some of the dots- Since they have either not been produced or not entirely confirmed as having been produced, I was wondering whether these documents at the link below should be produced as 3500 or Rule 16? From: I Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:21 PM To: (USANYS) [Contractor] c (USANYS) EFTA00090023 Cc: (USANYS) [Contractor] < Subject: RE: materials Thanks! Just to make sure I'm following: are you saying that all of these files have been produced to the defense already, either as Rule 16 or 3500? From: (USANYS) [Contractor] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:20 PM To: >; (USANYS) < >*, c' Cc: Subject: RE: (USANYS) [Contractor] < materials and I reviewed these materials and confirmed that some of these files were definitely produced as 3500, but others were not (though so subpoena returns, that were roduced previously in Rule 16 There was one folder of miscellaneous files that seemed to be some sort of FBI audio software that had been marked as DNP for NTW production 2. Other than this folder, do you want the files that do not appear to have been produced for 3500 added to the pending NTW 3500 production (i.e., rather than produced as Rule 16)? Original Message From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 1:49 PM To: Cc: Subject: Hi M. (USANYS) [Contractor] (USANYS) materials We recently had an evidence inspection, and defense counsel inspected a number of items from the case. I have asked the FBI to scan the paper and give us a copy of any electronic materials that were in that set of materials, so that we could double check these items were produced in discovery. should be connecting with you to get you a copy so that we can cross reference items produced in discovery. Thanks, EFTA00090024

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' To:' 1111 Cc: ' >, Subject: Re: RE: Epstein search warrant documents Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:13:54 +0000 Importance: Normal and I just spoke. We are going to down and take a look at all digital evidence and get this squared away. I'm going to work on getting a large enough hard drive to dump the evidence on to get it to SDNY. From: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:39 PM To: Cc: Subject: Fwd: RE: Epstein search warrant documents I know you already got this, just wanted to confer with you as to what is going on with all this. Feel like you, me, and need to chat and see what is what. I'm thinking that this started before the case took a turn yet is still moving in the same direction. In other words, do we really need to be doing this? Seems to me that I should be taking all my marching orders from and M. NY CART Coordinator Senior Forensic Examiner cell desk From: (USANYS)" Forwarded message Date: Jun 17, 2020 2:28 PM Subject: RE: Epstein search war

14p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject:

From: To: Subject: - u is airs ews ne Ing e nes ay, u y 29, 2020 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:25:50 +0000 c Importan e: Normal Mobile version and searchable archives available at fbi.bulletinintelligence.com. 1B1 News Briefing TO: THE DIRECTOR AND SENIOR STAFF DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020 6:30 AM EDT TODAY'S TABLE OF CONTENTS LEADING THE NEWS • Barr Spars With Democrats At Contentious House Hearing. • Barr Says Democrats Have Tried To "Discredit" Him. • Barr Says Bash Investigating "High Number Of Unmaskings" During Obama Administration. PROTESTS • Memo Reveals Federal Agents Sought Role In Suppressing Protests Since Start. • New Mexico Governor Addresses Concerns About Federal Agents In Albuquerque. • Report: US, Oregon In Talks About Pulling Agents From Portland. • Portland Fines Federal Government For Unpermitted Fence Outside Courthouse. • US Park Police Head: Decision To Clear Protesters Not Linked To Trump "Photo Op." • Hundreds Of Cases Involving LAPD Off

47p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00029971

0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02335898

51p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' (USANYS)" < To: Mlia N'y,lar iw I SANYS)" Cc: Subject: RE: US v Noel, 19 Cr. 830 (AT) Order on Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:47:47 +0000 Attachments: 2020.01.1 An unredacted copy is attached. Thank you. From: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:01 PM To: Cc: Subject: US v Noel, 19 Cr. 830 (AT) Order on (USANYS) C (USANYS) >; Counsel, Judge Torres issued the attached order today resolving this request. Thank you, (USANYS) Law Clerk to the Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 From: Andrew Patel Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 4:33 PM To: Cc: (USANYS) cfl ) fl ; (USANYS) ( (USANYS)' eMa Subject: US v Noel, 19 Cr. 830 (AT) SEALED REQUEST Please see the motion attached. A hard copy will be delivered to the courthouse this afternoon. Sealing is requested and it is being submitted ex parte as to defense counsel. I have been advised that the members of the

2p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.