Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
(IMD) (FBI)" -4
(IMD) (FBI)"
has since retired. I am out of the office until next Monday and can research my old notes when I
return. I have included Mr.
who is the Field Services Doclab unit chief and might be able to help. There
should have been kick sheets denoting where the pornographic images were removed, but a keyword search of
the scan output for the Doclab form would confirm this. I am not sure how the disc copies would have been
labeled, but the DVD output of the scanned documents would be labeled B-PDF, Litigation, Text-Image,
OCRText, or Images.
On Oct 12, 2020 12:59 PM, 1
1)" wrote:
We were in touch with you last year about a scanning pro'ect relating to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, 22 boxes of
materials, and I had a couple follow-up questions f
ut just got a bounce-back from her email address
(attached). Would you be able to answer the below questions, or point us to another person on the team that worked on
this who could?
thanks,
From:
To:
(IMD) (FBI)'
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) ;
(NY) (FBI) ;
(USANYS)
Been a while - hope you're well. This was from a while ago, but we need to follow up on the below questions I asked
about last year when you scanned in a number of boxes relating to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, now that discovery is
underway in the Maxwell case.
The first question is on the discs from the boxes, which you mentioned you did not extract but which you made copies of.
Can you please tell us how those discs were marked? We're not sure that we can tell them apart from the other DVDs we
received that contain the hard-copy scans. Did the copied discs get transmitted with those DVDs, or were the sets of four
discs kept in the boxes themselves? (And either way, what would their labeling be?)
And second, you mentioned that there were some pornographic images that were not scanned, and said you would
follow up to see if a notation was made as to where those images were located or if they could be readily found in output.
The issue is that if we don't know which specific items weren't scanned in a set of 20-something boxes, we may have no
choice but to just do the entire project over again, rather than trying to go page by page comparing the hard copies to the
scans to see what's missing.
Please let us know as soon as possible? And either I or S
cc'd here, will follow up on whatever the next
steps are.
thanks,
EFTA00101087
From:
(IMD) (FBI) a
To:
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) <a>
Please see my responses below.
(NY) (FBI)
From:
) ri[Scc
To:
• (IMD) (FBI) a;
(NY) (FBI) <
Cc:
<=a;
. (NY) (FBI) <a>
That's great, thanks very much for all your and your team's work and for the update. That makes sense regarding the lAs,
thanks.
With respect to the images that were not scanned, is there any way to flag them in the original hard copies somehow, so
that we can easily find them and refer to them when the hard copy documents are sent back to New York? Just to avoid
needing to try to flip through all the original documents to find them. Let me check and see if a notation was made as to
where these images were located or if I can readily/easily find them in output.
Regarding the discs, I'm not sure I totally understand — when you say four copies each, were there just four discs total? Or
possibly I'm just misunderstanding the explanation. And related, is it right that those discs were not processed (just
copied) so we'll need to look at those separate for our review? Sorry I should have been clearer. We just copied the discs —
not processed and made four copies each which is our standard. The thought being when we burn output we always give
a complete set that in theory would go to the defense, AUSA, and two copies to the Agent (one for him/and a back-up).
The discs we found in the files contain pdfs (searchable), jpgs, gifs, and tif files
And final question is just how all the scanned materials will be transmitted, so we can plan how most efficiently to receive
them and get them processed here. We will send everything back to you on dvds.
thanks again,
From:
(IMD) (FBI) <
To:
(NY) (FBI) <
>
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) <a>
Good Afternoon!
Here is the latest. We have finished scanning!
In the course of going through the paper it was discovered that at some point in time (perhaps between 2013 and 2015
when it was last digitized) three 1As failed to make it back into their respective file jackets. It's not clear what happened or
who is at fault. I can tell you that we were able to conduct a search of our local network and retrieve the images. I spoke
with our Field Evidence Unit who recommended that prior to inserting the images we create a cover sheet that reflected
that the images were not a part of the "original" paper rather they were regenerated from a digital copy. The 1As in
questions are 1A10, 1A28, 1A84 as well as two missing serials in 31E-MM-108062-al SEC 001 SER 1-45. My digital team is
addressing this matter and has assured me I'll be able to burn the output first thing Monday so that we can get everything
returned to you.
A few other items to point out. There were some pornographic images of young girls. These were not imaged per our
protocols. You As you review the content anywhere these images may have been you will see a DocLab kicksheet that
states "possible child pornography" DO NOT SCAN. The original documents are still in their original location —they were
just not scanned.
Finally, there were a number of discs scattered throughout. We made physical copies — one for one ratio of each (four
copies each) to go along with the physical paper scanned. These wil be sent along with the discs we will generate.
EFTA00101088
Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be in bright and early Monday morning.
From:
) [mailto:
To:
. (IMD) (FBI) <
>;
(NY) (FBI) <
Cc:
1
. (NY) (FBI) <
Thanks very much for letting us know, that's extremely helpful and we appreciate it! Looking forward to being in touch as
it continues, and thanks again.
From:
(IMO) (FBI) <
To:
(NY) (FBI)
Cc:
<
>;
c
>
(NY) (FBI) <
>
Gentlemen:
I just wanted to give you a quick update.
We finished inventorying all 22 boxes and released everything to DocLab last evening for scanning. As of this writing we
are looking good for meeting the original deadline — give or take a day. We still have a few things to tweak, but I'm
confident that things are looking good and we'll have this wrapped up within the next day or two. I'll send you a more
detailed email tomorrow morning when I get in.
Take care and have a good evening.
Mel
From:
) [mailto:
To:
. (IMD) (FBI) <ME
>:
(NY) (FBII <
Cc:
;
. (NY) (FBI) <
Thanks very much for the update — I think unless you guys can confirm that any prior scans were absolutely 100% done
correctly (and separated by document, etc.), we'd prefer to have them just done in one full set now—particularly knowing
that this will all be the subject of discovery, which definitely wouldn't have been the case in 2013.
thanks again,
From:
(IMD) (FBI) <
To:
Cc:
<
>;
(NY) (FBI) <
Happy 4th of July Eve. We just received 22 boxes about 5 minutes ago. We discovered that the Miami Field Office had
requested DocLab to scan a number of them back in 2013. I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that the images are available on
our internal network so that I can access them and just simply reprocess the digital output, if not we'll re-prep and scan
accordingly. We will keep you posted.
(NY) (FBI) sc
)*
Take care and have a great holiday.
From:
) [mailto:
EFTA00101089
To:
. (IMO) (FBI) <
MM>;
(NY) (FBI) <Mal>
Cc:
. (NY) (FBI) <
We're under time pressure but I think the most important thing is that your folks have the time you need to do the job in
a way you're comfortable with—being able to scan each document separately, dealing with any random scraps of paper,
post-its, etc etc. If doing the best possible job requires an extra few days that's totally understandable, especially given the
holiday. Thanks again for the focus on it, and for following up.
From:
(IMD) (FBI) <
To:
(NY) (FBI)
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) <a
>
I got the scan request thanks.
How much wiggle room can I get on the deadline we originally talked about of 7/10? I'm concerned that with the boxes
going from 15 to 22 and now not showing up until sometime tomorrow and Thursday a holiday the 10th is going to be
extremely tight. Can I extend out at all to the 16th? If not I understand and we'll work to make it work somehow.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
To:
(IMD) (FBI)
>*,
Cc:
;
(IMD) (FBI) a;
(NY) (FBI) a>
My apologies, appartently with a Fedex pickup this size an appointment had to be setup. The pickup was scheduled for
today and will arrive in VA tomorrow, tracking number 4744 7647 0418.
Thanks,
Squad C-20
VCAC/Human Trafficking
FBI New York
office
mobile
From:
) [mailto:
To:
• (IMD) (FBI) <a;
(NY) (FBI) <
Cc:
<M
;
Quickly following up on this, can we confirm the boxes went out last week?
From:
(IMD) (FBI) <
To:
(NY) (FBI) <Ma;
Cc:
I just want to follow-up that the boxes were shipped. Fedex is not showing anything in-bound for us today.
From:
(NY) (FBI)
To:
. (IMD) (FBI) <Ma:›;
EFTA00101090
Cc:
The boxes will be shipped via Fedex this afternoon.
From:
. (IMD) (FBI)
To:
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) 'c
';
_et me know as soon as the boxes ship. Thanks!
From:
) [mailto:
To:
. (IMD) (FBI) <.
=>
Cc:
(NY) (FBI) c
Thanks very much for chatting earlier today, and as promised wanted to send an email so you have our full contact info.
My colleague
and I are the prosecutors working on the investigation — she's also copied here, and we're
available anytime via email, or by phone at:
(office),
(cell)
(office),
(cell)
It's our understanding that there are approximately 23 boxes of papers, give or take, and that they include approximately
two boxes from FBI case file 72-MM-113327 and the remainder from FBI case file 31E-MM-108062. Please don't hesitate
to reach out if anything comes up at all, or if we can be of any help, and thanks very much for putting this at the top of
your list, we really appreciate it.
thanks again,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of New York
EFTA00101091