Subject: RE: US v. Epstein¶
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 19:54:54 +0000¶
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg¶
I am assuming that when we run the responsiveness terms and e-mail addresses we are excluding the junk documents correct? Also, once the search for the responsiveness terms are run what do you want to do with the documents? Will you be conducting a review and will I need to batch these documents out for you?¶
Thanks . I think we’d like to scrap this second search entirely. So please only keep the first search entitled “Epstein – Junk Search Terms (From)” and tag those hits as junk. Please run the responsiveness search terms on all of the remaining documents.¶
The searches were run on the e-mails and the attachments. Do you not want the searches run on the full families?¶
I’ve reviewed the searched in US v. Epstein (SW). The search entitled “Epstein – Junk Search Terms (From)” looks good to me. Please tag all of those as junk.¶
The search entitled “Epstein – Junk Search Terms (Keywords)” seems to have caught up a number of documents that are not junk and appear responsive to the warrant. It’s not clear to me why that happened—the ones I’m seeing don’t appear to have any of the keywords on the attached list. Is there a reason that would be? Also, I realized that this search caught up a number of non-email documents. Would it be possible to run this search only on emails files, please?¶
EFTA00087030¶
Thanks very much,¶
The searches in the US v. Epstein database look good to me. Those materials are ready stamp as set out in my prior email.¶
I’ll review the searches in US v. Epstein (SW) now.¶
Hello,¶
Can you please review the following searches¶
US v. Epstein database:¶
-
Produce As Confidential
-
Produce As Highly Confidential
- Q 01. Produce As Is
US v. Epstein (SW)¶
Epstein - Junk Search Terms (From)¶
Epstein - Junk Search Terms (Keywords)¶
Please let me know if there are any questions.¶
Thank you.¶
EFTA00087031¶