Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery deficiencies]

Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:29:46 +0000

Thank you for your explanation. We are able to open the file types you noted below (doc, pdf, etc.). Below are the file types that we cannot access. Can you please tell us what viewer you are using to view the following file types that you produced to us?

apmaster

apversion

attr

bup

data

db

db-journal

ds_store

f catalog

ifo

images #1

images 2

iphoto

ivc

mpg

NULL

psb

psd

raf

tropez

xml

Thanks, -Laura Laura A. Menninger | Partner Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. 150 ■. 10th Avenue | Denver, CO 80203 From: ) < Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 10:42 AM To: Laura Menninger Cc: (USANYS) < EFTA00096478 >; Jeff Pagliuca Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery deficiencies] Laura, Following up on the list of file types that you inquired about below, many of the file types you listed are standard and very common file types. For example: and mov are video files that are playable with a standard media program such as VLC or Windows Media Player - doc is a standard Microsoft Word format - pdf is a standard Adobe format - xlsx is a standard Excel file - txt is a standard Text file viewable in Notepad or Wordpad - bmp, jpg, png, tif, and tiff are standard image files that should be viewable in Microsoft Paint or any standard image viewer - dat files can be viewed as standard text files in Notepad or Wordpad - pps and ps appear to be viewable via PowerPoint For the remaining file extensions, some may be system files without content. You may be able to view the files with the other extensions using Quick View Plus. If you continue to have difficulty, we can provide more specific assistance if you provide a list or even just examples of Bates numbers that present these issues. Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery delicencies] Laura, I have responded to your comments below in red. I am working with the FBI to understand the discrepancy you pointed out, which I did not appreciate until receiving your May 7, 2021 email. The 2,100 estimate was the amount of files that the FBI verbally informed me had been loaded onto the second hard drive when I was arranging for your review of evidence at 500 Pearl. At the time, I did not recall that the 302 had a different number, and I did not check the number the FBI provided verbally against the 302. As soon as I receive clarification from the FBI, I will reach back out to you. As for your request to have access to Highly Confidential images and videos, paragraph 12 of the Protective Order in this case defines Highly Confidential information as discovery material that “contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals.” That definition does not limit this category to child pornography. Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order further provides that any Highly Confidential materials “Shall be made available for inspection by Defense Counsel and the Defendant, under protection of law enforcement officers or employees.” Given those provisions, as well as the importance of maintaining the security of nude images of third parties, including victims, we are not prepared to provide you with copies of nude or partially-nude images from the hard drives. However, we appreciate your concern that images that do not contain nudity appear to have been designated as Highly EFTA00096479 Confidential. Accordingly, I am working with the FBI to de-designate any images that do not depict genitals, breasts, or buttocks. Once those images have been de-designated, our office will produce them to you. Subject: RE: US v. Maxwell - [conferral re photo and other discovery deficiencies] Thank you for your response of April 23. I haven’t heard back from you last week as promised on this or my April 28 request, so I’m writing to follow up. I have responses to specific questions of yours below in blue. Additionally, I have more questions regarding your production of “highly confidential” (“HC”) images and videos. When we met the week of April 13 in NY, during which time I requested to view all evidence in the government’s possession, including all highly confidential material, you described for me two hard-drives that contained all of the HC images and videos from this case. - First, one of those hard-drives you said contained all of the materials extracted from the disks contained in the black binders. There were approximately 40,000 or so images (Excel spreadsheet SDNY_GM_00467567) of which 3,400 images were deemed HC and tagged “#nudity” by your team (SDNY_GM_00467568). (I still await a response regarding the problems with your metadata overlay). - Second, the other hard-drive contained images extracted from Epstein’s devices which were searched pursuant to a warrant. You said the responsive image/video files were contained on that second hard-drive, and there were approximately 2,100 “nude” or HC images on that hard-drive. You did not produce the metadata for those images because it was still present on the files which had been digitally extracted. As I understood it then, there were approximately 5,500 HC images that you made available for review. However, the FBI Report dated January 27, 2021 (produced at SDNY_GM_02742399) indicates there are approximately 33,747 HC images and 895 HC videos that were identified by a digital review of CART-processed evidence; I presume based on the CART numbers that this list is the same as the images extracted from Epstein’s devices, or as I understood it, the content on your hard-drive #2 above. I am completely unclear as to why you informed me that there were 2,100 nude images from Epstein’s devices, but this report seems to indicate there were approximately 34,000 HC images and videos. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding what you told me and if so, what the correct information is. I reiterate my request that you provide to us hard-drives with all of the HC material minus any child pornography. I am available to discuss if that would be more convenient. Thanks, Laura Laura A. Menninger | Partner Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.