EFTA00102012.pdf

From: ' To: ' Cc: ' I)" <I Subject: Re: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 00:21:40 +0000 Great. Thank you for the quick turnaround! On Jan 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, wrote: No issues from the Tartaglione team. Thanks, From: Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 7:14 PM To: Cc: Subject: Re: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 For Tartaglione there are not, but there are records showing Epstein attorney visits in there. On Jan 7, 2021, at 7:05 PM, > wrote: Hey • — I will look now, but first, can you confirm there are no visit logs or count slops reflecting attorney visits in here? From: Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 7:04 PM To: Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Before greenlighting the Epstein FOIA production tomorrow, I wanted to make sure that you were okay with the 26 pages BOP sent yesterday (attached) from the Tartaglione perspective. I think the only mentions of Tartaglione are on the last two pages, where his name is on a SHU roster and redacted. I assume no issues from the Tartoglione team, but please let me know. Thanks and sorry for the tight turnaround here. Thanks, From: Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 1:15 AM To: Cc: >; 1.S Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 All, Following up on the below: for some reason EFTA00102012  I've saved these in the shared drive at the links below. ( please note that I segregated in separate folders the attorney and social visit log pages in the production version and the attorney and social visit log pages and the count slips in the translucent version--no count slips in the production version because they are withheld in full.) Please let me know if you have any issues with these new pages, or with the production version (which, to be clear, should just be the pages in the translucent version that are not withheld in full, with the green no longer translucent). This has to be produced by Friday so, if possible, please let me know of any questions or concerns by eod tomorrow (Thursday). Thanks, all, From: Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 7:55 PM To: > Cc: >; ) Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 All, FYI, it now looks like there may be approximately as translucent pages for review (they sent a final count of pages that does not line up with what we have). I am following up with them on short notice before the production on Friday. I will follow up once I have more information from BOP about the discrepancies here. ). but now are redacted to show Epstein's name (similar to the census roster discussion below). Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, From: > Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 2:16 PM To: ›; Cc: )4 >; ) cza Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 I agree with and feel free to call me if you want to talk through these, From: Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 2:14 PM To: Cc: ) 4 >; EFTA00102013 Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Thanks, My understanding on that point was that the Also, I want to flag a point I meant to raise before. In the earlier round, "—it starts at the end of the Part 2 file and continues into the Part 3 file). This does not make a big practical difference because Please let me know if you have any concerns on this point, or if we need to discuss more. Thanks, From: Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:43 AM To: Cc: >.; >; Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 I've taken a look. All looks fine, subject to one question for whoever is best positioned to answe In other places we appear to have confined our redactions to Why are we treating these two files differently? From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 4:51 PM To: Cc: >; Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Sounds good, thanks. I should be able to review all by tomorrow. From: Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 4:27 PM To: Cc: >; >; Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 That's right. Your declaration The exception to this area EFTA00102014 Thanks, From: Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 20214:15 PM To: Cc: )a '.; S; Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. 8OP, 20-cv-833 Thanks, . Just so I understand — the redactions in the documents themselves are marked b6 and b7c. I am only attesting to b7a redactions, right? I could be wrong, but not everything that is marked green, I think, requires a 7a redaction as opposed to for a privacy reason. From: Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:00 PM To: Cc: ) >; Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Happy New Year. I'm following up on the Epstein FOIA and the plan we put together last month. BOP has completed its review of the documents provid he final production date is this Friday, 01/08. Your declaration supportin is due next Friday, 01/15. In advance of this Friday's production, we wanted to make sure you are okay with As before, the green transculent coloring on the documents shows where redactions will be made (and a page will be withheld in full if the whole page is green) but given the timing I wanted to go ahead and provide you with the files, In addition to what's already marked green, fOM will update the docs in the folder and let you know. Please let us know if you have any concerns about the withholdings or any questions. Thanks, From: Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 8:28 PM To: > Cc: >; EFTA00102015 Subject: RE: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 Hi — no problem, I can do it, and those dates should work for me. From: Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 4:37 PM To: Cc: Subject: Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833 I hope you're doing well. I'm writing to check in on the Epstein FOIA case, Times v. BOP, 20-cv-833. By way of a brief reca p Please let me know if this proposed schedule works, or if you have any questions or concerns. I'm happy to discuss on a call if helpful. Thanks, Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, NY 10007 EFTA00102016