EFTA00027052.pdf
116 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email thread / legal correspondence
File Size:
116 KB
Summary
This document contains a chain of emails from October 15, 2020, discussing the technical details of document production and e-discovery for the case 'US v. Epstein'. The participants discuss refining search terms to identify 'junk' versus 'responsive' documents, specifically troubleshooting a keyword search that inadvertently captured responsive material. The conversation involves two distinct databases or search sets: 'US v. Epstein database' and 'US v. Epstein (SW)'.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Redacted Senders/Recipients | Legal/Technical Staff |
Participants in an email thread discussing e-discovery search terms and document production for US v. Epstein.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US Government / DOJ |
Implied by the case name 'US v. Epstein' and the nature of the responsiveness review.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-10-15
Technical review of e-discovery search terms and responsiveness hits for the US v. Epstein case.
N/A
Redacted
Key Quotes (4)
"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."Source
EFTA00027052.pdf
Quote #1
"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."Source
EFTA00027052.pdf
Quote #2
"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."Source
EFTA00027052.pdf
Quote #3
"Those materials are ready stamp as set out in my prior email."Source
EFTA00027052.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,038 characters)
From: [REDACTED]
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 20:13:00 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 20:13:00 +0000
Inline-Images: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Yes, please exclude the "Junk Search Terms (From)" hits from the responsiveness search. Once the search for the responsiveness terms are run, please save the search so that we can take a look. I do not expect we will ask to batch these out.
Thanks,
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:55 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:55 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
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?
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:41 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:41 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Thanks [REDACTED]. 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.
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:11 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:11 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
The searches were run on the e-mails and the attachments. Do you not want the searches run on the full families?
EFTA00027052
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:06 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:06 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
[REDACTED] 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?
Thanks,
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:12 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:12 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: US v. Epstein
Thanks very much, [REDACTED].
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.
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:19 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: US v. Epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:19 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: US v. Epstein
Hello,
Can you please review the following searches
US v. Epstein database:
Q 01.Produce As Confidential
Q 01.Produce As Highly Confidential
Q 01.Produce As Is
Q 01.Produce As Highly Confidential
Q 01.Produce As Is
EFTA00027053
US v. Epstein (SW)
Q Epstein - Junk Search Terms (From)
Q Epstein - Junk Search Terms (Keywords)
Q Epstein - Junk Search Terms (Keywords)
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thank you.
[REDACTED]
EFTA00027054
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document