mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004612.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "315",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 315 of 349\n\nAttorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's data was migrated between March and June 2008.\n\nEOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error.\n\nAlthough a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email, which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta.\n\n3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records\n\nOPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation concerning its victim notification system.\n\n4. Criminal Division Records\n\nThe Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries.\n\nCEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation.\n\n5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records\n\nOPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries.\n\n288\nDOJ-OGR-00004612",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 315 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's data was migrated between March and June 2008.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email, which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation concerning its victim notification system.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Criminal Division Records",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "288",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004612",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "EOUSA",
      "OPR",
      "USAO",
      "FBI",
      "Criminal Division",
      "Office of the Deputy Attorney General"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 2008",
      "June 2008",
      "May 26, 2007",
      "April 2, 2008",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004612"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein investigation. It discusses the efforts of OPR to obtain and analyze emails and other records from various offices within the Department of Justice. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}