Epstein's storage units

The facility the government subpoenaed	”Storage USA / 5580 Okeechobee Blvd”, as the subpoena’s own addressee block prints it; the letter of August 4, 2009 and the household’s own list add “West Palm Beach, FL 33417”123
The unit the government named	”Unit 6218”, the first of the two items the subpoena commands1
Returnable	”5/13/2008 10:30 am”, before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach1
Subpoena number	FGJ 07-103(WPB)-Tues./No. OLY-821
The same unit number in the household’s own papers	A vendor and contact list in a Palm Beach police case folder prints “Storage USA / 5580, Okeechobee Blvd / Unit 6218”, and on a later sheet, under the heading “STORAGE”, the same company above the words “10 ft x 20 ft unit available”3
Preservation order	Document 232, entered on the docket of the Southern District of Florida on 30 July 2009, requiring preservation of “any evidence stored in Defendant’s storage unit”4
Notice to the storage company	Letter of August 4, 2009 from Podhurst Orseck to Storage USA, enclosing that order2
What the investigator said he held	”I have them locked in storage”, William Riley to Epstein’s civil attorney, a message headed Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM5
The New York unit, as the invoices name it	”New York Storage facility”, 490.00 a month on four monthly lines, billed to Epstein’s civil attorney’s firm; the e-mails call it Manhattan Mini Storage67

On 13 May 2008 a federal grand jury in West Palm Beach required a storage company to appear with “All records and information related to Unit 6218.” The subpoena names the company, prints its street, and bears a deputy clerk’s signature across an inked court seal.¹ Fourteen months later a judge of the same district ordered Jeffrey Epstein to preserve “any evidence stored in Defendant’s storage unit”, and plaintiffs’ counsel posted that order to the same company with a warning that it bound them even if he stopped paying.⁴² Nineteen days after that letter, the private investigator who told Epstein’s lawyers he had taken computers and paperwork out of the Palm Beach house before the search warrant was executed wrote to ask what to do with them: “I have them locked in storage”.⁵

This page is about the storage, the instruments that reached for it, and what the documents do and do not establish about what became of the things inside.

What this page covers, and what it does not

This page makes no allegation and records none. It does not describe any offence, does not reproduce or characterise any complainant’s account, and does not count or describe complainants. It does not describe the contents of any removed or seized computer, disc, tape or photograph. That a device was removed, when, by whom and under what authority is this page’s subject; what was on it is not, and nothing here says what was on anything.

Documents that would otherwise answer questions a reader may have were read for this page and are deliberately not cited, because the identifier that would take a reader to the useful sheet also carries material about people who may be complainants. The chief one is the inventory of what was taken out of the house: this page does not cite it, reproduces no entry from it, and does not say what it lists. A deposition sheet on which a household witness confirms that the computers had gone before the warrant was executed is likewise not cited; Janusz Banasiak’s page carries the same substance from the property manager’s own accounts.

Where the producing party has covered a name or a value on a sheet cited here, this page writes around it. It supplies nothing into a covered span, draws no inference about whom a covered span belongs to, and reproduces no telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, account number, taxpayer identifier, identity number or date of birth from any document cited here. The plaintiffs in the civil actions sued under pseudonyms, and neither their designations nor their case numbers are printed on this page.

The search of 20 October 2005 itself belongs to the Palm Beach Police Department investigation, and the house to 358 El Brillo Way.

The removal before the warrant, in the investigator’s own words

The clearest statement of the removal is the investigator’s own. In a message headed Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM, William Riley of Riley Kiraly wrote to Robert D. Critton Jr., Epstein’s civil litigation attorney, copying Jessica Cadwell, Roy Black and Epstein himself:

Bob,

Over the weekend I learned that plaintiff’s counsel are looking to get from me the computers and paperwork I took from Jeff’s house prior to the Search Warrant.

I have them locked in storage and would like to know what to do with them.

They are no longer needed in the criminal case, I assume.

Is it possible to give you these items for your review and safekeeping or give it to Darren Indyke or back to Jeff, etc.?⁵

Epstein forwarded it to Roy Black under a header reading 9:46 PM the same evening, and then to Martin Weinberg, his criminal defence attorney. The copy in the release is that last forward, and its header, “Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:46:38 +0000”, is the only one of the three that carries a time zone.⁵ The message’s attachment lines name an inventory and an items list, each file name carrying the date 10.07.2005.⁵ No document cited on this page states the date the items were taken.

The second sheet of Riley’s message is the only statement read for this page that the cloning of the computers was carried out:

I have attached my inventory and some of the photos of the items I have. Roy Black directed that the computers drives be cloned and he would have the results of that effort. The cloning was done by a forensic specialist, Dave Kleiman.⁸

Janusz Banasiak’s page carries the Federal Bureau of Investigation declaration that traces the same chain from the other end, from the property manager to a private investigator named Paul Lavery and from Lavery to Riley and his firm, and records that Riley accepted service of a grand jury subpoena by fax. It also records that the accounts of who came to the door do not agree, and this page does not resolve them either.

What the warrant found, and the date two instruments give differently

The officer told to collect the computers wrote his own narrative. Printed from the department’s system on 21 December 2005 as “NARRATIVE # 28” in case 1-05-000368, reported by “KRAUEL, CURTIS D.”, it opens:

On Thursday, October 20, 2005 at approximately 0936 hours, I assisted in the execution of a search warrant located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, residence of Jeffrey Epstein. I was instructed by Case Agent Det. Joseph Recarey, to secure all computer and media related material from the residence.⁹

In the Kitchen Staff Office he found a silver central processing unit with its left side cover removed, powered off, unplugged, and “not connected to a monitor, printer, or other media device”, with an audio-video card on its back panel whose jack ends were unattached; on the desk beside it stood a flat panel screen and a second keyboard and mouse with no computer:

It appeared as though a second computer had been recently removed as the cables ends from the monitor, keyboard and mouse were in the same area. A further search of the room revealed no media storage devices, i.e. CD s, Floppy Disks, Zip Disks, etc. This type of media is commonly stored in an area where computers are placed, yet no media was found.⁹

The Garden Room and the Cabana each held a monitor, keyboard, mouse and printer, the Garden Room also a media card reader, with the cables removed from where a computer had been.⁹ The search was not empty. In a second detached structure the same officer found and seized a powered-on Dell Dimension 2350 and, in a bedroom, a Premio unit, each with a serial number recorded on the sheet, each turned over to the evidence custodian on a property receipt, together with media items from both rooms.¹⁰ Joseph Recarey, who directed him, has his own page, and the investigation page carries what the detective later told federal prosecutors about the missing equipment.

Two instruments date that search differently and this page reconciles neither. The officer’s narrative gives Thursday, October 20, 2005, and so does the title of a 2021 defence motion.⁹¹¹ The preservation order entered in July 2009 gives October 25, 2005, twice: once in its first operative paragraph and once in the clause covering “all computers used by Defendant and/or his agents and/or employees during 1998 through and including October 25, 2005, the date of the search warrant.”¹²⁴ All of those words are printed on the sheets cited, and all were read at the page image. 358 El Brillo Way and the Palm Beach investigation page give October 20, 2005, on the officer’s narrative and the motion’s title; this page agrees with them about those two documents and sets the order’s own different text beside them.

Unit 6218, and the subpoena nobody has reported

On a form AO 110 captioned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a grand jury subpoena was issued to “Storage USA / 5580 Okeechobee Blvd”, numbered FGJ 07-103(WPB)-Tues./No. OLY-82, returnable in the Grand Jury Room at 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach at “5/13/2008 10:30 am”. Both of the form’s boxes are ticked, for a person and for documents or objects. It commands:

1. All records and information related to Unit 6218.

2. All records and information related to Jeffrey Epstein, ▮ ▮, and/or Ghislaine Maxwell.¹

Read at the page image, the subpoena carries a deputy clerk’s signature in ink across an inked court seal, so it was issued and is not a draft. The names printed between Epstein’s and Maxwell’s in the second item are covered by the producing party and are not supplied here, and neither is the Assistant United States Attorney’s name and telephone line, which the producing party has also covered.¹

The same unit number stands in the household’s own papers. Two sheets of a vendor and contact list produced in a Palm Beach police case folder print “Storage USA / 5580, Okeechobee Blvd / Unit 6218” among the house’s suppliers, and, on a later sheet under the heading “STORAGE”, the company again with a West Palm Beach postcode, a covered telephone line, and the words “10 ft x 20 ft unit available”.³ Whether that last line records the unit the household had or one the company was offering is not settled by the sheet, and this page does not resolve it.

The packet also carries a “GRAND JURY NON-DISCLOSURE NOTICE” asking the recipient, “Pursuant to an official criminal investigation being conducted by this office”, not to disclose “the existence of this request or your compliance to anyone”, because disclosure “could obstruct and impede the investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law”.¹³

What the release does not show is the answer. The two sheets that follow the subpoena are the forms a recipient is expected to fill in and return. The certification “REGARDING DOMESTIC RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY” names the company in its caption and then leaves the declarant’s name, the declarant’s position, the day, the month, the place of execution and the signature all empty; the Appendix A headed “DOCUMENT INVENTORY” has every rule blank beneath the line “The documents submitted are as follows:”, and an empty rule beneath “Signature of Records Custodian:”.¹⁴¹⁵ That is how such a packet reads as served, and it is not evidence that nobody answered it. No document read for this page records whether this subpoena was served, whether Storage USA produced anything, or what became of Unit 6218.

The preservation order, and the copy nobody signed

A motion for an order preserving evidence was filed in the consolidated civil actions against Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 26, 2009, and the order granting it was entered on the docket as Document 232 on 30 July 2009, sixty-five days later. It recites a further order of the court of July 6, 2009 and records that “The parties are in agreement as to a substantial part of the language in their proposed orders”, so the court chose between competing drafts.¹² Its operative paragraph is specific about storage:

Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following evidence: records of phone communications; records of domestic and international travel, including travel in Defendant’s private airplanes; former and current employee records; tax returns; medical bills; bills regarding any other expenses related in any way to these Plaintiffs; all documents evidencing payment by Defendant of U.S. currency and/or merchandise to each person on the list of victims provided by the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO list”); any evidence stored in Defendant’s storage unit; all photographs of the interior and exterior of Defendant’s Palm Beach mansion as it appeared in 1998 through October 2005⁴

The release holds this order in more than one state, and the difference is whether anybody signed it. One copy’s final sheet reads “DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this __ of ______, 2009.” Read at the page image, the day rule and the month rule are empty on the paper, not merely absent from the released text, and the rule above the printed name “KENNETH A. MARRA / United States District Court Judge” carries no mark.¹⁶ The other copy’s final sheet carries an electronic filing stamp giving “Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 7 of 7”, reads “Florida, this 30th of July, 2009”, and carries a signature in ink on the rule above the judge’s printed name.¹⁷ The unexecuted copy is a stage, not the instrument. A search of the released files for the order’s storage clause reaches nineteen documents, so further copies exist that this page has not opened.¹⁸

The two states differ in their words as well as in their execution, and the difference matters here. In the unexecuted copy, the paragraph defining preservation goes on to say that it “includes taking reasonable steps to prevent the partial or full destruction, alteration, testing, deletion, shredding, incineration, wiping, relocation, migration, theft, or mutation of such material”, and a further paragraph requires preservation of evidence returned by the police from the search.¹⁹ Read at the page image, neither sentence is in the order the court entered, whose corresponding paragraph stops at the words “under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”²⁰

The letter to the storage company

Five days after the order was entered, on August 4, 2009, Katherine Ezell of Podhurst Orseck wrote to Storage USA at 5580 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, over her own signature in ink, enclosing it:

It has come to our attention that Mr. Jeffrey E. Epstein leases one or more of your storage units. Mr. Epstein is the defendant in civil law suits involving the sexual exploitation of victims represented by undersigned attorneys. Pursuant to Judge Kenneth Marra’s Preservation Order (attached hereto), the items stored in Mr. Epstein’s storage unit(s) must be preserved. Preservation includes taking reasonable steps to prevent the partial or full destruction, alteration, testing, deletion, shredding, incineration, wiping, relocation, theft, or mutation of any material, as well as negligent or intentional handling that would make material incomplete or inaccessible.²

That last sentence tracks the wording of the unexecuted draft and not the order enclosed with the letter, which, as above, contains no such list.²⁰ The letter does not present the sentence as a quotation and attributes it to no document; this page records the difference and draws no inference from it.

The second paragraph anticipates the thing that makes a storage unit different from a filing cabinet, which is that it can be sold for arrears:

Should Mr. Epstein cease to pay his storage fees, Storage USA is still required to preserve and maintain, and not destroy, alter, or dispose of anything in any of his storage units, as well as any correspondence, records or contracts with Defendant Epstein.²

and the third warns that “failure to abide by this request could result in penalties and/or sanctions against your company and could form the basis of legal claims for spoilation”.² The letter was copied to Robert Critton. Nineteen days later Riley wrote that the computers and paperwork were locked in storage.⁵ Nothing read for this page shows a reply from Storage USA, or that Riley’s storage and the company in the letter were the same place. Riley’s unit, on the invoices and e-mails below, was in New York.

The cloning of the computers

The release carries an “EX PARTE DECLARATION NUMBER TWO IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS”, filed under seal in a grand jury matter numbered FGJ 07-103(WPB), duces tecum numbers OLY-63 and OLY-64. It is a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and not an affidavit, and it is unexecuted on the copy in the release: read at the page image, the line “Executed this ________ day of July, 2007.” carries no day, and the name beneath the signature rule, above the printed line “Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office”, is covered by the producing party.²¹

The declarant describes himself as a Palm Beach County deputy sheriff, a law enforcement officer since 1986, working since 2000 in the Computer Crimes Unit as a computer forensic analyst and investigator whose investigations are mostly child exploitation cases, an instructor for the makers of EnCase forensic software and a certified examiner.²² What he sets out is a telephone call, and everything in it is what Kleiman told him:

I received a phone call from David Kleiman on the morning of July 25, 2007. Mr. Kleiman advised me that he was hired by attorney Roy Black to make three bit-stream copies and one EnCase® image for each of three computers.²²

Kleiman asked to use one of the Sheriff’s Office’s hard drive duplication devices; the declarant told him the machine he wanted to use “was not reliable”, and Kleiman “made the decision to purchase a hard drive duplication device online from a company named Digital Intelligence and have it shipped overnight to his place of employment in Boca Raton.”²¹ Kleiman “was meeting with a private investigator who worked with Mr. Black on July 26, 2007 in the morning”, described that person only as an “old-time New York cop-type”, said he “was told the computers had not been used since 2005”, and “advised the private investigator it would take at least 10 hours or more to complete the process.”²¹ The declaration describes a job as it was being arranged. It does not say the copies were made, and it does not say how many were made. The sentence that says the cloning happened is Riley’s, two years later, and it gives no number.⁸

The last paragraph is why the document exists in a government filing. The declarant had not worked on the Epstein investigation, but had lunch with a Special Agent on July 25, 2007, “and Roy Black’s name came up during our conversation. At that time, I relayed to Special Agent ▮ what Mr. Kleiman had told me.”²¹ The agent’s name is covered by the producing party on that sheet.

The motion to quash that was never withdrawn

An e-mail of “Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:53:23 +0000” under the subject “Operation Leap Year”, signed only “Assistant U.S. Attorney / 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 / West Palm Beach, FL 33401” over a name the producing party has covered, sets out what became of the computer subpoena:

Judge Marra originally prepared for the hearing on Epstein’s motion to quash the subpoena for the computer equipment that was removed from his home in anticipation of the execution of a search warrant. We rescheduled the hearing several times for plea negotiations and, as part of the signed agreement, Epstein was supposed to withdraw the motion to quash, but never did.²³

The same message gives the date of the agreement: “The non-prosecution agreement was signed on September 24, 2007.”²³ So the Storage USA subpoena was returnable 13 May 2008, more than seven months after that agreement and more than three months after this message. The sender’s own name is withheld on the sheet and is not supplied here; the Operation Leap Year page carries this document and the rest of what it says, and the agreement has its own page.

Who paid for the New York unit, and the eleven minutes they disagreed in

Riley’s firm billed Epstein’s civil attorney for the storage directly. An invoice numbered 12421, dated April 12, 2010, submitted to Robert Critton at Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman under the reference “8577R: Jeffrey Epstein”, lists four lines, 1/1/2010, 2/1/2010, 3/1/2010 and 4/1/2010, each reading “New York Storage facility” or “New York storage facility” at 490.00, with “Total costs $1,960.00”, “FL Service Tax 7% $137.20” and “Total amount of this bill $2,097.20”.⁶

By September 2010 Riley wanted it off his own card. Under a header reading 10:30 AM on Tuesday 7 September 2010 he wrote to Epstein:

Would you get your accountant to send me credit card information so I can have it put on file to have the monthly charges atManhattan Mini Storage billed directly to your card. I would appreciate it.⁷

Epstein forwarded that to his accountant Richard Kahn of HBRK Associates Inc. three minutes later with the line “I had asked that you prepay this for the next three months„ what happened??”, and Kahn answered at 10:46: “Funds were sent to Jack Monday August 30th with instructions to pay for September and October 2010 / I will call Jack and ask why they were not paid”.⁷

Then the investigator and the accountant contradicted each other about the same payments, eleven minutes apart. Under a header reading 11:04 AM, Riley wrote: “Nothing was prepaid. The payment was for the three months prior.”²⁴ Under a header reading 11:15 AM, Kahn wrote:

$2,000 was sent to Jack on August 5th to pay for May – August 2010 Storage fees

Funds were sent to Jack on August 30th to pay for September and October 2010 Storage fees

I believe that we are paid for past and prepaid for October 2010²⁴

The next evening Kahn told Epstein: “Spoke with Jack’s office and they sent additional funds yesterday for September and October to Riley / In Riley’s email he wanted to use our credit card for future months storage / Please advise”.²⁴ No document read for this page says who “Jack” is, and this page does not try to say; the messages give a forename and an office and nothing else. Riley’s own message later that Tuesday reads “My bill was paid by Jack.”⁷ All the clock times in these chains except the outermost headers are printed without a time zone, and this page converts none of them.

The Palm Beach unit in January 2015, and “once wiped”

In January 2015 Epstein’s staff went through a storage unit in West Palm Beach. Under a header reading 11:03 AM on 30 January 2015, Bella Klein wrote to Larry Visoski, Epstein’s chief pilot:

Hi Larry, Just received lease from Uncle Bob storage. Lease was signed in 2003 with The Store Room for $221 per month. Unit space is 12x15. Current cost is 374.31 per month. Company also offers smaller units with space 5x10 for $71 per month, 5x15 for $115 per month. Please confirm that we need all the items in the storage. If you think the items can be removed we can get a smaller place. Janusz is also using the storage sometimes. Now he will need to move some furniture from the garage to the storage. Not sure who makes the decision to put old furniture from garage to storage to add more cost to it..²⁵

Nine minutes later Visoski replied about the unit itself:

Thx The checkered carpet is old Boeing carpet, I’ll view the unit tomorrow and evaluate if we can dispose of carpet., The rifles should be remove and properly stored I like all of the office chairs ,. I could use at my airport office???²⁵

The list of items that has been read as an inventory of that unit is a list of what was in a garage. At 11:39 AM Klein wrote “Janusz, Please email pictures of the current furniture in the garage.”; Janusz Banasiak answered at 12:40:30 PM with a list beginning “OK, here it is.” and running “White top table / Sofa with mattress / 8 bar chairs - 4 metal and 4 leather / 2 desks metal frame,glass top / 2 chairs / speakers / 3 computers / screen fro[m] LSJ”.²⁶ Richard Kahn forwarded that list and eight photographs to Epstein at 9:04:59 PM the same evening under the subject “Items In PEI Garage”, with one line of his own:

Janusz would like to review with you as he believes some items such as old computers (once wiped) can be discarded²⁷

Klein’s own message says that Banasiak “will need to move some furniture from the garage to the storage”; it does not say which items, and no document read for this page says that any of the three computers on the list went into the unit. Nothing read for this page says when, by whom, or whether anything was wiped, or whether any of those three machines was one of those taken from the house in 2005. The letter sent to Storage USA in 2009 names wiping among the things that must be prevented; the order the court entered does not.²²⁰ Whether anything still bound anyone in 2015 is not answered by any document read here.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s storage charges

Two financial records in the release carry storage charges in Ghislaine Maxwell’s name. An American Express “Business Gold Rewards” statement headed “ELLMAX LLC / G MAXWELL”, closing date 04/22/16, carries an entry dated 04/12/16 reading “EXTRA SPACE STORAGE 0804 5600000111240 / RIVER EDGE NJ” against $253.48, with the statement’s own description line “PUBLIC WAREHOUSING”; the account’s digits are covered by the producing party and are not reproduced here. That sheet was read at the page image.²⁸

A UBS Financial Services business services account statement for “116 EAST 65TH STREET LLC”, whose card purchases are listed under “G MAXWELL”, carries entries to “0804 EXTRA SPACE STO” at River Edge, New Jersey.²⁹ This page prints no amount from the UBS statement and no further amount from the American Express container. The released text of these statements extracts each column of the table as a separate run, so an amount cannot be paired with a merchant by position, and it damages the figures themselves: on one sheet it gives the same charge twice, as “$25148” and as “$253.48”.²⁸ Only sheets read at the page image are quoted here for a figure.

The 2019 searches, and what the two records read for this page cover

Two Federal Bureau of Investigation forms FD-302 in the release record search warrants at the New York house. The first, drafted 07/08/2019, records that a warrant issued in the Southern District of New York on 07/06/2019 at 10:14am was executed at 9 East 71st Street at 6:15pm the same day; that at approximately 5:35pm agents with New York Police Department officers approached the door, knocked and announced, and after “a reasonable amount of time passed with no contact from any occupants” entered forcibly; that on finding items of evidentiary value in plain view beyond the warrant’s scope the search was halted and “an additional rider was drafted and sworn”, the amended warrant being executed “at approximately 2:05am on 07/07/2019”; and that a copy of the warrant and the receipt for property went to Epstein’s legal counsel, named on the sheet as Marc A. Fernich.³⁰ The warrant it describes authorised a search for evidence “concerning occupancy or ownership of the subject premises and evidence concerning the layout, furnishing, decorations, and floor pattern of the subject premises including photographs and blueprints.”³⁰ No participant is named here; the participant list on that sheet is covered in part.

The second, for a warrant executed on 07/11/2019, records that agents “observed items missing from within the residence, which were originally located within a safe, during a previous search warrant on 7/06/2019”; that a Special Agent contacted Richard Kahn, who said the house manager Merwin Delacruz had on 07/07/2019 packed Epstein’s belongings from the safe into two suitcases and taken them to Kahn’s residence nearby; that Kahn said he had not opened them and did not know their contents; and that he brought them to the search location about thirty minutes later and was given a receipt for property.³¹ The form itemises what was inventoried from each suitcase and carries an agent’s note referring the reader to another agent’s form “for updated inventory list and correction”; this page reproduces no part of that itemisation, and nothing here says what was on any disc or drive.³¹ This page names no place as searched or unsearched beyond what these two records state. Neither mentions a storage facility.

The storage vocabulary in the released files

Searched on 24 October 2026 by exact phrase, column-scoped, against a store this project measures the same day at 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets:³²

phrase	sheets	documents
”storage unit”	194	183
”storage units”	32	28
”Riley Kiraly”	409	231
”The Store Room”	124	23
”Public Storage”	115	60
”OLY-63”	121	50
”Extra Space Storage”	54	7
UOVO	50	10
”Storage USA”	30	20
Kleiman	20	16
”Manhattan Mini Storage”	18	11
”Uncle Bobs”	6	1
”Uncle Bob”	5	2

These are counts of sheets on which a phrase is printed, not counts of events, and a document copied many times in a production is counted once per copy. No figure in that table is a finding. For scale, the single word “Epstein” reaches 578,565 documents in the same store, which is 40.6 per cent of it; and “storage unit” is a generic phrase, so most of the 183 documents behind it have nothing to do with this subject. The two “Uncle Bob” forms are separate queries because the search splits words at an apostrophe, so neither finds the other, and the single document behind “Uncle Bobs” is a card-statement container of 9,824 sheets. An invented phrase run in the same invocation returned 0 sheets and 0 documents, so a zero from this instrument would have been a real zero.³²

How the documents on this page were read

Eleven sheets were rendered from this project’s own per-document route and read at the page image at 400 dpi: the Storage USA subpoena and its document inventory; the letter to Storage USA; three sheets of the entered preservation order, including its signature sheet; the signature sheet of an unexecuted copy of the same order; the second sheet of the declaration; the officer’s narrative; Riley’s message of 23 August 2009; the accountant’s message of 8 September 2010; the January 2015 message about the lease; and the American Express sheet carrying the River Edge charge. The native resolution of those scans was not measured for this page, so no figure for it is given. A negative control on an identifier that exists nowhere was requested on the same route in the same session and failed, as it must.

Every quotation from those sheets follows the image. The rest follow the released text, which was wrong on this page’s own material in five places the images corrected: two dates rendered “August 5ib” and “August 30"", where the sheet carries ordinary raised letters; a printed production stamp given with one digit wrong; “All records and Information” for “information”; a firm’s street given as “Hagler” for “Flagler”; and a misspelling in the letter to Storage USA silently corrected, where the sheet itself prints “spoilation”. An extraction that improves a document is as dangerous as one that damages it, and this page follows the sheets, including their own spellings and punctuation.

Where a quotation crosses a line break in the source it is rendered as a single space and nothing else is changed; where a quotation is cut, the cut is marked; and a span the producing party has covered is marked ▮ and nothing is written into it.

Limits of this page

This page does not say what was in any storage unit at any date, beyond quoting what a document says about it. It does not say that any storage unit was or was not searched by anybody; it reports what the two Federal Bureau of Investigation records read for it record, and those record two searches of a house. It does not say whether the Storage USA subpoena was served or answered, what Unit 6218 held, or what became of it. It does not say who paid for any unit after 2017, because no document read for it covers that. It does not state the date the computers were taken out of the house, because no document cited here states it. It does not say how many forensic copies of those computers were made, or where any copy is. It does not identify “Jack”. It draws no conclusion about whether the preservation order was obeyed or breached, and no conclusion from the difference between the two states of that order.

It names no complainant, describes none, and takes nothing from any document for anything that document records about one. It reproduces no telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, account number, taxpayer identifier, identity number or date of birth from any document cited here, and no plaintiff designation and no civil case number.

Documents cited

identifier	what it is
EFTA00188283	A 26-sheet packet of 2008 grand jury subpoenas from the Southern District of Florida, with their notices, a service return and blank records-custodian forms; six distinct subpoena numbers are printed on its sheets. Only served pp. 11-15, the subpoena addressed to Storage USA and the forms behind it, are used here
EFTA00722995	Letter of August 4, 2009 from Podhurst Orseck to Storage USA with the entered preservation order attached, eight sheets
EFTA00728870	An unexecuted copy of the same preservation order, differing in its wording, seven sheets
EFTA01720967	A 63-sheet Palm Beach police case-folder production whose first sheet is a police evidence property record; only served pp. 48 and 58, two sheets of a household vendor and contact list, are used here
EFTA00884246	Forwarded e-mail chain of 23 and 24 August 2009 carrying William Riley’s message about the computers in storage, three sheets
EFTA01334241	Palm Beach Police Department narrative print, case 1-05-000368, narrative 28, printed 21 December 2005, two sheets
EFTA00222965	”Ex Parte Declaration Number Two” in the grand jury subpoena matter, unexecuted, two sheets
EFTA01659971	E-mail of 29 January 2008 under the subject “Operation Leap Year”, two sheets, the second carrying no released text
EFTA00612018	Riley Kiraly invoice 12421 of April 12, 2010 to Robert Critton, one sheet
EFTA00757442	E-mail chain of 7 September 2010 about Manhattan Mini Storage, three sheets
EFTA02422842	E-mail chain of 7 and 8 September 2010 about the same, five sheets
EFTA01747301	E-mail chain of 26 to 30 January 2015, “Items In PEI Garage” over “Storage unit”, ten sheets, four of them photographs
EFTA01684802	A 2,266-sheet American Express statement container; only served p. 467 is used here
EFTA01277957	A 166-sheet UBS statement container for 116 East 65th Street LLC; only served pp. 1 and 58 are used here
EFTA01301568	FBI form FD-302 and continuation, search warrant executed at 9 East 71st Street on 07/06/2019, two sheets
EFTA01301594	FBI form FD-302 and continuation, search warrant of 07/11/2019 and the two suitcases, two sheets

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. Subpoena to testify before a grand jury, form AO 110 (Rev. 04/07), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, “FGJ 07-103(WPB)-Tues./No. OLY-82”, addressed “TO: Storage USA / 5580 Okeechobee Blvd” and nothing further; the town and postcode come from other documents and not from this sheet. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00188294. Both boxes under “SUBPOENA FOR:” are ticked. The place is given as “United States District Court / 701 Clematis Street / West Palm Beach, Florida 33401”, the courtroom as “Grand Jury Room”, the date and time as “5/13/2008 10:30 am”. A deputy clerk’s signature in ink runs across an inked “U.S. COURTS / SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA” seal; the date box beside the clerk’s line is not legible under the seal and no date is asserted for it here. The Assistant United States Attorney’s name and telephone line, and two spans in the second commanded item, between “Jeffrey Epstein,” and ”, and/or Ghislaine Maxwell.”, are covered by the producing party, and nothing is supplied into them. The released text of this sheet drops the opening words of the second item and prints “Information” for “information”; the quotation follows the image. This identifier holds a packet of separate 2008 grand jury subpoenas, so it is cited by page and never bare; six distinct subpoena numbers appear across its sheets, and nothing from any of the others is reproduced, characterised or counted on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00188283 p.12. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

2. Letter on Podhurst Orseck letterhead, dated August 4, 2009, addressed to “Storage USA / 5580 Okeechobee Boulevard / West Palm Beach, FL 33417” above a telephone line that is not reproduced, opening “To Whom It May Concern,”, signed in ink over the printed name “Katherine Ezell”, with the reference line “KWE/mce” and “cc: Robert Critton, Esq.” Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00722995. The word “not” in the second quoted paragraph is underlined on the sheet, and the underline is not reproduced in the quotation above. The sheet prints “spoilation” and the quotation follows it; the released text gives “spoliation”. The firm’s footer address reads “25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, FL 33130” at the image, where the released text gives “Hagler”; the firm’s telephone and fax lines are not reproduced. Quotations cross several line breaks, rendered as single spaces. A manuscript mark sits at the head of the sheet and this page does not read it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722995 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

3. Household vendor and contact list within a Palm Beach police case-folder production of 63 sheets whose first sheet is a police evidence property record, so the run is mixed and is cited by page. Served p.48 prints, in a column of suppliers, “Storage USA / 5580, Okeechobee Blvd / Unit 6218”. Served p.58 prints, under the heading “STORAGE”, “Storage USA / 5580 Okeechobee Boulevard / West Palm Beach, FL 33417” above a line labelled “Tel:” whose value is covered, and then “10 ft x 20 ft unit available”. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of these two sheets, and no statement is made here about anything written in ink on them. Telephone values printed or labelled on these sheets are not reproduced. The same two sheets stand in a second 63-sheet production of the same case folder, and the two are one source and not two. Nothing else from either run is used here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01720967 pp.48, 58. ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. Same entered order, served p.6, the order’s own page 5 of 7. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00723000 and an electronic filing stamp across its head giving “Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 5 of 7” beside a case number that is not reproduced here. The quoted passage runs from “Specifically, Defendant must preserve the following evidence:” and is cut after “1998 through October 2005”, with the cut marked; it crosses twelve line breaks, rendered as single spaces. The same sheet closes the sentence with “and all computers used by Defendant and/or his agents and/or employees during 1998 through and including October 25, 2005, the date of the search warrant.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722995 p.6. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. E-mail of William Riley to “Robert D. Critton Jr.”, copied to Jessica Cadwell, to “Roy BLACK” and to Jeffrey Epstein, under a header reading “Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM” with no time zone, as forwarded by Epstein to Roy Black under a header reading “Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM”, again with no zone, and then by Epstein to Martin Weinberg under the outer header “Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:46:38 +0000”, which is the only one of the three carrying a zone. Served p.1 read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00884246. The attachment line reads “Inventory_10.07.2005.doc; Inventory_Items_10.07.2005.pdf”; the released text gives the second file name with an l for an I. The attachments themselves are not cited, reproduced or described here. Every e-mail address on this sheet other than Epstein’s own is covered by the producing party, and no address on the sheet is reproduced. This page converts neither unzoned stamp into any zone and asserts no interval between the three messages. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00884246 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

6. Riley Kiraly invoice number 12421, dated April 12, 2010, “Invoice submitted to: Robert Critton, Esq. / Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, P.A. / 303 Banyan Boulevard / Suite 400 / West Palm Beach FL 33401”, “In Reference To:8577R: Jeffrey Epstein”, one sheet, headed “Confidential Work Product”. Read in the released text; this project holds no page image of this document. Under “Additional Charges” it lists 1/1/2010, 2/1/2010, 3/1/2010 and 4/1/2010 against “New York Storage facility” and “New York storage facility” at 490.00 each. The firm’s office and fax lines, and a taxpayer identifier printed at the foot, are not reproduced. No document cited on this page shows when the New York charges began or when they ended. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00612018 p.1. ↩ ↩²

7. E-mail chain of Tuesday 7 September 2010 under the subject “Manhattan Mini Storage”, three sheets. The outer message, from William Riley to Jeffrey Epstein copied to Rich Kahn, is headed “Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:03:15 +0000” and reads “My bill was paid by Jack. I want to give Manhattan Mini Storage your card to bill against instead of mine. I think your accountant misunderstood want I want to do. I want to replace my credit card with yours and let them bill against your card monthly, not mine.” The inner messages carry clock times with no zone stated: Riley at 10:30 AM, Epstein to Kahn at 10:33 AM, Kahn at 10:46 AM. Read in the released text; this project holds no page image of this document. The sheets print “atManhattan” as one word and “want I want to do”, and the quotations follow them. Every signature block’s telephone, fax and cell lines and every e-mail address are either covered by the producing party or are not reproduced here. This page converts no unzoned stamp into any zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00757442 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

8. Same chain, served p.2, carrying the remainder of Riley’s message above his signature block. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of this sheet, so the quotation above is not image-verified. The sheet prints “the computers drives” and the quotation follows it. The signature block’s mailing address, office and fax lines are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00884246 p.2. ↩ ↩²

9. Palm Beach Police Department “Narrative Print”, system HTE, program CHF004P, printed “12/21/05 / 14:03:41”, case number 1-05-000368, “NARRATIVE # 28”, “Reported By: KRAUEL, CURTIS D. 12/21/05”, “Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05”. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamps SDNY_GM_02764931 and EFTA_00251773, and a red overlay reading “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17”. A manuscript mark in ink sits above the case-number line and this page does not read it. The printout carries no apostrophe in “CPU s” and the quotations follow it. This is one officer’s account of what he saw, printed two months after the search; it is not a finding. Joseph Recarey’s page cites the same sheet for the direction he was given, and records that the same text stands in two further documents. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01334241 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

10. Same narrative, served p.2, the printout’s own page 2. Read in the released text; this sheet was not rendered for this page. It records a powered-on “Dell Dimension 2350” in an office area designated Room B of a second detached structure, and a “Premio” unit in a bedroom designated Room F, each with a serial number printed on the sheet, each secured and “turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt”, with “several media related items” recorded on property receipts in each room. The serial numbers are on the sheet and are not needed here. This page does not say what was on either machine or what became of either. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01334241 p.2. ↩

11. Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, cited here only for the date in its own title. 358 El Brillo Way carries that filing in full, read at the image, with its stamps and its two disagreeing case numbers. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00005726 p.1. ↩

12. Order on a plaintiffs’ motion for the preservation of evidence, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Document 232, entered on the docket on 30 July 2009, seven sheets behind the covering letter. The order’s own first sheet, served p.5, recites the motion “filed May 26, 2009, and the Court’s Order ( DE 192), entered July 6, 2009. The parties are in agreement as to a substantial part of the language in their proposed orders, and the Court has carefully considered the motion, the proposed orders, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.” Its paragraph A requires preservation of evidence “which includes evidence related to the October 25, 2005 search”. Read in the released text; the two sheets carrying the operative clauses quoted in the body were read at the image, as the next notes record. The order’s caption sheets name the plaintiffs by pseudonymous designation and give their case numbers; none is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722995 p.5. ↩ ↩²

13. Same packet, served p.11, “GRAND JURY NON-DISCLOSURE NOTICE”, one sheet, standing immediately before the Storage USA subpoena in this run. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of this sheet. The notice is a form, names no recipient on its face, and this page does not assert which subpoena it was enclosed with. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00188283 p.11. ↩

14. Same packet, served pp.13-14, “IN RE FEDERAL GRAND JURY SUBPOENA OLY-82 ADDRESSED TO STORAGE USA / CERTIFICATION REGARDING DOMESTIC RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY”, the form’s own pages 1 and 2 of 2. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of these two sheets. The declarant’s name, the declarant’s position, the day, the month, the place of execution and the signature line are empty on both. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00188283 pp.13-14. ↩

15. Same packet, served p.15, “APPENDIX A / DOCUMENT INVENTORY”. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00188297. Beneath “The documents submitted are as follows:” the sheet carries about eighteen ruled lines, every one of them blank, and beneath “Signature of Records Custodian:” a further blank rule. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00188283 p.15. ↩

16. Unexecuted copy of the same order, final sheet. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00728876. The sheet reads “DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida,” and, on the next line, “this __ of ______, 2009.” The day rule and the month rule are empty on the paper, and the rule above “KENNETH A. MARRA / United States District Court Judge” carries no mark. This is a statement about this sheet only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00728870 p.7. ↩

17. The entered order, final sheet, attached to the letter of August 4, 2009. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00723002. The electronic filing stamp across its head gives “Document 232 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2009 Page 7 of 7” beside a case number that is not reproduced here. The sheet reads “DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 30th of July, 2009.” across two lines, the “th” raised, and a signature in ink stands on the rule above “KENNETH A. MARRA / United States District Court Judge”. The released text renders the raised letters as stray characters and gives the day as “30’"" in one copy of this sheet and “301h” in another; the reading above is the image’s. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722995 p.8. ↩

18. Taken from the released files on 24 October 2026 by exact-phrase search of the order’s storage clause, column-scoped: nineteen documents carry it. Seventeen of those were not opened for this page. An invented phrase run in the same invocation returned nothing. ↩

19. Same unexecuted copy, served pp.4-6. Its opening recital reads “The parties having agreed and the Court having carefully considered the motion and being otherwise fully advised in the premises.” Its paragraph C continues past the point at which the entered order stops, with “Preservation includes taking reasonable steps to prevent the partial or full destruction, alteration, testing, deletion, shredding, incineration, wiping, relocation, migration, theft, or mutation of such material, as well as negligent or intentional handling that would make material incomplete or inaccessible.” Its paragraph D requires preservation of “any evidence from the October 25, 2005 execution of a search warrant at his mansion at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Florida, that has been, or will be, returned to him by the PBPD.” Read in the released text; only this copy’s final sheet was read at the image. The two copies also differ in their paragraph lettering, which is how a reader can tell them apart. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00728870 pp.4-6. ↩

20. Same entered order, served p.7, the order’s own page 6 of 7. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00723001. Its paragraph C reads, in full: ""Preservation” is to be interpreted broadly to accomplish the goal of maintaining the integrity of all documents, data, and tangible things reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in these actions under Rules 26, 45, and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The paragraph ends there on the image. The sheet’s remaining paragraphs D, E and F concern objections and privilege, agreements between the parties, and sanctions; none of them lists any act of destruction, and no paragraph of this sheet contains the word “wiping”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722995 p.7. ↩ ↩² ↩³

21. Same declaration, served p.2. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA00222966. The closing line reads “Executed this ________ day of July, 2007.” with no day written on it, and the name beneath the signature rule, above “Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office”, is covered by the producing party; a Special Agent’s name is covered in three places in paragraph 3. The declaration is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and is not an affidavit. Everything it reports of the cloning is what Kleiman told the declarant by telephone on 25 July 2007, and it does not state that any copy was made. The private investigator Kleiman was to meet is not named on either sheet and is not identified here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00222965 p.2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

22. “EX PARTE DECLARATION NUMBER TWO IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS / FILED UNDER SEAL”, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, “IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS FGJ 07-103(WPB) DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64”, two sheets. Served p.1 read in the released text. The declarant’s name is covered after the opening “I,” and is not supplied here; his account of his own service and qualifications stands on that sheet. The sheet prints “EnCase®” with the registered mark, and “Sheriffs Office” where the second sheet’s image prints “Sheriff’s Office”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00222965 p.1. ↩ ↩²

23. E-mail, subject “Operation Leap Year”, “Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:53:23 +0000”, two sheets, the second carrying no released text. The From, To and Cc fields and the name above the signature block are covered by the producing party; the signature reads “Assistant U.S. Attorney / 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 / West Palm Beach, FL 33401”, and this page attributes the message to that block and to no person. The remainder of the message concerns the investigation’s victims and is neither quoted nor characterised here. The Operation Leap Year page cites this document, read at the page image, and carries what else it says. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659971 p.1. ↩ ↩²

24. E-mail chain of 7 and 8 September 2010 under the same subject, five sheets. Served p.1 read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamps EFTA_R1_01489639 and EFTA02422842. Its outer message is from Rich Kahn to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Wed 9/8/2010 6:12:35 PM”. Kahn’s three quoted lines stand on the same sheet beneath “On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Rich Kahn ▮ wrote:”; the sheet raises the “th” in both dates and prints an en dash in “May – August”, and the quotation follows it. The released text of this sheet gives those dates as “August 5ib” and “August 30"", which is the loss of the raised letters, and a page written from the released text alone would have reproduced the damage. Riley’s reply, “Nothing was prepaid. The payment was for the three months prior.”, stands on served p.2 beneath a header reading “Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM”, read in the released text. The two clock times compared in the body are printed in the same chain and neither carries a zone, and a cell number printing elsewhere in this chain is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02422842 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³

25. E-mail chain of 26 to 30 January 2015, ten sheets, of which served pp.2-5 carry photographs whose released text is unreadable and which this page does not describe. Served p.7 read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA_R1_00041637, which the released text of the same sheet gives with one digit wrong. Bella Klein’s message is headed “On Jan 30, 2015, at 11:03 AM” and Larry Visoski’s reply “On Jan 30, 2015, at 11:12 AM”; a third message of hers at 11:18 AM reads “What about all speakers, box with CDs…?” and nothing here rests on it. Both quotations cross many line breaks in a narrow column, rendered as single spaces. The sheets print “The rifles should be remove and properly stored”, “can dispose of carpet.,” and “office chairs ,.”, and the quotations follow them. E-mail addresses printed or covered on this sheet are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747301 p.7. ↩ ↩²

26. Same chain, served pp.1 and 6. Bella Klein’s request, “Janusz, Please email pictures of the current furniture in the garage.”, stands on served p.6 beneath a header reading “On Jan 30, 2015, at 11:39 AM”; Janusz Banasiak’s reply stands on served p.1 beneath a header reading “January 30, 2015 at 12:40:30 PM EST” and reads “OK, here it is.” above the list quoted. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of these two sheets. The list’s last line is broken by the extraction as “screen fro” and “LSJ”, and the completion above is bracketed. The subject line Klein’s request sits under is “Re: Storage unit” and the subject under which Kahn forwarded the result is “Items In PEI Garage”; this page reports both and resolves neither into one location. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747301 pp.1, 6. ↩

27. Same chain, served p.1, the outermost message: from Richard Kahn, subject “Items In PEI Garage”, “Sent Friday, January 30, 2015 9:04:59 PM”, to Jeffrey Epstein, with eight photograph attachments named on the sheet. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of this sheet. The sentence quoted is the whole of Kahn’s own text above his signature block. It is Kahn reporting what he says Banasiak believes, and this page carries both relays. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747301 p.1. ↩

28. American Express statement sheet headed “Business Gold Rewards / ELLMAX LLC / G MAXWELL / Closing Date 04/22/16”, marked “DUPLICATE COPY” and “p. 5/7”, within a container of 2,266 sheets, cited by page. Read at the page image at 400 dpi; the sheet carries the printed stamps AMEX000470 and SDNY_GM_00326270. The entry dated 04/12/16 reads “EXTRA SPACE STORAGE 0804 5600000111240 / RIVER EDGE NJ” above a merchant telephone line that is not reproduced, with “Description Price / PUBLIC WAREHOUSING $253.48” and $253.48 in the amount column. The digits after “Account Ending 0-” are covered by the producing party and nothing is supplied into them. The thirteen-digit number inside the merchant line is the storage company’s own trade reference as the statement prints it, not a card or account value, and it is kept because it is one of the few identifiers by which the facility can be traced; a privacy screen fires on it and this note records that it was judged rather than missed. The released text of this same sheet renders that charge both as “$25148” and as “$253.48”, which is why no figure is taken from this container except at the image. Other entries on the sheet are not reproduced and no inference is drawn from their adjacency. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01684802 p.467. ↩ ↩²

29. UBS Financial Services Inc. business services account statement, account name “116 EAST 65TH STREET LLC”, friendly account name “116 LLC”, financial advisers named on the first sheet as “SCOTT STACK” and “LYLE CASRIEL”, within a container of 166 sheets, cited by page. Served p.58 lists card purchases under the heading “UBS visa debit / G MAXWELL” and carries entries to “0804 EXTRA SPACE STO” at River Edge, New Jersey. Read in the released text; this page holds no image reading of this sheet, so no amount and no date is taken from it, and the statement’s own columns extract as separate runs. The account numbers printed on the first sheet are not reproduced. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01277957 pp.1, 58. ↩

30. Federal Bureau of Investigation form FD-302 with FD-302a continuation, case 31E-NY-3027571, “(U) Search Warrant Executed- 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York 10021 on 07/06/2019”, investigation on 07/06/2019, drafted 07/08/2019, two sheets. Read in the released text; this project holds no page image of this document. The sheet names the judge who signed the warrant and the rider, and names counsel to whom the warrant and the receipt were provided; the participant list is covered in part and no participant is named here. The page on video evidence cites the same two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01301568 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩²

31. Federal Bureau of Investigation form FD-302 with continuation, same case number, “(U) Inventory of Two Suite Cases (black/blue) for JEFFREY EPSTEIN”, investigation on 07/11/2019, dated 08/20/2019 and drafted 07/17/2019 by two named agents, two sheets. Read in the released text; this project holds no page image of this document. The sheets print “suite cases” for suitcases in places, and the description above follows the document’s substance rather than quoting the itemisation. The continuation sheet carries an agent’s note referring to another agent’s form “for updated inventory list and correction”, so the inventory on these two sheets is not the final one, and this page neither reproduces it item by item nor says what was on any disc or drive in it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01301594 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩²

32. Counts taken from the released files on 24 October 2026 by exact-phrase search, column-scoped, each phrase printed in the table exactly as it was queried. The denominators, 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets, were measured in the same session over the whole of this project’s store. “storage unit” and “storage units” are separate queries and neither contains the other. “Uncle Bob” and “Uncle Bobs” are separate queries because the search splits words at an apostrophe. The comparison figure for the single word “Epstein” is 578,565 documents, measured in the same session. An invented phrase run in the same invocation returned 0 sheets and 0 documents. ↩ ↩²