Epstein Data Wiki

Requests for Epstein records answered outside the FBI's FOIA letters

Properties1
tagstopic, foia, bureau-of-prisons, us-marshals-service, department-of-justice, fbi, document-release

20 min read

Requests described hereA New York Times request to the Bureau of Prisons of August 13, 2019, its administrative appeal, and a later partial release under the same request number;12 a direct request from the U.S. Marshals Service to the Metropolitan Correctional Center of November 5, 20193
A separate FOIA request, and the file-section review sheet inside itMartin Weinberg’s own Freedom of Information and Privacy Act request of November 27, 2012, made on Jeffrey Epstein’s behalf, denied, appealed, remanded and processed under Request No. 1203982, with releases running to August 2, 2017;45678 a file-section review sheet from the same file, scanned October 1, 20159
Components answeringBureau of Prisons Office of General Counsel, FOIA/Privacy Act Section;10 Metropolitan Correctional Center New York11
Ground given on the Bureau of Prisons requestsAn open investigation: exemption (b)(7)(A), applied “to protect active and on-going law enforcement proceedings”, and, on the Marshals Service’s direct request, “an active and on-going investigation”111
AppealDepartment of Justice Office of Information Policy, Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2020-000123, affirmed on partly modified grounds, March 5, 20201213
LitigationThe New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:20-cv-00833 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)14
Partial release, in camera review, and continued processingJune 22, 2020: 10 pages released in full, 9 in part, 434 withheld in their entirety;2 a supplemental declaration filed January 15, 2021 describes withholding continuing on records returned to the Bureau by the Department’s Inspector General;15 the Court ordered in camera review of the withheld records April 12, 2021, and by the docket’s last entry in the release, June 24, 2021, the government had produced 987 pages for that review and reported the collapse of the prosecution the withholding had rested on161718
The FBI’s own FOIA response lettersA separate record, set out at FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records

FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records is about what the FBI told its own requesters and on what statutory grounds. This page is about the other places a request for Epstein records could land outside that channel: the Bureau of Prisons’ answer to a reporter’s own FOIA request, a sister agency’s direct request to the Bureau that bypassed FOIA altogether, and one FBI file section reviewed for a named requester rather than answered by a response letter. Where the two pages touch, this one links rather than repeats.

What the documents here establish is what each component said when it was asked, what it later released or withheld under the same request number, and to whom each answer went. For the Bureau of Prisons request the docket in the release runs to June 24, 2021; for the Weinberg request it runs to August 2, 2017. To those points, the documents establish what was withheld, released, or ordered produced; they do not establish the content of any record that remains withheld beyond them, or how either matter was finally resolved.

The Bureau of Prisons and a reporter’s request

On December 20, 2019 a paralegal and Senior Government Information Specialist in the Bureau of Prisons Office of General Counsel, FOIA/Privacy Act Section, wrote to two colleagues. The body opens: “I handle all Epstein related FOIA requests.”10

One of them, the writer says, had been submitted by Danielle Ivory of The New York Times, and sought video footage and documents about the suicide and the first suicide attempt, documents about removing Epstein from suicide watch, Special Investigative Section investigations mentioning him, correspondence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Special Housing Unit logs, central file information and medical records, visitor logs, documents showing meetings about him and who attended them, the Post-Watch report, overtime sign-up sheets and augmentation information.10

The office’s answer to that request, the writer says, was “the same as it has been for everyone, categorical denial under b5, b6, b7a, b7c, b7e and b7f with the most relevant at this time being 7a”.10

The message then reports the appeal, and what the appellate office wanted from the Bureau before deciding it:

Ms. Ivory appealed our response to the OIP. OIP would like confirmation that we are fully aware of the scope of responsive documents and that all documents remain directly relevant to the active criminal prosecution and on-going internal investigations/audits/evaluations, etc. and release of any of those documents will impede our ability to properly investigate and litigate cases and/or claims. Can one or both of you confirm this remains the case with all the records sought by Ms. Ivory?10

The same request, under oath and on the docket

The Bureau’s letter of September 23, 2019 denying the request is itself in the release. Addressed to Ms. Ivory under “Request Number: 2019-05665”, it states: “After a thorough review of your request, we have determined that any records responsive to your request are categorically exempt from disclosure. Accordingly, this Office is not required to conduct a search for the requested records.” It lists the same six exemptions the declaration recites below and, on the temporary one, explains: “Please note, exemption (b)(7)(A) is a temporary exemption utilized to protect active and on-going law enforcement proceedings. Because of its temporary nature, you may wish to consider refiling your request for records in the future.”19

The Bureau’s own account of that request line was given the following year in a sworn declaration filed in The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:20-cv-00833 (PAE), in the Southern District of New York. The declarant is Kara Christenson, a Government Information Specialist for the Bureau’s Central Office.14

The declaration describes two requests received by email on August 13, 2019, consolidated as FOIA Request 2019-05665, whose enumerated items are the records the December email lists, and paraphrases the same September 23 determination as denying the request on the ground that “any records responsive to your request are categorically exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(5); (b)(6); (b)(7)(A); (b)(7)(C); (b)(7)(E); and (b)(7)(F)”. As to (b)(7)(A), the declaration says, the Bureau advised the requester that the exemption “was temporarily utilized ‘to protect active and on-going law enforcement proceedings.’”1

The appeal was decided against the newspaper. The Office of Information Policy’s letter of March 5, 2020, addressed to Alexandra Perloff-Giles of The New York Times Company under Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2020-000123, affirms the Bureau’s action “on partly modified grounds” and states that the “BOP properly withheld this information in full because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) and it is reasonably foreseeable that disclosure of this information would harm the interests protected by this provision”. A footnote on the same page records that, having decided the matter under Exemption 7(A), the office did not adjudicate the other exemptions the Bureau had cited. The letter is signed by Matthew W. Hurd, Acting Chief of the Administrative Appeals Staff.1213

The appeal was therefore decided on Exemption 7(A) alone, which the letter describes as concerning “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings”.12 The same declaration is cited on Epstein video evidence for what the Bureau swore about the camera footage.

A partial release, and processing that continued

The categorical denial and the appeal that affirmed it were not the end of the request. Under the same request number, in the same litigation, the Bureau went on to process and release some of the records it had told Ms. Ivory it need not even search for.

On June 22, 2020 the Bureau’s Central Office wrote to her again, under the caption “NY Times, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. / Civil No. 20-cv-833 / FOIA Request No. 2019-05665”: “Attached, please find the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) release of the first set of records responsive to the above captioned case and corresponding FOIA Request No. 2019-05665. After careful review of the first set of records, we have determined 10 pages are available for release in full; 9 pages are available for release in part; 1 page is duplicative and 434 pages must be withheld in their entirety.” The letter cites the same exemptions as the September 2019 denial, adding (b)(7)(B), and closes over the signature of Kara Christenson, the same Government Information Specialist whose declaration is quoted above, signing for Supervisory Attorney Eugene E. Baime.2

Processing continued into 2021. A supplemental declaration of Russell Capone, Counsel to the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, filed January 15, 2021 in the same case, describes further withholdings “from the records provided back to BOP by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (‘OIG’) since the submission of my August 5, 2020, declaration”, assessed under Exemption 7(A) as bearing on the pending prosecution the declaration calls Noel.15

So the categorical denial of September 2019 and the appeal that affirmed it in March 2020 describe legal grounds asserted and upheld; they are not the whole of what the Bureau did with the request. Records were released, in full and in part, fifteen and a half weeks after the appeal was decided, and the government was still describing categories of withheld material in a declaration filed some seventeen months after the two requests were received in August 2019.

The docket in the release for this litigation runs to Document 62, filed and so-ordered June 24, 2021, and to that point the record shows the withholding did not stand as described. On April 12, 2021, after argument, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held that “the BOP’s declarations in support of those withholdings do not provide sufficient detail for the Court to discern which documents implicate which prosecution, or, for at least some of the withheld documents, the ‘rational link’ between the categories of documents withheld and any likely interference with each case,” and directed the Bureau to provide the withheld records to the Court for in camera review.16 On May 4, 2021 the government reported its first in camera production, 987 pages, and said that in reviewing it “the Government reviewed certain records in the production and determined that they could be released with appropriate redactions.”17 On June 23, 2021 the government told the Court that Judge Torres had entered deferred prosecution agreements as to both defendants in United States v. Noel, the prosecution the January 2021 declaration had named as the basis for the exemption, and that a revised production to the Times was pending the government’s review of the defendants’ compliance with those agreements.18

That is where the record in the release ends: not a final accounting of what the Bureau withheld, but a court finding its own withholding declarations insufficient, a further production the government itself found releasable, and the collapse of the prosecution that had been the sole basis asserted for the exemption. The release does not show how the case was finally resolved.

The Marshals Service asks the prison directly

Not every request for these records was a FOIA request. On the evening of November 5, 2019 a Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York wrote to the Metropolitan Correctional Center:

Our Prisoner Operations Division in Headquarters is requesting any reports prepared in the investigation surrounding the death of EPSTEIN. They are requesting the information by tomorrow 11/6/2019- I apologize for the short notice, but can you please provide me with the reports prepared by BOP.3

The reply that evening, from a correspondent whose name is blacked out, was “I have forwarded your request to the legal department for a response. I’ll get back to you in the morning.”11 The answer came at 8:07 the next morning:

The guidance provided indicates this is an active and on-going investigation and as such the institution has not prepared a report for release on behalf of the BOP. You may be able to submit a request directly to the bureau’s Headquarters (Central Office) or to OIG and the FBI, who are involved in this matter.11

The message then gave the contact details of the Bureau’s own FOIA/Privacy Act Section in the Office of General Counsel.11 So one component of the Department, asking another for a report by the following day, was answered that the investigation was open, that the institution had prepared no report for release, and that it could apply to other offices or through the Freedom of Information Act.

An FBI file section, and the requester it was reviewed for

The FBI’s form 17-1 is the sheet that records, at the front of a file section, that the section has been reviewed for release. One such sheet in the release states that it covers documents “reviewed under the provisions of The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Title 5, United States Code, Section 552); Privacy Act of 1974 (PA) (Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a); and/or Litigation”. Of its three boxes, the FOIA/PA box is checked and the boxes for Litigation and for Executive Order Applied are not.9

The fields beneath name the requester as Martin Weinberg and the subject as Jeffrey Epstein, give the computer or case identification number as 1203982-1, the file as 31E-MM-108062-1A11 at Section 1, and the serials reviewed as “All”. The sheet carries a handwritten scanning date of 10·1·15 and a last serial of 1A11, and the instruction that it “IS TO BE MAINTAINED AS THE TOP SERIAL OF THE FILE, BUT NOT SERIALIZED.”9

The requester it names, Martin Weinberg, made that request himself. On November 27, 2012 he wrote to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section “on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein,” seeking FBI, Department of Justice and field-office records about Epstein from January 1, 2000 to November 25, 2012.4 The Bureau denied the request in full on December 6, 2012, under the same exemption, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), that the Bureau of Prisons would later cite against the Times.5 Weinberg appealed on December 12, arguing that any FBI investigation of his client had ended by mid-2010 and that the exemption could not be applied wholesale.6 The Department’s Office of Information Policy acknowledged the appeal on January 17, 2013, as Appeal No. AP-2013-01397,20 and on March 29, 2013 remanded the request, holding that Exemption 7(A) “is no longer applicable to withhold the records in full” and that the FBI would “process and send all releasable records” to Weinberg directly.7 The FBI reopened the request under the number 1203982-001 on April 25, 2013,21 and on June 18, 2013 estimated approximately 11,084 pages potentially responsive.22 Releases followed in stages: 195 of 1,299 pages reviewed on January 20, 2016; 114 of 2,149 pages reviewed on June 28, 2016; 674 of 6,277 pages reviewed on May 10, 2017; and 626 of 4,103 pages reviewed on August 2, 2017.8 The 17-1 sheet’s own scanning date, October 1, 2015, falls inside this run, between the fee estimate and the first of the four staged releases. The release does not carry a letter closing the request out, and nothing else in the run behind the sheet itself is cited on this page.

Limits of this page

These documents record who asked for Epstein records, what each component answered, including, for the Bureau of Prisons, a later partial release and continued withholding under the same request number, and where the answer sent the requester next. The docket in the release for the Bureau of Prisons litigation runs to June 24, 2021, and the FBI’s response letters to the Weinberg request run to August 2, 2017; beyond those points, none of the material still withheld is described or reproduced here. A checked exemption box, a categorical denial, a partial release described only by its page counts, and an appeal decision are legal actions and figures recorded here; they are not descriptions of the withheld records’ own contents.

What the FBI’s own response letters said to its own requesters, including the exemptions checked on each and what those letters record about consulting another agency, is a separate record and is on FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records. Release under the 2025 statute is governed by different provisions and is the subject of the Act’s own page.

Citations to the run at EFTA01687991 are pinned to the three pages used and no other page of it is cited here. The same is true of the run behind the FBI file sheet, where only the sheet itself is cited.

Names blacked out in these documents stay blacked out here, and no description is given of a person these documents decline to identify beyond what the cited pages themselves show.

FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records; Epstein Files Transparency Act; Epstein video evidence; Death of Jeffrey Epstein; Withheld government records; Document redaction integrity; Epstein investigations overview.

Footnotes

  1. Christenson declaration, paragraphs 7 and 8, stating the consolidation as FOIA Request 2019-05665, the determination of September 23, 2019 that “any records responsive to your request are categorically exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(5); (b)(6); (b)(7)(A); (b)(7)(C); (b)(7)(E); and (b)(7)(F)”, and the appeal outcome. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00015361 p.4. The enumerated request items are at pp.2-4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Bureau of Prisons Central Office to Danielle Ivory, June 22, 2020, under the same litigation caption and FOIA Request No. 2019-05665, stating “we have determined 10 pages are available for release in full; 9 pages are available for release in part; 1 page is duplicative and 434 pages must be withheld in their entirety,” signed for Supervisory Attorney Eugene E. Baime by Kara Christenson. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00030476 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Email of November 5, 2019, 18:45, over a sign-off reading “Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal / Southern District of New York”, beginning “Our Prisoner Operations Division in Headquarters is requesting any reports prepared in the investigation surrounding the death of EPSTEIN.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687991 p.37. ↩ ↩2

  4. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, November 27, 2012, “This Request is submitted by undersigned counsel on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein” (p.1), seeking records “created from January 1, 2000 to November 25, 2012” (p.2). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01102433 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  5. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Martin G. Weinberg, December 6, 2012, “FOIPA Request No.: 1203982,” stating “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01102305 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  6. Martin G. Weinberg to the Office of Information Policy, December 12, 2012, “This is a timely appeal … concerning the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s … denial of a request for records,” asserting that “any ongoing F.B.I. investigation ended either on or about June 30, 2008 or no later than July of 2010.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00622700 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  7. Office of Information Policy to Martin G. Weinberg, March 29, 2013, holding that Exemption 7(A) “is no longer applicable to withhold the records in full” and that “the FBI will process and send all releasable records to you directly.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00605485 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  8. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Martin G. Weinberg, under FOIPA Request No. 1203982-001: January 20, 2016, “1299 pages were reviewed and 195 pages are being released” (https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00590006 p.1); June 28, 2016, “2,149 pages were reviewed and 114 pages are being released” (https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00589965 p.1); May 10, 2017, “6277 page(s) were reviewed and 674 page(s) are being released” (https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00619601 p.1); August 2, 2017, “4,103 page(s) were reviewed and 626 page(s) are being released” (https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00608312 p.1). ↩ ↩2

  9. FBI form 17-1 (Rev. 1-05-2015), “ATTENTION”, naming Martin Weinberg as requester and Jeffrey Epstein as subject, with computer or case identification number 1203982-1, file 31E-MM-108062-1A11, serials reviewed “All”, and the FOIA/PA box checked. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01690353 p.1. That page alone is cited here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Bureau of Prisons internal email of December 20, 2019, from a paralegal and Senior Government Information Specialist in the Office of General Counsel, FOIA/Privacy Act Section, opening “I handle all Epstein related FOIA requests.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687991 p.29. A printed withholding slip crosses three lines of the message, and only the words legible beneath it are quoted here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  11. Reply thread of November 5 and 6, 2019, carrying “I have forwarded your request to the legal department for a response” and, the following morning, “The guidance provided indicates this is an active and on-going investigation and as such the institution has not prepared a report for release on behalf of the BOP.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01687991 p.26. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  12. Office of Information Policy to counsel for The New York Times Company, Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2020-000123, affirming “on partly modified grounds” and finding that “BOP properly withheld this information in full because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)”. Filed as Dkt. 24-4 in the same case. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00015361 p.50. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. The same letter’s closing page, dated 3/5/2020 over the signature block of Matthew W. Hurd, Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Staff. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00015361 p.51. ↩ ↩2

  14. Declaration of Kara Christenson, Government Information Specialist, Federal Bureau of Prisons, The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:20-cv-00833 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 24, filed August 5, 2020, first page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00015361 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  15. Supplemental Declaration of Russell Capone, Counsel to the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:20-cv-00833 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 40, filed January 15, 2021, describing withholdings “from the records provided back to BOP by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (‘OIG’) since the submission of my August 5, 2020, declaration,” assessed under Exemption 7(A) as bearing on the pending prosecution the declaration calls Noel. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00031018 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  16. Order of Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:20-cv-00833 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 45, filed April 12, 2021, holding that “the BOP’s declarations in support of those withholdings do not provide sufficient detail for the Court to discern which documents implicate which prosecution, or, for at least some of the withheld documents, the ‘rational link’ between the categories of documents withheld and any likely interference with each case,” and directing the Bureau to provide the withheld records to the Court for in camera review. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00103416 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  17. USAO-SDNY to Judge Engelmayer, same case, Dkt. 55, filed May 4, 2021, transmitting “the Government’s first in camera production,” 987 pages, and stating “the Government reviewed certain records in the production and determined that they could be released with appropriate redactions.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080423 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  18. USAO-SDNY to Judge Engelmayer, same case, Dkt. 62, letter dated June 23, 2021 and so-ordered June 24, 2021, reporting that “Judge Torres entered deferred prosecution agreements as to both defendants in United States v. Noel, 19 Cr. 830 (AT)” and that the government “anticipates needing up to an additional week … to complete its review of defendants’ compliance with the deferred prosecution agreements before making its revised production to the Times.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00097626 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  19. Bureau of Prisons Central Office to Danielle Ivory, September 23, 2019, “Request Number: 2019-05665”, stating “After a thorough review of your request, we have determined that any records responsive to your request are categorically exempt from disclosure. Accordingly, this Office is not required to conduct a search for the requested records,” and, on Exemption 7(A): “Please note, exemption (b)(7)(A) is a temporary exemption utilized to protect active and on-going law enforcement proceedings. Because of its temporary nature, you may wish to consider refiling your request for records in the future.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00023431 p.1. ↩

  20. Office of Information Policy to Martin G. Weinberg, January 17, 2013, acknowledging the appeal as “number AP-2013-01397.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00616114 p.1. ↩

  21. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Martin G. Weinberg, April 25, 2013, “Your request has been re-opened under the FOIA number listed above.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00621873 p.1. ↩

  22. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Martin G. Weinberg, June 18, 2013, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has located approximately 11,084 pages of records potentially responsive to the subject of your request.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00600048 p.1. ↩

Backlinks