| Field | Extracted content |
|---|---|
| Subject (from surrounding text) | RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish |
| From (visible) | [redacted] (USANYS) |
| To (visible) | Multiple recipients; visible organization tags include (NY)(FBI), (USANYS), (NYPD) |
| Redaction note | Names/addresses heavily redacted with black boxes; only org tags are visible |

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - RE: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 19:05:19 +0000

Thanks very much to you both.

Key information from the image:

*   **Subject:** Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish (email chain)
*   Email exchange between FBI (NY) and USANYS and NYPD
*   Emails are related to a "RE" and "FW" email regarding the Subject above.
*   Dates: December 28, 2020. Sent at 10:58 AM, 12:04 PM, and 1:57 PM
*   FBI agent in the New York Field Office agrees with the contents.

See below. I do not think we can justify seeking extended sealing at this point, but let me know if you all disagree. The warrant materials are attached for reference.

Email about Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish

| Field     | Value                                  |
| --------- | -------------------------------------- |
| From      | redacted (USANH)                      |
| Sent      | Wednesday, December 23, 2020 2:42 PM |
| To        | redacted (USANYS)                      |
| Cc        | redacted (USANH)                      |
| Subject   | FW: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish      |


a, do you need the seal on the DNH triggerfish warrant extended?

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Mr.

From: <empty> (USANH) <empty>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 10:20 AM
To: <empty> (USANH) <empty>
Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell Triggerfish

EFTA00015880

The seal on this triggerfish is set to expire soon.

Am I correct in assuming we can go ahead and let this lapse?

EFTA00015881