Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Files Post-Preliminary Hearing Status Report on Discovery (Part 1) (8/30/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Files Post-Preliminary Hearing Status Report on Discovery (Part 1) (8/30/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we have a new filing from Tyler Robinson
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: that has to do with Discovery and the amount of
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: information that the state has already handed over is massive.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: So let's just dive right into the document and see
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: what's what. State of Utah Plaintiff vs. Tyler James Robinson
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Defendant Defendant Tyler James Robinson's Post-Preliminary Hearing Status Report Concerning
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Discovery Case number 251403576. Introduction. Over the recent months, the
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: court has inquired of the state at each hearing in
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: this matter concerning the status of discovery. The state typically
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: informs the court that it has passed on to Mr.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Robinson's defense team all or a vast majority of the
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: discovery that it has received from the Utah State Bureau
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: of Investigation. The purpose of this post-prelim hearing status report
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: concerning discovery is to provide the court, with a more comprehensive,
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: and nuanced understanding, of the scale of discovery, in this matter.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: The work that must be done, by members of the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: defense team, to convert raw discovery productions, into material, that
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: can be meaningfully, and efficiently reviewed, by counsel, and other
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: members of the defense team, and the current status of
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: that work. For purposes of this status report, the discovery,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: that has actually been produced to date, by the state
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: is divided, into three categories, although, As the court will
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: see below, there is an overlap between them. The first category,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: which is designated here, is Documentary, Forensic, and Miscellaneous Digital Evidence.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Includes inter alia, law enforcement reports, laboratory reports, and related
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: forensic material, law enforcement body camera recordings, handwritten notes, audio
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: and video recording of investigation, and of interviews with witnesses,
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: crime scene diagrams, and other diagrams. surveillance video from public
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: and private entities and persons, background and investigation reports, scene photographs,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: photographs of the execution of searches, search warrant applications, affidavits,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: and non-digital returns, evidence logs, photographs of seized evidence, medical reports,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: and other miscellaneous documents and digital files. The second category
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: which is designated here, as digital evidence requiring specialized processing
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and analysis, includes copies more properly designated as images of
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the entire contents of the seized devices such as telephones, tablets, computers,
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: external hard drives, and other memory devices, native files of
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: stored communication, and other data obtained via search warrants from
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: cellular and telephone companies, cellular tower owners, and social media companies.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: The third category, which is designated as forensic discovery addresses
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: data and materials requested from the state that it has
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: not yet provided and which the FBI and ATF may
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: not produce absent in order of this court directing them
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: to do so. While there is nothing in the Utah
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Rules of Evidence that distinguishes between the three categories of
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: discovery denominated above, it is, in counsel's view, a useful
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: conceptual way for counsel and the court to understand the
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: scope and complexity of the evidence in the case. 1. Documentary, forensic,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: and miscellaneous digital evidence. On March 27th, 2026, Mr. Robinson
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: filed a motion to vacate or continue the preliminary hearing.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Docket 466 attached to that filing, as addendum 1, was
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: a declaration of Richard G. Novak with exhibits outlining the
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: status of discovery at that point in time, noting that
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: as of March 18th, 2026, the defense had received 25
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: discovery productions from the state via the Axon platform, consisting
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: of 19,612 files. See Docket 466, Addendum 1, Example B.
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: Since March 18, 2026, the state has continued to produce
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: new batches of discovery on a regular basis, consisting of
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: an additional 9,625 files, with the most recent production being
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: August 18th, for a total of 29,237 files, received over
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: 45 separate productions to date. See Exhibit A attached here too.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: In order to disseminate discovery to counsel and other members
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: of the defense team in a timely manner, and to
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: support meaningful and efficient review of the content, the defense
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: paralegal follows a three-step protocol for organizing the disclosure, which
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: includes 1. downloading the production via Axon and confirming completeness,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: initial organization per UCAO categorization and logging of discovery production
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: in order to make it available for prelim review by
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: council and the defense team. Two, top-level processing, which includes
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: OCR checking, searchability of files, editing file names with descriptive information,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: including assigned Bates number, splitting, combining files where necessary, identifying duplicates,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: bait stamping, and indexing files with basic coding to include baits,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: UCAO category date, brief description, and file type. And three,
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: conducting a thorough review of each file to add more
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: detailed coding, including authors, witnesses, organizations, evidence items, other relevant content,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: as well as a brief summary of the file, and
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to further identify duplicates and missing files. As of August 26, 2026,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: step one, has been completed on 100% of the disclosure
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: received to date. Step 2 has been completed on approximately
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: 23% of the disclosures, 6,643 files. Step 3 has been
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: completed on approximately 20% of the disclosures, 5,759 files. While
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the defense has been diligently working its way through the disclosures,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: it's an inherently time-consuming process that is, in this instance,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: further complicated and slowed by a number of factors, including
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the way in which much of the discovery is produced
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: by SBI, some of the limitations of the Axon platform
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: by which it's shared, and the sheer volume of law
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: enforcement agencies involved in the investigation. Use of Axon as
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: a discovery review platform is not a tenable option for
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: the defense. Therefore, it's necessary to download each discovery production
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: from Axon and preliminarily organize it in a manner that
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: is quickly accessible to the defense team. This is a
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: time-consuming multi-step process. Productions download through multiple compressed zip files
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: that need to be unzipped. Depending upon the size and
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: file types, this step alone can take several hours to
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: complete for a single production. The task is complicated when
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: there are duplicate file names for distinctively different files, which
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: is the case for thousands of files produced to date,
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: mostly image and video files. Because none of the original
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: file names include the Bates number, when there are duplicate
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: file names, within the same production, additional care must be
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: taken to ensure that each file is being associated to
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: the correct corresponding Bates number once it has been downloaded. Additionally,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: although UCAO categorizes the discovery in Axon, by assigning the
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: files to various folders, Axon only displays the immediate folder
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: in which a file is assigned. If the file is
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: in a subfolder, the Axon table only displays the subfolder
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: and there is no way to determine the parent folder
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: or full path without making educated guesses and opening individual
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: folders to attempt to locate the file. While this doesn't
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: affect being able to access and download the file within
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: the dated production folder, it does affect being able to
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: ascertain UC AO's categorization of the file. Another circumstance often
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: slowing the process is that the format of many of
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: the files provided do not allow for straightforward OCR processing
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to make the text searchable. Our paralegal has found this
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: to be the case in almost every production that has
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: contained a significant number of PDF documents. This means that
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: although our paralegal batch runs the productions for text recognition,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: every file must be checked individually to ensure that it's searchable.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: Files that do not properly OCR must be individually reformatted
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: by the paralegal to accept the OCR. Related to the
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: importance of every file being text scheduled are the numerous
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: handwritten witness statements and law enforcement officer investigative notes. These
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: must also be handled individually to ensure the contents will
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: be recognized in a searchable keyword database. The way in
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: which SBI provides the material to UCAO also slows the
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: review process. Many of the files provided by SBI do
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: not contain any identifying information as to what the file is,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: who or what it might relate to, and how or
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: when the file was obtained or by whom. And many
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: documents reference attachments or corresponding files that are not actually
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: provided in the same production as the parent file, i.e.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: emails or law enforcement reports with attachments. Although the categorization
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: done by the UCAO team can be very helpful in
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: answering some of these questions for portions of the material,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: many questions remain, requiring the defense to conduct additional time-consuming
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: but necessary review process in order to a. attempt to
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: further identify the material by cross-referencing other items in discovery
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: and or b. prepare a comprehensive discovery request for items
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: confirmed to be missing or for supplementary information as to
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: the files unable to be identified. The above examples are
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: not intended to be criticisms directed at UCAO, SBI, or Axon,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: as every discovery organization project comes with its own challenges,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: but are instead meant to explain to the court the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: challenges specific to this case and how they affect the
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: pace at which the discovery process is progressing. Right folks,
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right there, and in the
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.