Epstein’s April 2019 Request to Research Saudi 9/11 Litigation
Snapshot
| Field | Verified scope |
|---|---|
| Document | A one page email attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and addressed to Darren Indyke. |
| Displayed date | Sunday, April 7, 2019, 2:35 PM. The header does not show a time zone. |
| Sender label | The page displays “J” as the sender name, beside an Epstein associated email account. |
| Research request | Use Westlaw to look into litigation involving a firm spelled “cozzens,” Saudi Arabia and insurers’ September 11 claims. |
| Source identifiers | EFTA02633795 and EFTA_R1_01857857, both on PDF page 1. |
| Release provenance | The examined PDF matches the official DOJ Data Set 11 file byte for byte. |
| Likely firm | Cozen O’Connor, a strong contextual inference supported by separate litigation records, not the name printed in this email. |
| Visible outcome | No reply, research findings, investigator engagement or interview record is included. |
On April 7, 2019, an email attributed to Jeffrey Epstein asked Darren Indyke to research litigation involving Saudi Arabia and insurance companies’ September 11 claims. The message named Westlaw and a law firm spelled “cozzens.” It is a dated record of a research instruction, with a brief and ambiguous reference to possible investigative activity. Email, PDF page 1, EFTA02633795.
The description closely fits Cozen O’Connor’s documented role as counsel for insurers in the September 11 litigation. That identification comes from comparing the email with external records. The email does not supply a case number, explain Epstein’s interest or show what Indyke did next. Its value lies in the specific request it preserves, rather than any demonstrated outcome.
What the email asks Indyke to do
The substantive message occupies two lines near the top of the page. It opens with “go on westlaw,” describes litigation against Saudi Arabia, refers to a law firm’s representation of insurers and asks Indyke to “see what you find.” The wording supports a request to consult a legal research service about an existing dispute. It does not specify a legal issue, particular filing, deadline or desired conclusion. Email, PDF page 1, EFTA02633795, message body.
The header names Darren Indyke as the recipient. The displayed sender name is “J,” rather than Epstein’s full name. This guide attributes the message to Epstein through the associated account context while preserving that distinction. The displayed time is 2:35 PM on Sunday, April 7, 2019. Because no time zone appears, the timestamp should not be converted to UTC or used to place either participant in a particular location. Email, PDF page 1, EFTA02633795, header.
No subject line or earlier exchange is displayed. The one page file contains the message, a confidentiality footer and export information, but no response. It therefore provides no basis for saying that Indyke completed the research or agreed to a particular course of action.
Why Cozen O’Connor is the likely reference
The spelling “cozzens” is not a full or accurate firm name. Cozen O’Connor is a strong contextual match because the firm, the defendant and the insurer representation all fit independently documented litigation. The firm’s 9/11 litigation overview says it filed suit in the Southern District of New York in 2003 for dozens of insurers that had paid claims arising from the attacks. It identifies the consolidated proceeding as In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03-MDL-1570.
A court record supplies a separate check. Page 1 of the Second Circuit’s December 19, 2013 opinion identifies Federal Insurance Company and other plaintiffs opposite the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Page 2 lists Stephen A. Cozen and Cozen O’Connor among counsel for the plaintiffs. This confirms the insurer, Saudi defendant and law firm combination without relying solely on the firm’s own description. Second Circuit opinion, PDF pages 1 and 2.
The email’s shorthand should not turn the law firm into the plaintiff. In the cited opinion, the named plaintiffs are Federal Insurance Company and others; Cozen O’Connor appears as counsel. Nor does the contextual match establish which case, motion or branch of the larger proceeding Epstein wanted examined. The case number above belongs to the corroborating litigation record, not to the email.
Two dated sources also show that this was an established litigation subject before April 2019. Supreme Court docket 13-1146 records the denial of a petition for review on June 30, 2014, following the December 2013 appellate decision. A March 29, 2018 Cozen O’Connor announcement describes a ruling allowing claims against Saudi Arabia to proceed and identifies Sean Carter as an attorney for the plaintiffs. These sources provide historical context, not evidence that Epstein had a role in the cases.
The investigator and interview fragment
Immediately after the research instruction, the message contains a fragment referring to investigators and interviews. Its grammar and damaged text do not yield a reliable account of a proposed assignment. No investigator, interview subject, budget, timetable or objective is identified. The page also does not explain how the fragment relates to the preceding litigation request. Email, PDF page 1, EFTA02633795, second line of the message body.
Visible encoding artifacts interrupt words in both the message and the footer. These artifacts appear in the official PDF as well as the examined copy. They should be preserved when quoting the source, rather than silently repaired into a more definite instruction. The fragment cannot establish that anyone was hired, contacted, questioned or interviewed.
Official release provenance and page identifiers
The source is the DOJ Data Set 11 PDF EFTA02633795. On October 22, 2026, the copy examined for this guide was compared with the PDF downloaded from that official address. Both files contained 52,110 bytes and had the same SHA-256 checksum; direct comparison confirmed that they were identical. This resolves the exact file’s release provenance. October 22 is the comparison date, not a claimed release date or the date of the email.
The page carries two identifiers, EFTA02633795 and EFTA_R1_01857857. Both refer to the single sheet discussed here. The independent document index for EFTA02633795 also identifies the file and reproduces matching text. The official download, rather than the index alone, is the basis for the provenance statement.
A match to an official release establishes which document was published by DOJ. It does not establish the truth of every statement in the email, supply missing correspondence or constitute a judicial finding about the participants. The underlying email’s full technical headers and surrounding conversation are not included in this one page PDF.
What the document adds to the record
The email adds a specific research request to the record of communications between Epstein and Indyke. It identifies a date, recipient, research platform and litigation topic. Readers can place that discrete instruction alongside the broader Darren Indyke source guide without treating it as a complete account of their legal work.
The unresolved questions are concrete: why Epstein wanted the research, which filing or issue he had in mind, whether Indyke responded and whether any work followed. Answering them would require additional correspondence, a research memorandum, an engagement record or another source that actually documents the next step. None appears in this file.
The email supplies no evidence that Epstein participated in the September 11 attacks, represented any litigant or directed the insurers’ litigation. It likewise supplies no finding of misconduct by Indyke or Cozen O’Connor. The supported conclusion is narrower: a released email records a request to look into litigation whose description is consistent with Cozen O’Connor’s insurer cases against Saudi Arabia.
Sources
- DOJ Data Set 11, EFTA02633795, PDF page 1. Primary email; also marked EFTA_R1_01857857.
- Independent index for EFTA02633795. Secondary locator and text cross check.
- Cozen O’Connor, 9/11 Litigation. Firm description of insurer representation and the consolidated proceeding.
- Second Circuit opinion, December 19, 2013, PDF pages 1 and 2. Court caption and counsel identification.
- Supreme Court docket 13-1146. Procedural dates and June 30, 2014 petition denial.
- Cozen O’Connor announcement, March 29, 2018. Dated context preceding the email.