1034-00001 · Graystone & Falk LLP · Document Review & Production

review-protocol-search-term-memorandum.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

14 / 36 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

FROM: Daniel Obi, Associate, Banking & Finance Practice Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

TO: Conrad Ashby, Partner, White Collar & Investigations Bernard Crawford, Partner (Responsible Partner) Lisa Morrow, Associate, Banking & Finance

DATE: December 14, 2022

RE: Document Review Protocol, Search Methodology, and Keyword Terms — Grand Jury Subpoena Response, Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481 (S.D.N.Y.)

CLIENT: Jonathan R. Caldwell

MATTER NO.: 1034-00001

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared in anticipation of litigation and in furtherance of the provision of legal advice to the client. It contains the mental impressions, legal theories, strategies, and analyses of counsel. Do not distribute outside the engagement team without prior authorization from Conrad Ashby. Any unauthorized disclosure may constitute a waiver of applicable privileges.

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MEMORANDUM

The purpose of this memorandum is to establish a comprehensive, defensible document review protocol governing the review of approximately 14,200 documents (approximately 8.3 gigabytes of data) collected from custodian sources in connection with the response to the grand jury subpoena issued on November 18, 2022, by Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481, sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The subpoena was served on our client, Jonathan R. Caldwell, on November 21, 2022. This memorandum is intended to serve as the governing reference document for all members of the engagement team throughout the review and production process, and to ensure that the firm's response to the subpoena is conducted in a manner that is thorough, consistent, and defensible.

Specifically, this memorandum sets forth the following:

(a) the custodian and data source inventory, identifying all sources from which documents have been collected;

(b) the date filters to be applied to the collected document population;

(d) the multi-pass review workflow, consisting of a first-pass responsiveness review, a second-pass privilege review, and a third-pass quality control and senior review;

(e) the full specification of coding categories and fields to be populated for each document during the review process;

(f) quality-control and sampling procedures designed to ensure accuracy and consistency of reviewer determinations;

(g) production specifications, including format, Bates stamping conventions, and delivery protocols; and

(h) additional matters relating to the rolling production schedule, document security, team roles and responsibilities, and post-production preservation.

The document review will be conducted on the hosted review platform provided by Clearpath Document Solutions Inc. The Clearpath project manager assigned to this matter is Raj K. Anand, and the Clearpath offices are located at 15 Maiden Lane, Suite 800, New York, NY 10038. The engagement of Clearpath is governed by the vendor engagement letter and statement of work dated December 9, 2022, copies of which are maintained in the matter file.

This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the companion Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum prepared by Conrad Ashby, also dated December 14, 2022, which sets forth detailed guidance governing privilege-specific determinations, including the identification and treatment of attorney-client privileged communications, work product materials, and related issues. Where a question arises that is addressed in the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum, that document controls on privilege matters. Where a question arises regarding the overall review workflow, coding, or production process, this document controls.

All members of the engagement team are expected to familiarize themselves with this memorandum in its entirety before commencing any review activity. Any questions regarding the application of this protocol should be directed to Daniel Obi or Conrad Ashby.

II. SUBPOENA SCOPE SUMMARY (FOR REVIEWER REFERENCE)

This section provides a summary of the scope and demands of the grand jury subpoena for the reference of all reviewers. Reviewers should refer to this section throughout the review process to ensure that responsiveness determinations are made with a clear understanding of the subpoena's requirements.

A. Issuing Authority

The subpoena was issued by Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481, sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The matter is being handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and the assigned Assistant United States Attorney is Miriam T. Goldfarb of the Complex Frauds & Cybercrime Unit.

B. Persons and Entities Identified

The subpoena demands all documents and communications between Jonathan R. Caldwell and the following individuals and entities:

(i) Marcus W. Stavros;

(ii) Any Aegean Realty Partners LLC entity, including but not limited to all affiliated funds, subsidiaries, and special purpose vehicles;

(iii) Westlake Fidelity Bank, N.A.; and

(iv) Harborview Trust Company.

C. Date Range

The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021, inclusive.

D. Subject Matter Categories

The subpoena identifies four specific subject matter categories of documents and communications to be produced:

(a) Any real estate investment, co-investment, or syndication involving Aegean Realty Partners or its affiliated funds;

(b) Any loan, financing arrangement, or capital raise involving properties in which Caldwell and Stavros had a direct or indirect interest;

(d) Any transfer or movement of funds between accounts held or controlled by Caldwell and accounts held or controlled by Stavros or any Aegean Realty entity.

Reviewers should note that these categories are broad and should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the subpoena's plain language. When in doubt as to whether a document falls within the scope of one or more categories, the reviewer should err on the side of inclusion and, if necessary, escalate the document for senior review.

E. Testimonial Component

The subpoena also included a testimonial component requiring Mr. Caldwell's appearance before the grand jury. By agreement reached during the telephone conference of December 12, 2022, between Conrad Ashby and AUSA Goldfarb, the testimonial component has been deferred pending completion of the document production. This deferral does not affect the document production obligations addressed in this memorandum.

F. Return Date and Extensions

The original return date specified in the subpoena was December 9, 2022. On December 8, 2022, AUSA Goldfarb granted a first extension of the return date to January 20, 2023. Additionally, the parties agreed during the December 12, 2022 telephone conference that document production would proceed on a rolling basis, with the initial production due on January 20, 2023, and subsequent productions to follow on a schedule to be discussed further as the review progresses. The specific rolling production schedule is set forth in Section XI of this memorandum.

III. CUSTODIANS AND DATA SOURCES

This section provides a comprehensive inventory of all custodians and data sources from which documents have been collected for purposes of the subpoena response. Documents were collected from two principal custodians: (1) Mr. Caldwell individually, and (2) Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC, Mr. Caldwell's investment advisory firm.

A. Primary Custodian: Jonathan R. Caldwell

The following data sources have been collected from Mr. Caldwell in his individual capacity:

1. Personal Email Account: jrc@caldwellcap.com

A full mailbox export has been performed for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021. The export includes all mail folders, specifically including sent items, inbox, archived folders, deleted items (to the extent recoverable from the mail server), and drafts. This email account was Mr. Caldwell's primary means of electronic communication during the relevant period, and it is expected to contain the largest volume of potentially responsive documents. The mailbox export was performed by Clearpath Document Solutions under forensic protocols to ensure the integrity and completeness of the data.

2. Personal Mobile Device

A forensic backup image of Mr. Caldwell's personal mobile phone (an Ashbury Corporation 13 Pro, serial number redacted in this memorandum for security purposes) was created by Clearpath Document Solutions on December 5, 2022. The extraction captured text messages (SMS and Westmark Software), messaging application data (including Meridian Services Inc. and Signal, to the extent that data was retained on the device), photographs and screenshots with associated metadata, and call logs. Only data falling within the January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 date range was loaded into the review platform, although it should be noted that the device was acquired in 2021 and therefore contains limited data from the earlier years of the relevant period. Mr. Caldwell has confirmed that he used prior personal mobile devices during the 2014–2020 period; those devices are no longer in his possession, and data from them is not available.

3. Physical Files — Residence

Paper documents from Mr. Caldwell's home office at 1140 Park Avenue, Apartment 14C, New York, NY 10128 were identified, inventoried, and scanned by the engagement team between December 2, 2022 and December 6, 2022. The physical files include correspondence, handwritten notes, printed agreements, account statements, financial reports, and other materials related to Mr. Caldwell's dealings with Stavros and Aegean Realty entities. The scanned images were loaded into the Clearpath platform in TIFF format with OCR text overlays to permit keyword searching. The original physical documents are stored in the firm's secure document room at 450 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022.

4. Physical Files — Office

Paper documents from Mr. Caldwell's office at Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC, 590 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 were similarly identified, inventoried, and scanned during the same period. These files include business correspondence, printed investment memoranda, executed agreements, and related documents pertaining to Mr. Caldwell's professional activities involving Aegean Realty entities. These documents were processed in the same manner as the residence files described above.

B. Entity-Level Custodian: Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC

The following data sources have been collected from Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC ("CCA"):

5. Shared Drive / Network Files

The CCA shared drive located on the firm's network server at 590 Madison Avenue was imaged by Clearpath Document Solutions under forensic protocols on December 3, 2022. The shared drive contains fund-related correspondence, investment memoranda, subscription documents, capital call notices, distribution notices, quarterly reports, and financial statements relating to Aegean Realty Fund III LP, Aegean Realty Fund IV LP, and Aegean Realty Fund V LP. It also contains general business files of CCA that may reference Stavros, Aegean Realty, or the identified financial institutions. Files falling within the date range were extracted and loaded into the review platform.

6. Accounting Records

Relevant accounting entries, wire transfer confirmations, and bank statements from CCA's accounting files were collected. These records reflect transfers to and from Aegean Realty entities, as well as investment activity in the Aegean Realty funds. The accounting records were maintained in Drayton Health IT and in physical bank statement files; both electronic and physical records were collected and loaded into the review platform.

C. Data Collection Summary

The following summarizes the overall data collection:

• Total documents collected: Approximately 14,200

• Total data volume processed by Clearpath Document Solutions: Approximately 8.3 gigabytes

• Collection methodology: All electronic data was collected under forensic protocols by Clearpath Document Solutions, including the use of forensic imaging tools to ensure bit-for-bit accuracy of the data. All physical documents were scanned using high-resolution scanners with OCR processing.

• Chain of custody: Chain-of-custody documentation has been maintained for all data sources and is on file with the engagement team and with Clearpath Document Solutions.

• De-duplication: Exact de-duplication was performed at the custodian level using MD5 hash values prior to loading the document population into the review platform. This ensures that identical copies of the same document appearing within a single custodian's data sources are not duplicated in the review population, while preserving instances where the same document appears across different custodians (which may be relevant for context and completeness purposes).

IV. DATE FILTERS

A. Hard Date Filter

A hard date filter of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 has been applied to the collected document population, matching the date range specified in the subpoena. Documents with date metadata falling outside this range were excluded from the review population during the initial culling phase, with the exception noted below regarding undated documents.

B. Undated Documents

Documents with no discernible date — including undated physical files, metadata-stripped electronic files, and documents whose date metadata is unreliable or absent — have been included in the review population and will be manually assessed for responsiveness during the first-pass review. Reviewers encountering undated documents should examine the document's content, context, and any internal references to dates or time periods to determine whether the document likely falls within the subpoena's date range. If a reviewer is unable to make a determination, the document should be coded as "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" and referred to Daniel Obi for assessment.

C. Calendar Year Prioritization

To ensure that the most potentially significant documents are reviewed and produced first — consistent with the rolling production schedule agreed upon with AUSA Goldfarb — the review population has been divided into three priority tiers based on calendar year:

Priority 1 (Highest Priority): 2016–2019

This period encompasses the years of active co-investment activity between Caldwell and Stavros and represents the core time frame of the conduct under investigation. Key events during this period include:

• June 2016: Mr. Caldwell's $2.5 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund III LP

• April 2016: Acquisition of the 710 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn property through the 50/50 joint venture entity (710 Flatbush Holdings LLC)

• March 2017: Mr. Caldwell's $4.0 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund IV LP

• October 2017: Acquisition of the 1500 Commerce Boulevard, Newark property through the 60/40 joint venture entity (Stavros-Caldwell Industrial LLC)

• September 2018: Mr. Caldwell's $3.5 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund V LP

• October 2019: Onset of the dispute between Caldwell and Stavros

• December 15, 2019: Execution of the separation agreement between Caldwell and Stavros

Priority 1 documents will be the focus of the first production, due January 20, 2023.

Priority 2: 2014–2015

This period corresponds to the relationship formation period between Caldwell and Stavros, including initial meetings, early discussions regarding potential co-investment opportunities, and preliminary due diligence. While this period predates the principal investment activity, it may contain documents relevant to the nature and origins of the Caldwell-Stavros relationship, representations made by Stavros during the initial solicitation of Caldwell's participation, and the early structuring of the joint venture arrangements.

Priority 3: 2020–2021

This period follows the December 2019 separation between Caldwell and Stavros. Key events during this period include Mr. Caldwell's redemption from Aegean Realty Fund V LP in March 2020 (at a redemption value of $3.15 million) and any residual communications between the parties or their representatives. While this period is expected to yield a smaller volume of responsive documents, it may contain communications reflecting post-separation disputes or information relevant to Mr. Caldwell's understanding of events during the active investment period.

V. KEYWORD SEARCH TERMS

The following keyword search terms have been developed to cull and prioritize the review population. These terms are designed to identify documents responsive to the four subject matter categories of the subpoena while minimizing false positives to the extent practicable. The terms are organized into thematic groups for clarity.

A. Entity and Person Names

The following search terms target the individuals and entities specifically identified in the subpoena, as well as related entities that are likely to appear in responsive documents:

B. Property and Entity References

The following search terms target the specific properties and joint venture entities involved in the Caldwell-Stavros co-investment activity:

C. Transaction and Financial Terms

The following search terms are designed to identify documents responsive to the subpoena's four subject matter categories, with particular emphasis on financial transactions, investment activity, and fund movements:

D. Communication-Specific Terms

The following search terms target specific types of documents and communications that are expected to be present in the review population and are responsive to the subpoena:

E. Connector and Proximity Searches

All keyword searches described above are to be run with appropriate Boolean connectors to ensure accurate and efficient results. The following guidelines govern the use of connectors and proximity operators:

• Proximity searches: The proximity operators "w/5" (within five words) and "w/10" (within ten words) are to be used for multi-word concepts where the component terms may not appear as an exact phrase but are expected to appear in close proximity. Examples include "Commerce" w/5 "Boulevard" and "wire" w/5 "transfer."

• Wildcards: The wildcard character (*) is to be appended to root terms where variations in suffixes are expected, in order to capture all relevant forms. Examples include:

• Stavros* (to capture possessive forms such as "Stavros's" or "Stavros'")

• Aegean* (to capture "Aegean's" and similar variations)

• Flatbush* (to capture "Flatbush's" and similar variations)

• apprais* (to capture "appraised," "appraiser," "appraisals," and other variations)

• Email domain searches: The following email domain searches are to be run to identify communications sent to or received from email addresses associated with the entities identified in the subpoena:

• @aegeanrealty (and common variations, including @aegeanrealtypartners)

• @westlakefidelity (and common variations)

• @harborviewtrust (and common variations)

• @pinnacleappraisal (and common variations)

These domain searches will be run independently of the keyword searches described above and will capture any communication involving these entities regardless of the content of the communication body.

F. Search Term Hit Report

Before the first-pass review commences, Clearpath Document Solutions is to generate a comprehensive search term hit report showing the number of documents matching each keyword term, both individually and in specified combinations. This report is essential for assessing the effectiveness of the search terms, identifying terms that may require refinement, and planning the allocation of review resources.

The following procedures apply to the hit report:

• Raj K. Anand, the Clearpath project manager, is to execute all keyword searches on the Clearpath platform and deliver the completed hit report to Lisa Morrow within forty-eight (48) hours of search execution.

• Upon receipt of the hit report, Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will jointly assess hit rates for each term and combination of terms. If the assessment reveals that any search term is generating an excessive number of false positives (i.e., a disproportionately high number of documents that are clearly non-responsive upon cursory review), Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will confer with Conrad Ashby to determine whether the term should be modified, narrowed, or excluded from the search protocol.

• Conversely, if the hit report reveals that certain subject matter areas appear underrepresented in the results — suggesting that responsive documents may exist but are not being captured by the current search terms — Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will develop additional or modified search terms to address the gap.

• Any modifications to the search terms resulting from this analysis will be documented in a supplemental memorandum and circulated to the full engagement team before the review commences.

VI. REVIEW WORKFLOW

A. Overview of Multi-Pass Approach

The document review will be conducted using a multi-pass approach consisting of three sequential passes, each with a distinct purpose and performed by designated members of the engagement team:

Pass 1 — Responsiveness Review: The primary objective of the first pass is to determine whether each document in the review population is responsive to any of the subpoena's four subject matter categories (Categories A through D, as described in Section II.D above). This is a substantive review requiring the reviewer to read and analyze each document.

Pass 2 — Privilege Review: For all documents tagged as responsive or potentially responsive in Pass 1, the second pass involves a determination of whether any attorney-client privilege or work product protection applies, warranting withholding of the document in its entirety or redaction of privileged content.

Pass 3 — Quality Control / Senior Review: The third pass consists of sampling, escalation review, and senior review procedures designed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the determinations made in Passes 1 and 2.

Each pass is described in detail below.

B. Pass 1 — Responsiveness Review

1. Reviewer Assignments

The following reviewer assignments apply to the first-pass responsiveness review:

• Lisa Morrow will serve as the primary reviewer for the bulk of the document population, including the majority of email communications, general business correspondence, and straightforward transactional documents.

• Daniel Obi will review financially complex documents, fund-related documents (including subscription agreements, limited partnership agreements, private placement memoranda, and capital account statements), loan agreements and related financing documents, and appraisal reports. These documents require specialized knowledge of fund structures, real estate finance, and valuation methodologies, and they are likely to be among the most significant documents in the review population.

2. Responsiveness Coding

Each document is to be coded with one of the following responsiveness designations:

• Responsive: The document falls within one or more of the subpoena's four subject matter categories (Categories A through D) and within the specified date range. The document should be included in the production, subject to the outcome of the Pass 2 privilege review.

• Not Responsive: The document is outside the scope of the subpoena's subject matter categories or falls outside the date range and does not reference or enclose content from within the date range. The document should be excluded from the production.

• Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation: The reviewer is uncertain whether the document falls within the scope of the subpoena. The document is to be escalated to Daniel Obi or Conrad Ashby for a final determination.

3. Subpoena Category Tagging

In addition to the responsiveness designation, reviewers are to tag each responsive document to one or more of the following subpoena categories, corresponding to the four categories identified in the subpoena:

• Category A: Real estate investment, co-investment, or syndication involving Aegean Realty Partners or its affiliated funds.

• Category B: Loan, financing arrangement, or capital raise involving properties in which Caldwell and Stavros had a direct or indirect interest.

• Category C: Appraisal, valuation, or property inspection report for such properties.

• Category D: Transfer or movement of funds between accounts held or controlled by Caldwell and accounts held or controlled by Stavros or any Aegean Realty entity.

Multiple category selections are permitted and encouraged where a document touches on more than one subject matter category. For example, a wire confirmation reflecting a capital contribution to Aegean Realty Fund IV LP in connection with a property acquisition would properly be tagged to both Category B and Category D.

4. Hot Document Flagging

Reviewers are to flag any document that is of particular factual significance to the investigation or to the assessment of Mr. Caldwell's potential exposure. When a document is flagged as a "hot document," the reviewer must enter a brief note in the "Hot Document Note" field explaining the reason for the flag. Hot document criteria are discussed in greater detail in Section IX.C below, but generally include any document that may bear on the central issues of the investigation — including representations by Stavros, fund movements, appraisal valuations, and Mr. Caldwell's knowledge of Stavros's financial practices. Reviewers should consult the Ashby/Obi Exposure Analysis Memorandum of December 15, 2022, for additional context on the factual issues of significance.

5. Date Range Compliance

Any document with a date outside the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 is to be coded as "Not Responsive," unless the document itself references or encloses content from within the date range. For example, a cover email dated January 3, 2022 that attaches a financial statement dated December 31, 2021 would be included in the review population, and the attachment would be assessed independently for responsiveness. Reviewers should exercise judgment in evaluating such documents and should escalate borderline cases.

C. Pass 2 — Privilege Review

1. Scope. The privilege review is to be performed on all documents coded as "Responsive" or "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" in Pass 1. Documents coded as "Not Responsive" in Pass 1 do not require a privilege review, as they will not be included in the production.

2. Governing Guidelines

The privilege review is governed by the separate Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum prepared by Conrad Ashby, dated December 14, 2022. That memorandum provides detailed guidance on the identification and treatment of privileged communications and materials. Reviewers should have the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum available for reference at all times during the Pass 2 review.

3. Key Privilege Categories

The following categories of documents are expected to be the primary subjects of privilege assertions in this matter:

(a) Communications with Whitmore & Kessler LLP: Communications between Mr. Caldwell and attorneys at Whitmore & Kessler LLP — particularly Patricia Sheldon, Partner, Commercial Real Estate — relating to the negotiation of the 2019 separation agreement with Stavros are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Ms. Sheldon represented Mr. Caldwell in the separation negotiation, and communications with her (and any attorneys or staff at Whitmore & Kessler acting under her direction) that were made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice are privileged.

(b) Communications with Thornberg & Whitfield CPAs: Communications between Mr. Caldwell and Thornberg & Whitfield CPAs — particularly Helen R. Thornberg, Senior Partner — may be privileged where tax advice was rendered at the direction of counsel. Under the dual-purpose communication doctrine as applied in the Second Circuit, communications with accountants that were made at the direction of an attorney and for the purpose of enabling the attorney to provide legal advice may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Reviewers should flag such communications for escalation to Conrad Ashby, who will make the final determination.

(c) Internal Legal Analysis and Strategy Materials: Internal legal analysis, strategy memoranda, research memoranda, and notes prepared by any attorney in anticipation of litigation or for the provision of legal advice are protected by the work product doctrine. This includes materials prepared by attorneys at Calderwood & Harkness LLP as well as materials prepared by Ms. Sheldon or other attorneys at Whitmore & Kessler LLP.

4. Privilege Coding

Each responsive or potentially responsive document is to be coded with one of the following privilege designations:

• Privilege — Withhold: The document is privileged in its entirety and should be withheld from production. A privilege log entry must be prepared for the document.

• Privilege — Redact: The document contains both privileged and non-privileged content. The privileged portions are to be redacted, and the non-privileged portions are to be produced. A privilege log entry must be prepared for the redacted portions.

• No Privilege: The document is not privileged and should be included in the production without redaction.

• Privilege — Escalate: The reviewer is uncertain whether a privilege applies. The document is to be escalated to Conrad Ashby for a final determination.

5. Privilege Log Requirements

All documents withheld or redacted on privilege grounds must be logged on the privilege log in accordance with the specifications set forth in Section VIII of this memorandum. Privilege log entries are to be prepared concurrently with the Pass 2 review to ensure that the log is complete by the time of the final production.

6. Crime-Fraud Exception

Per Conrad Ashby's guidance, the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is not applicable to Mr. Caldwell's communications in this matter. Mr. Caldwell is a witness, not a target or subject of the grand jury investigation. There is no evidence — and the government has not suggested — that Mr. Caldwell was involved in the alleged fraud or that he sought legal advice in furtherance of any criminal activity. Accordingly, reviewers should not apply the crime-fraud exception to any of Mr. Caldwell's communications. If a reviewer encounters a document that raises a concern in this regard, the document should be immediately escalated to Conrad Ashby.

D. Pass 3 — Quality Control / Senior Review

The quality control and senior review procedures that constitute Pass 3 are described in detail in Section IX of this memorandum.

VII. CODING CATEGORIES — FULL FIELD SPECIFICATION

The following table provides a comprehensive specification of all coding fields to be populated for each document during the review process. These fields are to be configured on the Clearpath platform by Raj K. Anand prior to the commencement of the review. Reviewers are responsible for populating all applicable fields for each document they review.

VIII. PRIVILEGE LOG SPECIFICATIONS

A privilege log entry is to be prepared for each document withheld from production or redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or both. The privilege log serves as a record of the privileged documents and provides the government with sufficient information to understand the basis for each privilege assertion without revealing the substance of the privileged communications or materials.

A. Required Fields

Each privilege log entry must include the following fields:

1. Entry Number: A sequential entry number assigned to each privilege log entry (beginning at 1).

2. Bates Number: The Bates number assigned to the document at the production stage. During the review phase, a placeholder Bates number may be assigned for tracking purposes; the final Bates number will be confirmed at the time of production.

3. Date of Document: The date of the document, in MM/DD/YYYY format. If the document is undated, this should be indicated.

4. Author: The name of the document's author or sender.

5. Recipient(s): The name(s) of the document's recipients.

6. CC: The name(s) of any individuals copied on the communication, if applicable.

7. Subject / Description: A description of the document that is sufficiently detailed to permit the government to assess the privilege assertion without revealing the substance of the privileged content. The description should identify the general subject matter of the communication (e.g., "Legal advice regarding separation negotiation with Stavros") and the relationship between the communicating parties (e.g., "Attorney-client communication between Caldwell and Patricia Sheldon, Partner, Whitmore & Kessler LLP").

8. Privilege Asserted: The specific privilege or protection asserted, designated as one of the following: Attorney-Client Privilege / Work Product Doctrine / Both.

B. Compilation and Review

The privilege log will be compiled by Lisa Morrow on a rolling basis as documents are reviewed and coded during Pass 2. Daniel Obi will review the compiled log entries for accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Conrad Ashby will provide final approval of the privilege log before it is delivered to AUSA Goldfarb. The final privilege log is to be delivered concurrently with the final production in the rolling production schedule.

C. Format

The privilege log will be prepared in spreadsheet format (Microsoft Excel) for ease of review and delivery. A copy of the log will also be maintained in the Clearpath platform for cross-referencing with the coded document population.

IX. QUALITY CONTROL AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Quality control is an essential component of a defensible document review process. The following procedures are designed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of responsiveness and privilege determinations, to identify and correct errors before documents are produced, and to provide a basis for demonstrating the defensibility of the review methodology if challenged.

A. Sampling Rate

The following minimum sampling rates will be applied during the Pass 3 quality control review:

1. Not Responsive Documents — 10% Sample: A minimum of 10% of all documents coded "Not Responsive" in Pass 1 will be selected at random and reviewed by Daniel Obi. The purpose of this sample is to confirm that documents excluded from the production are in fact outside the scope of the subpoena. The random sample will be generated by the Clearpath platform using its random sampling function.

2. Responsive, No Privilege Documents — 15% Sample: A minimum of 15% of all documents coded "Responsive" and "No Privilege" (i.e., documents slated for production without redaction) will be selected at random and reviewed by Daniel Obi. The purpose of this sample is to confirm that the privilege determination is correct and that no privileged documents are inadvertently included in the production set.

3. Escalated Documents — 100% Review: All documents coded "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" and "Privilege — Escalate" will be reviewed by Daniel Obi and/or Conrad Ashby. No escalated document will be included in or excluded from the production until a final determination has been made by a senior member of the engagement team.

B. Error Rate Threshold

If quality control sampling in any coding category reveals an error rate exceeding 5%, the entire batch of documents from which the sample was drawn must be re-reviewed. For purposes of this threshold, an "error" is defined as a coding determination that is clearly incorrect — for example, a document that is plainly responsive to one or more subpoena categories but was coded "Not Responsive," or a document that is plainly privileged but was coded "No Privilege."

All errors identified during quality control sampling are to be documented, including the Document ID, the original coding, the correct coding, and a brief explanation of the nature of the error. Errors and their resolution are to be discussed with the engagement team at the earliest opportunity, and corrective measures — including additional training or guidance for the reviewer, if appropriate — are to be implemented promptly.

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
FROM: Daniel Obi, Associate, Banking & Finance Practice Group, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
TO: Conrad Ashby, Partner, White Collar & Investigations Bernard Crawford, Partner (Responsible Partner) Lisa Morrow, Associate, Banking & Finance
DATE: December 14, 2022
RE: Document Review Protocol, Search Methodology, and Keyword Terms — Grand Jury Subpoena Response, Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481 (S.D.N.Y.)
CLIENT: Jonathan R. Caldwell
MATTER NO.: 1034-00001
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared in anticipation of litigation and in furtherance of the provision of legal advice to the client. It contains the mental impressions, legal theories, strategies, and analyses of counsel. Do not distribute outside the engagement team without prior authorization from Conrad Ashby. Any unauthorized disclosure may constitute a waiver of applicable privileges.
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is to establish a comprehensive, defensible document review protocol governing the review of approximately 14,200 documents (approximately 8.3 gigabytes of data) collected from custodian sources in connection with the response to the grand jury subpoena issued on November 18, 2022, by Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481, sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The subpoena was served on our client, Jonathan R. Caldwell, on November 21, 2022. This memorandum is intended to serve as the governing reference document for all members of the engagement team throughout the review and production process, and to ensure that the firm's response to the subpoena is conducted in a manner that is thorough, consistent, and defensible.
Specifically, this memorandum sets forth the following:
(a) the custodian and data source inventory, identifying all sources from which documents have been collected;
(b) the date filters to be applied to the collected document population;
(c) the keyword search terms to be used for culling and prioritization of the review population;
(d) the multi-pass review workflow, consisting of a first-pass responsiveness review, a second-pass privilege review, and a third-pass quality control and senior review;
(e) the full specification of coding categories and fields to be populated for each document during the review process;
(f) quality-control and sampling procedures designed to ensure accuracy and consistency of reviewer determinations;
(g) production specifications, including format, Bates stamping conventions, and delivery protocols; and
(h) additional matters relating to the rolling production schedule, document security, team roles and responsibilities, and post-production preservation.
The document review will be conducted on the hosted review platform provided by Clearpath Document Solutions Inc. The Clearpath project manager assigned to this matter is Raj K. Anand, and the Clearpath offices are located at 15 Maiden Lane, Suite 800, New York, NY 10038. The engagement of Clearpath is governed by the vendor engagement letter and statement of work dated December 9, 2022, copies of which are maintained in the matter file.
This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the companion Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum prepared by Conrad Ashby, also dated December 14, 2022, which sets forth detailed guidance governing privilege-specific determinations, including the identification and treatment of attorney-client privileged communications, work product materials, and related issues. Where a question arises that is addressed in the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum, that document controls on privilege matters. Where a question arises regarding the overall review workflow, coding, or production process, this document controls.
All members of the engagement team are expected to familiarize themselves with this memorandum in its entirety before commencing any review activity. Any questions regarding the application of this protocol should be directed to Daniel Obi or Conrad Ashby.
II. SUBPOENA SCOPE SUMMARY (FOR REVIEWER REFERENCE)
This section provides a summary of the scope and demands of the grand jury subpoena for the reference of all reviewers. Reviewers should refer to this section throughout the review process to ensure that responsiveness determinations are made with a clear understanding of the subpoena's requirements.
A. Issuing Authority
The subpoena was issued by Grand Jury No. 22-GJ-4481, sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The matter is being handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and the assigned Assistant United States Attorney is Miriam T. Goldfarb of the Complex Frauds & Cybercrime Unit.
B. Persons and Entities Identified
The subpoena demands all documents and communications between Jonathan R. Caldwell and the following individuals and entities:
(i) Marcus W. Stavros;
(ii) Any Aegean Realty Partners LLC entity, including but not limited to all affiliated funds, subsidiaries, and special purpose vehicles;
(iii) Westlake Fidelity Bank, N.A.; and
(iv) Harborview Trust Company.
C. Date Range
The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021, inclusive.
D. Subject Matter Categories
The subpoena identifies four specific subject matter categories of documents and communications to be produced:
(a) Any real estate investment, co-investment, or syndication involving Aegean Realty Partners or its affiliated funds;
(b) Any loan, financing arrangement, or capital raise involving properties in which Caldwell and Stavros had a direct or indirect interest;
(c) Any appraisal, valuation, or property inspection report for such properties; and
(d) Any transfer or movement of funds between accounts held or controlled by Caldwell and accounts held or controlled by Stavros or any Aegean Realty entity.
Reviewers should note that these categories are broad and should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the subpoena's plain language. When in doubt as to whether a document falls within the scope of one or more categories, the reviewer should err on the side of inclusion and, if necessary, escalate the document for senior review.
E. Testimonial Component
The subpoena also included a testimonial component requiring Mr. Caldwell's appearance before the grand jury. By agreement reached during the telephone conference of December 12, 2022, between Conrad Ashby and AUSA Goldfarb, the testimonial component has been deferred pending completion of the document production. This deferral does not affect the document production obligations addressed in this memorandum.
F. Return Date and Extensions
The original return date specified in the subpoena was December 9, 2022. On December 8, 2022, AUSA Goldfarb granted a first extension of the return date to January 20, 2023. Additionally, the parties agreed during the December 12, 2022 telephone conference that document production would proceed on a rolling basis, with the initial production due on January 20, 2023, and subsequent productions to follow on a schedule to be discussed further as the review progresses. The specific rolling production schedule is set forth in Section XI of this memorandum.
III. CUSTODIANS AND DATA SOURCES
This section provides a comprehensive inventory of all custodians and data sources from which documents have been collected for purposes of the subpoena response. Documents were collected from two principal custodians: (1) Mr. Caldwell individually, and (2) Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC, Mr. Caldwell's investment advisory firm.
A. Primary Custodian: Jonathan R. Caldwell
The following data sources have been collected from Mr. Caldwell in his individual capacity:
1. Personal Email Account: jrc@caldwellcap.com
A full mailbox export has been performed for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021. The export includes all mail folders, specifically including sent items, inbox, archived folders, deleted items (to the extent recoverable from the mail server), and drafts. This email account was Mr. Caldwell's primary means of electronic communication during the relevant period, and it is expected to contain the largest volume of potentially responsive documents. The mailbox export was performed by Clearpath Document Solutions under forensic protocols to ensure the integrity and completeness of the data.
2. Personal Mobile Device
A forensic backup image of Mr. Caldwell's personal mobile phone (an Ashbury Corporation 13 Pro, serial number redacted in this memorandum for security purposes) was created by Clearpath Document Solutions on December 5, 2022. The extraction captured text messages (SMS and Westmark Software), messaging application data (including Meridian Services Inc. and Signal, to the extent that data was retained on the device), photographs and screenshots with associated metadata, and call logs. Only data falling within the January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 date range was loaded into the review platform, although it should be noted that the device was acquired in 2021 and therefore contains limited data from the earlier years of the relevant period. Mr. Caldwell has confirmed that he used prior personal mobile devices during the 2014–2020 period; those devices are no longer in his possession, and data from them is not available.
3. Physical Files — Residence
Paper documents from Mr. Caldwell's home office at 1140 Park Avenue, Apartment 14C, New York, NY 10128 were identified, inventoried, and scanned by the engagement team between December 2, 2022 and December 6, 2022. The physical files include correspondence, handwritten notes, printed agreements, account statements, financial reports, and other materials related to Mr. Caldwell's dealings with Stavros and Aegean Realty entities. The scanned images were loaded into the Clearpath platform in TIFF format with OCR text overlays to permit keyword searching. The original physical documents are stored in the firm's secure document room at 450 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022.
4. Physical Files — Office
Paper documents from Mr. Caldwell's office at Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC, 590 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 were similarly identified, inventoried, and scanned during the same period. These files include business correspondence, printed investment memoranda, executed agreements, and related documents pertaining to Mr. Caldwell's professional activities involving Aegean Realty entities. These documents were processed in the same manner as the residence files described above.
B. Entity-Level Custodian: Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC
The following data sources have been collected from Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC ("CCA"):
5. Shared Drive / Network Files
The CCA shared drive located on the firm's network server at 590 Madison Avenue was imaged by Clearpath Document Solutions under forensic protocols on December 3, 2022. The shared drive contains fund-related correspondence, investment memoranda, subscription documents, capital call notices, distribution notices, quarterly reports, and financial statements relating to Aegean Realty Fund III LP, Aegean Realty Fund IV LP, and Aegean Realty Fund V LP. It also contains general business files of CCA that may reference Stavros, Aegean Realty, or the identified financial institutions. Files falling within the date range were extracted and loaded into the review platform.
6. Accounting Records
Relevant accounting entries, wire transfer confirmations, and bank statements from CCA's accounting files were collected. These records reflect transfers to and from Aegean Realty entities, as well as investment activity in the Aegean Realty funds. The accounting records were maintained in Drayton Health IT and in physical bank statement files; both electronic and physical records were collected and loaded into the review platform.
C. Data Collection Summary
The following summarizes the overall data collection:
• Total documents collected: Approximately 14,200
• Total data volume processed by Clearpath Document Solutions: Approximately 8.3 gigabytes
• Collection methodology: All electronic data was collected under forensic protocols by Clearpath Document Solutions, including the use of forensic imaging tools to ensure bit-for-bit accuracy of the data. All physical documents were scanned using high-resolution scanners with OCR processing.
• Chain of custody: Chain-of-custody documentation has been maintained for all data sources and is on file with the engagement team and with Clearpath Document Solutions.
• De-duplication: Exact de-duplication was performed at the custodian level using MD5 hash values prior to loading the document population into the review platform. This ensures that identical copies of the same document appearing within a single custodian's data sources are not duplicated in the review population, while preserving instances where the same document appears across different custodians (which may be relevant for context and completeness purposes).
IV. DATE FILTERS
A. Hard Date Filter
A hard date filter of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 has been applied to the collected document population, matching the date range specified in the subpoena. Documents with date metadata falling outside this range were excluded from the review population during the initial culling phase, with the exception noted below regarding undated documents.
B. Undated Documents
Documents with no discernible date — including undated physical files, metadata-stripped electronic files, and documents whose date metadata is unreliable or absent — have been included in the review population and will be manually assessed for responsiveness during the first-pass review. Reviewers encountering undated documents should examine the document's content, context, and any internal references to dates or time periods to determine whether the document likely falls within the subpoena's date range. If a reviewer is unable to make a determination, the document should be coded as "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" and referred to Daniel Obi for assessment.
C. Calendar Year Prioritization
To ensure that the most potentially significant documents are reviewed and produced first — consistent with the rolling production schedule agreed upon with AUSA Goldfarb — the review population has been divided into three priority tiers based on calendar year:
Priority 1 (Highest Priority): 2016–2019
This period encompasses the years of active co-investment activity between Caldwell and Stavros and represents the core time frame of the conduct under investigation. Key events during this period include:
• June 2016: Mr. Caldwell's $2.5 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund III LP
• April 2016: Acquisition of the 710 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn property through the 50/50 joint venture entity (710 Flatbush Holdings LLC)
• March 2017: Mr. Caldwell's $4.0 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund IV LP
• October 2017: Acquisition of the 1500 Commerce Boulevard, Newark property through the 60/40 joint venture entity (Stavros-Caldwell Industrial LLC)
• September 2018: Mr. Caldwell's $3.5 million investment in Aegean Realty Fund V LP
• October 2019: Onset of the dispute between Caldwell and Stavros
• December 15, 2019: Execution of the separation agreement between Caldwell and Stavros
Priority 1 documents will be the focus of the first production, due January 20, 2023.
Priority 2: 2014–2015
This period corresponds to the relationship formation period between Caldwell and Stavros, including initial meetings, early discussions regarding potential co-investment opportunities, and preliminary due diligence. While this period predates the principal investment activity, it may contain documents relevant to the nature and origins of the Caldwell-Stavros relationship, representations made by Stavros during the initial solicitation of Caldwell's participation, and the early structuring of the joint venture arrangements.
Priority 3: 2020–2021
This period follows the December 2019 separation between Caldwell and Stavros. Key events during this period include Mr. Caldwell's redemption from Aegean Realty Fund V LP in March 2020 (at a redemption value of $3.15 million) and any residual communications between the parties or their representatives. While this period is expected to yield a smaller volume of responsive documents, it may contain communications reflecting post-separation disputes or information relevant to Mr. Caldwell's understanding of events during the active investment period.
V. KEYWORD SEARCH TERMS
The following keyword search terms have been developed to cull and prioritize the review population. These terms are designed to identify documents responsive to the four subject matter categories of the subpoena while minimizing false positives to the extent practicable. The terms are organized into thematic groups for clarity.
A. Entity and Person Names
The following search terms target the individuals and entities specifically identified in the subpoena, as well as related entities that are likely to appear in responsive documents:
B. Property and Entity References
The following search terms target the specific properties and joint venture entities involved in the Caldwell-Stavros co-investment activity:
C. Transaction and Financial Terms
The following search terms are designed to identify documents responsive to the subpoena's four subject matter categories, with particular emphasis on financial transactions, investment activity, and fund movements:
D. Communication-Specific Terms
The following search terms target specific types of documents and communications that are expected to be present in the review population and are responsive to the subpoena:
E. Connector and Proximity Searches
All keyword searches described above are to be run with appropriate Boolean connectors to ensure accurate and efficient results. The following guidelines govern the use of connectors and proximity operators:
• Proximity searches: The proximity operators "w/5" (within five words) and "w/10" (within ten words) are to be used for multi-word concepts where the component terms may not appear as an exact phrase but are expected to appear in close proximity. Examples include "Commerce" w/5 "Boulevard" and "wire" w/5 "transfer."
• Wildcards: The wildcard character (*) is to be appended to root terms where variations in suffixes are expected, in order to capture all relevant forms. Examples include:
• Stavros* (to capture possessive forms such as "Stavros's" or "Stavros'")
• Aegean* (to capture "Aegean's" and similar variations)
• Flatbush* (to capture "Flatbush's" and similar variations)
• apprais* (to capture "appraised," "appraiser," "appraisals," and other variations)
• Email domain searches: The following email domain searches are to be run to identify communications sent to or received from email addresses associated with the entities identified in the subpoena:
• @aegeanrealty (and common variations, including @aegeanrealtypartners)
• @westlakefidelity (and common variations)
• @harborviewtrust (and common variations)
• @pinnacleappraisal (and common variations)
These domain searches will be run independently of the keyword searches described above and will capture any communication involving these entities regardless of the content of the communication body.
F. Search Term Hit Report
Before the first-pass review commences, Clearpath Document Solutions is to generate a comprehensive search term hit report showing the number of documents matching each keyword term, both individually and in specified combinations. This report is essential for assessing the effectiveness of the search terms, identifying terms that may require refinement, and planning the allocation of review resources.
The following procedures apply to the hit report:
• Raj K. Anand, the Clearpath project manager, is to execute all keyword searches on the Clearpath platform and deliver the completed hit report to Lisa Morrow within forty-eight (48) hours of search execution.
• Upon receipt of the hit report, Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will jointly assess hit rates for each term and combination of terms. If the assessment reveals that any search term is generating an excessive number of false positives (i.e., a disproportionately high number of documents that are clearly non-responsive upon cursory review), Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will confer with Conrad Ashby to determine whether the term should be modified, narrowed, or excluded from the search protocol.
• Conversely, if the hit report reveals that certain subject matter areas appear underrepresented in the results — suggesting that responsive documents may exist but are not being captured by the current search terms — Daniel Obi and Lisa Morrow will develop additional or modified search terms to address the gap.
• Any modifications to the search terms resulting from this analysis will be documented in a supplemental memorandum and circulated to the full engagement team before the review commences.
VI. REVIEW WORKFLOW
A. Overview of Multi-Pass Approach
The document review will be conducted using a multi-pass approach consisting of three sequential passes, each with a distinct purpose and performed by designated members of the engagement team:
Pass 1 — Responsiveness Review: The primary objective of the first pass is to determine whether each document in the review population is responsive to any of the subpoena's four subject matter categories (Categories A through D, as described in Section II.D above). This is a substantive review requiring the reviewer to read and analyze each document.
Pass 2 — Privilege Review: For all documents tagged as responsive or potentially responsive in Pass 1, the second pass involves a determination of whether any attorney-client privilege or work product protection applies, warranting withholding of the document in its entirety or redaction of privileged content.
Pass 3 — Quality Control / Senior Review: The third pass consists of sampling, escalation review, and senior review procedures designed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the determinations made in Passes 1 and 2.
Each pass is described in detail below.
B. Pass 1 — Responsiveness Review
1. Reviewer Assignments
The following reviewer assignments apply to the first-pass responsiveness review:
• Lisa Morrow will serve as the primary reviewer for the bulk of the document population, including the majority of email communications, general business correspondence, and straightforward transactional documents.
• Daniel Obi will review financially complex documents, fund-related documents (including subscription agreements, limited partnership agreements, private placement memoranda, and capital account statements), loan agreements and related financing documents, and appraisal reports. These documents require specialized knowledge of fund structures, real estate finance, and valuation methodologies, and they are likely to be among the most significant documents in the review population.
2. Responsiveness Coding
Each document is to be coded with one of the following responsiveness designations:
• Responsive: The document falls within one or more of the subpoena's four subject matter categories (Categories A through D) and within the specified date range. The document should be included in the production, subject to the outcome of the Pass 2 privilege review.
• Not Responsive: The document is outside the scope of the subpoena's subject matter categories or falls outside the date range and does not reference or enclose content from within the date range. The document should be excluded from the production.
• Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation: The reviewer is uncertain whether the document falls within the scope of the subpoena. The document is to be escalated to Daniel Obi or Conrad Ashby for a final determination.
3. Subpoena Category Tagging
In addition to the responsiveness designation, reviewers are to tag each responsive document to one or more of the following subpoena categories, corresponding to the four categories identified in the subpoena:
• Category A: Real estate investment, co-investment, or syndication involving Aegean Realty Partners or its affiliated funds.
• Category B: Loan, financing arrangement, or capital raise involving properties in which Caldwell and Stavros had a direct or indirect interest.
• Category C: Appraisal, valuation, or property inspection report for such properties.
• Category D: Transfer or movement of funds between accounts held or controlled by Caldwell and accounts held or controlled by Stavros or any Aegean Realty entity.
Multiple category selections are permitted and encouraged where a document touches on more than one subject matter category. For example, a wire confirmation reflecting a capital contribution to Aegean Realty Fund IV LP in connection with a property acquisition would properly be tagged to both Category B and Category D.
4. Hot Document Flagging
Reviewers are to flag any document that is of particular factual significance to the investigation or to the assessment of Mr. Caldwell's potential exposure. When a document is flagged as a "hot document," the reviewer must enter a brief note in the "Hot Document Note" field explaining the reason for the flag. Hot document criteria are discussed in greater detail in Section IX.C below, but generally include any document that may bear on the central issues of the investigation — including representations by Stavros, fund movements, appraisal valuations, and Mr. Caldwell's knowledge of Stavros's financial practices. Reviewers should consult the Ashby/Obi Exposure Analysis Memorandum of December 15, 2022, for additional context on the factual issues of significance.
5. Date Range Compliance
Any document with a date outside the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 is to be coded as "Not Responsive," unless the document itself references or encloses content from within the date range. For example, a cover email dated January 3, 2022 that attaches a financial statement dated December 31, 2021 would be included in the review population, and the attachment would be assessed independently for responsiveness. Reviewers should exercise judgment in evaluating such documents and should escalate borderline cases.
C. Pass 2 — Privilege Review
1. Scope. The privilege review is to be performed on all documents coded as "Responsive" or "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" in Pass 1. Documents coded as "Not Responsive" in Pass 1 do not require a privilege review, as they will not be included in the production.
2. Governing Guidelines
The privilege review is governed by the separate Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum prepared by Conrad Ashby, dated December 14, 2022. That memorandum provides detailed guidance on the identification and treatment of privileged communications and materials. Reviewers should have the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum available for reference at all times during the Pass 2 review.
3. Key Privilege Categories
The following categories of documents are expected to be the primary subjects of privilege assertions in this matter:
(a) Communications with Whitmore & Kessler LLP: Communications between Mr. Caldwell and attorneys at Whitmore & Kessler LLP — particularly Patricia Sheldon, Partner, Commercial Real Estate — relating to the negotiation of the 2019 separation agreement with Stavros are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Ms. Sheldon represented Mr. Caldwell in the separation negotiation, and communications with her (and any attorneys or staff at Whitmore & Kessler acting under her direction) that were made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice are privileged.
(b) Communications with Thornberg & Whitfield CPAs: Communications between Mr. Caldwell and Thornberg & Whitfield CPAs — particularly Helen R. Thornberg, Senior Partner — may be privileged where tax advice was rendered at the direction of counsel. Under the dual-purpose communication doctrine as applied in the Second Circuit, communications with accountants that were made at the direction of an attorney and for the purpose of enabling the attorney to provide legal advice may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Reviewers should flag such communications for escalation to Conrad Ashby, who will make the final determination.
(c) Internal Legal Analysis and Strategy Materials: Internal legal analysis, strategy memoranda, research memoranda, and notes prepared by any attorney in anticipation of litigation or for the provision of legal advice are protected by the work product doctrine. This includes materials prepared by attorneys at Calderwood & Harkness LLP as well as materials prepared by Ms. Sheldon or other attorneys at Whitmore & Kessler LLP.
4. Privilege Coding
Each responsive or potentially responsive document is to be coded with one of the following privilege designations:
• Privilege — Withhold: The document is privileged in its entirety and should be withheld from production. A privilege log entry must be prepared for the document.
• Privilege — Redact: The document contains both privileged and non-privileged content. The privileged portions are to be redacted, and the non-privileged portions are to be produced. A privilege log entry must be prepared for the redacted portions.
• No Privilege: The document is not privileged and should be included in the production without redaction.
• Privilege — Escalate: The reviewer is uncertain whether a privilege applies. The document is to be escalated to Conrad Ashby for a final determination.
5. Privilege Log Requirements
All documents withheld or redacted on privilege grounds must be logged on the privilege log in accordance with the specifications set forth in Section VIII of this memorandum. Privilege log entries are to be prepared concurrently with the Pass 2 review to ensure that the log is complete by the time of the final production.
6. Crime-Fraud Exception
Per Conrad Ashby's guidance, the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is not applicable to Mr. Caldwell's communications in this matter. Mr. Caldwell is a witness, not a target or subject of the grand jury investigation. There is no evidence — and the government has not suggested — that Mr. Caldwell was involved in the alleged fraud or that he sought legal advice in furtherance of any criminal activity. Accordingly, reviewers should not apply the crime-fraud exception to any of Mr. Caldwell's communications. If a reviewer encounters a document that raises a concern in this regard, the document should be immediately escalated to Conrad Ashby.
D. Pass 3 — Quality Control / Senior Review
The quality control and senior review procedures that constitute Pass 3 are described in detail in Section IX of this memorandum.
VII. CODING CATEGORIES — FULL FIELD SPECIFICATION
The following table provides a comprehensive specification of all coding fields to be populated for each document during the review process. These fields are to be configured on the Clearpath platform by Raj K. Anand prior to the commencement of the review. Reviewers are responsible for populating all applicable fields for each document they review.
VIII. PRIVILEGE LOG SPECIFICATIONS
A privilege log entry is to be prepared for each document withheld from production or redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or both. The privilege log serves as a record of the privileged documents and provides the government with sufficient information to understand the basis for each privilege assertion without revealing the substance of the privileged communications or materials.
A. Required Fields
Each privilege log entry must include the following fields:
1. Entry Number: A sequential entry number assigned to each privilege log entry (beginning at 1).
2. Bates Number: The Bates number assigned to the document at the production stage. During the review phase, a placeholder Bates number may be assigned for tracking purposes; the final Bates number will be confirmed at the time of production.
3. Date of Document: The date of the document, in MM/DD/YYYY format. If the document is undated, this should be indicated.
4. Author: The name of the document's author or sender.
5. Recipient(s): The name(s) of the document's recipients.
6. CC: The name(s) of any individuals copied on the communication, if applicable.
7. Subject / Description: A description of the document that is sufficiently detailed to permit the government to assess the privilege assertion without revealing the substance of the privileged content. The description should identify the general subject matter of the communication (e.g., "Legal advice regarding separation negotiation with Stavros") and the relationship between the communicating parties (e.g., "Attorney-client communication between Caldwell and Patricia Sheldon, Partner, Whitmore & Kessler LLP").
8. Privilege Asserted: The specific privilege or protection asserted, designated as one of the following: Attorney-Client Privilege / Work Product Doctrine / Both.
B. Compilation and Review
The privilege log will be compiled by Lisa Morrow on a rolling basis as documents are reviewed and coded during Pass 2. Daniel Obi will review the compiled log entries for accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Conrad Ashby will provide final approval of the privilege log before it is delivered to AUSA Goldfarb. The final privilege log is to be delivered concurrently with the final production in the rolling production schedule.
C. Format
The privilege log will be prepared in spreadsheet format (Microsoft Excel) for ease of review and delivery. A copy of the log will also be maintained in the Clearpath platform for cross-referencing with the coded document population.
IX. QUALITY CONTROL AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Quality control is an essential component of a defensible document review process. The following procedures are designed to ensure the accuracy and consistency of responsiveness and privilege determinations, to identify and correct errors before documents are produced, and to provide a basis for demonstrating the defensibility of the review methodology if challenged.
A. Sampling Rate
The following minimum sampling rates will be applied during the Pass 3 quality control review:
1. Not Responsive Documents — 10% Sample: A minimum of 10% of all documents coded "Not Responsive" in Pass 1 will be selected at random and reviewed by Daniel Obi. The purpose of this sample is to confirm that documents excluded from the production are in fact outside the scope of the subpoena. The random sample will be generated by the Clearpath platform using its random sampling function.
2. Responsive, No Privilege Documents — 15% Sample: A minimum of 15% of all documents coded "Responsive" and "No Privilege" (i.e., documents slated for production without redaction) will be selected at random and reviewed by Daniel Obi. The purpose of this sample is to confirm that the privilege determination is correct and that no privileged documents are inadvertently included in the production set.
3. Escalated Documents — 100% Review: All documents coded "Potentially Responsive — Needs Escalation" and "Privilege — Escalate" will be reviewed by Daniel Obi and/or Conrad Ashby. No escalated document will be included in or excluded from the production until a final determination has been made by a senior member of the engagement team.
B. Error Rate Threshold
If quality control sampling in any coding category reveals an error rate exceeding 5%, the entire batch of documents from which the sample was drawn must be re-reviewed. For purposes of this threshold, an "error" is defined as a coding determination that is clearly incorrect — for example, a document that is plainly responsive to one or more subpoena categories but was coded "Not Responsive," or a document that is plainly privileged but was coded "No Privilege."
All errors identified during quality control sampling are to be documented, including the Document ID, the original coding, the correct coding, and a brief explanation of the nature of the error. Errors and their resolution are to be discussed with the engagement team at the earliest opportunity, and corrective measures — including additional training or guidance for the reviewer, if appropriate — are to be implemented promptly.
C. Senior Review of Hot Documents
All documents flagged as "Hot Document" during the Pass 1 review are to be reviewed by Conrad Ashby prior to production. This senior review serves two purposes: first, to confirm the factual significance and coding of the document; and second, to assess the document's implications for Mr. Caldwell's exposure and for the overall defense strategy.
The criteria for flagging a document as a "hot document" include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Any document reflecting representations by Stavros to Caldwell about fund performance, capital deployment, property occupancy, rental income, or property valuations;
• Any document reflecting fund movements between Mr. Caldwell's accounts and Aegean Realty entities that could be questioned by the government as inconsistent with legitimate investment activity;
• Any document referencing Pinnacle Appraisal Group LLC or appraisal valuations for properties in which Caldwell and Stavros had a direct or indirect interest;
• Any document relating to the disputed management fees of approximately $340,000 charged by Stavros to 710 Flatbush Holdings LLC;
• Any document reflecting Mr. Caldwell's awareness (or lack thereof) of Stavros's financial practices, business operations, or the manner in which fund proceeds or loan proceeds were used; and
• Any other document that the reviewer believes is of significant factual importance to the investigation or to the defense.
Reviewers should exercise sound judgment in applying the hot document flag. Not every responsive document will qualify as a hot document; the flag should be reserved for documents that are likely to be of particular interest to the government, to defense counsel, or both.
D. Pre-Production Final Check
Before each rolling production is transmitted to the government, Lisa Morrow is to generate a pre-production report from the Clearpath platform. The pre-production report must confirm each of the following:
1. All documents included in the production batch have been coded for both responsiveness (Pass 1) and privilege (Pass 2), and no uncoded documents remain in the production set.
2. No documents coded "Privilege — Withhold" are included in the production set.
3. All redactions to documents coded "Privilege — Redact" have been applied to the TIFF images and verified for completeness and accuracy. Redaction verification should include a review of the redacted image to confirm that no privileged content is visible.
4. Bates stamping has been applied to all documents in the production set and is sequential and complete, with no gaps or duplicates in the numbering sequence.
5. TIFF images and associated load files are correctly formatted and validated against the production specifications set forth in Section X of this memorandum.
Daniel Obi is to review and sign off on each production batch before it is transmitted to the government. Sign-off will be documented in a brief written confirmation to be maintained in the matter file.
X. PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
The following specifications govern the format and delivery of documents produced in response to the subpoena.
A. Production Format
All documents will be produced in TIFF image format with associated load files, as specified in the Clearpath Document Solutions statement of work dated December 9, 2022. Each document will be converted to single-page TIFF images (Group IV, 300 DPI, black and white). Extracted text files will accompany each document.
B. Bates Stamping Convention
All produced documents will be Bates-stamped using the following convention:
CALDWELL-NNNNN
The prefix "CALDWELL" identifies the producing party, and the five-digit sequential number begins at CALDWELL-00001 and continues sequentially through the final document in the production. Bates numbers will be applied to the lower right corner of each TIFF image page.
C. Metadata Fields in Load File
The following metadata fields will be included in the production load file accompanying each TIFF image:
• DocID
• Bates Begin
• Bates End
• Custodian
• Date Sent
• From
• To
• CC
• BCC
• Subject
• File Name
• File Extension
• Date Created
• Date Modified
• MD5 Hash
D. Native File Productions
Native file productions are not anticipated for this matter. TIFF image production is the agreed-upon format for all document types. However, if the government specifically requests native files for certain document types — such as complex spreadsheets, databases, or other file types that do not render meaningfully in TIFF format — the request should be escalated to Conrad Ashby for a determination on a case-by-case basis.
E. Delivery Method
All productions will be delivered to the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, via secure electronic file transfer using the Clearpath Document Solutions secure portal. Clearpath will coordinate the delivery logistics, and Lisa Morrow will confirm receipt with AUSA Goldfarb or her designated representative following each production.
XI. ROLLING PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
The following rolling production schedule has been negotiated with AUSA Goldfarb and reflects the extension and rolling production agreement reached during the December 8, 2022 and December 12, 2022 communications:
Production 1 — Due January 20, 2023
The first production will include all Priority 1 documents — i.e., documents from the 2016–2019 period — that have completed both Pass 1 (responsiveness review) and Pass 2 (privilege review) by the production date. This production is expected to encompass the largest volume of responsive documents, as the 2016–2019 period represents the core period of active co-investment activity between Caldwell and Stavros.
Production 2 — Due February 10, 2023
The second production will include any remaining Priority 1 documents that were not completed in time for Production 1, as well as Priority 2 documents — i.e., documents from the 2014–2015 relationship formation period. A second extension of the production deadline to February 10, 2023 has been agreed upon with AUSA Goldfarb to accommodate this production.
Production 3 (Final) — Target Date Approximately February 24, 2023
The final production will include any remaining Priority 3 documents — i.e., documents from the 2020–2021 post-separation period — and any documents that required escalation review and were not resolved in time for earlier productions. This production will also include any documents that were re-reviewed as a result of quality control findings.
The privilege log will be finalized and delivered concurrently with the final production (Production 3). If the government requests the privilege log at an earlier stage, the request should be escalated to Conrad Ashby for discussion.
For each production, Lisa Morrow will prepare an internal cover memorandum documenting the Bates range of the production (e.g., CALDWELL-00001 through CALDWELL-XXXXX), the total document count, the custodian breakdown, and any production notes (e.g., redacted documents, documents produced in native format, or other exceptions). These cover memoranda will be maintained in the matter file and will not be transmitted to the government.
XII. DOCUMENT SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROLS
The security and confidentiality of the documents under review are of paramount importance. The following security protocols apply throughout the review period:
1. Platform Access: All documents will remain on the Clearpath Document Solutions hosted review platform during the review period. No documents are to be downloaded to personal devices, personal email accounts, or any system outside the Clearpath platform. Reviewers may access the platform from firm-issued laptops using the firm's VPN connection in accordance with Calderwood & Harkness's information security policies.
2. Access Restrictions: Access to the review platform is limited to the following members of the engagement team: Conrad Ashby, Daniel Obi, Lisa Morrow, and authorized paralegals designated by Daniel Obi or Lisa Morrow. Bernard Crawford, as Responsible Partner, will have access upon request for supervisory review purposes.
3. Vendor Obligations: Clearpath Document Solutions' confidentiality and information security obligations are governed by the vendor engagement letter and statement of work dated December 9, 2022. Clearpath maintains SOC 2 Type II certification, and its secure hosting environment employs AES-256 encryption for data at rest and TLS 1.2 encryption for data in transit. The engagement letter includes provisions for data breach notification, audit rights, and data destruction upon completion of the engagement.
4. Physical Document Security: All physical documents under review are stored in the secure document room at Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 450 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Physical documents are not to leave the office without the prior written approval of Conrad Ashby or Daniel Obi. Access to the secure document room is restricted to authorized engagement team members.
5. Printed Materials: To the extent that reviewers print any documents or work product during the review process, such printed materials must be handled in accordance with the firm's document security policies and must be shredded when no longer needed. No printed materials containing client documents or work product are to be removed from the firm's offices.
XIII. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the roles and primary responsibilities of each member of the engagement team:
XIV. DOCUMENT RETENTION AND POST-PRODUCTION PRESERVATION
The following protocols govern the retention and preservation of documents, review coding, and work product generated during the review and production process:
1. Platform Preservation: All review coding, work product annotations, privilege determinations, and reviewer notes entered on the Clearpath platform are to be preserved on the platform for the duration of the matter, including any dormant period following the completion of the grand jury's investigation. Clearpath Document Solutions is to maintain the hosted database in an accessible state until instructed otherwise by Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
2. Firm Archive: A complete copy of all produced documents (from CALDWELL-00001 through the final Bates number in the production), the finalized privilege log, all internal cover memoranda, and all internal work product (including this memorandum, the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum, the Exposure Analysis Memorandum, and any supplemental memoranda) are to be archived in the Calderwood & Harkness LLP document management system under matter number 1034-00001. The archived materials are to be maintained in accordance with the firm's document retention policies and applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
3. Physical Originals: Physical original documents collected from Mr. Caldwell's residence and office will be returned to Mr. Caldwell upon completion of the production process, unless Conrad Ashby or Daniel Obi determines that retention of physical originals is necessary for potential future testimony preparation, trial preparation, or other purposes related to the ongoing investigation. Mr. Caldwell will be advised of the anticipated return date at the appropriate time.
4. Data Destruction: Upon final resolution of the matter and expiration of all applicable retention obligations, Clearpath Document Solutions will be instructed to securely destroy all data in its possession relating to the engagement, in accordance with the data destruction provisions of the vendor engagement letter. A certificate of destruction will be obtained and maintained in the matter file.
XV. AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES
This protocol is intended to be a living document that may be amended and updated as the review progresses and as circumstances require. In particular, amendments may be necessary if any of the following circumstances arise:
(a) Additional custodians or data sources are identified, whether through the review process itself, through communications with Mr. Caldwell, or through discussions with the government;
(b) The government narrows or expands the scope of the subpoena, whether through formal modification of the subpoena or through informal agreement with AUSA Goldfarb;
(c) Keyword search term refinement is required based on the analysis of the search term hit report, including the addition of new terms, modification of existing terms, or exclusion of terms that generate excessive false positives;
(d) AUSA Goldfarb raises issues with the production, the privilege log, or any other aspect of the response that requires a modification to the review or production process; or
(e) Any other circumstance arises that, in the judgment of Conrad Ashby or Daniel Obi, warrants a modification to the protocol.
Any amendments to this protocol will be documented in a supplemental memorandum, which will be circulated to the full engagement team. The supplemental memorandum will identify the specific provisions being amended, the reason for the amendment, and the effective date. All supplemental memoranda will be maintained in the matter file alongside this protocol.
Questions regarding the application or interpretation of this protocol should be directed to Daniel Obi or Conrad Ashby. In the event of any conflict between this protocol and the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum prepared by Conrad Ashby, the Privilege Review Guidelines Memorandum controls on privilege-specific matters, and this protocol controls on all other matters.
— End of Memorandum —
Search Term | Rationale
Stavros | Target of the investigation; former business associate of Mr. Caldwell. This single-word search is designed to capture all references to Marcus Stavros in any context, including informal references.
Marcus Stavros OR "Marcus W. Stavros" | Full name of the target individual, including middle initial variant.
Aegean | Captures references to Aegean Realty Partners LLC and all affiliated entities, including instances where the entity is referred to informally or by abbreviation.
"Aegean Realty" | Core entity name for Aegean Realty Partners LLC.
"Aegean Realty Partners" | Full registered entity name.
"Aegean Realty Fund" | Captures references to all Aegean Realty fund vehicles, including Fund III LP, Fund IV LP, and Fund V LP, without requiring separate Roman numeral searches.
"Fund III" OR "Fund 3" | Specific reference to Aegean Realty Fund III LP, in which Mr. Caldwell invested $2.5 million in June 2016.
"Fund IV" OR "Fund 4" | Specific reference to Aegean Realty Fund IV LP, in which Mr. Caldwell invested $4.0 million in March 2017.
"Fund V" OR "Fund 5" | Specific reference to Aegean Realty Fund V LP, in which Mr. Caldwell invested $3.5 million in September 2018; redeemed March 2020 at $3.15 million.
Westlake | Captures references to Westlake Fidelity Bank, N.A., the lender institution identified in the subpoena (and believed to be a victim in the government's investigation).
"Westlake Fidelity" | Full name of the lender bank.
Harborview | Captures references to Harborview Trust Company, which served as escrow agent and mezzanine lender in connection with certain Aegean Realty transactions.
"Harborview Trust" | Full entity name of Harborview Trust Company.
Pinnacle | Captures references to Pinnacle Appraisal Group LLC, the appraisal firm whose valuations are understood to be under scrutiny in the investigation.
"Pinnacle Appraisal" | Full entity name of Pinnacle Appraisal Group LLC.
Search Term | Rationale
Flatbush | Captures references to 710 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY — the property acquired through the 50/50 joint venture between Caldwell and Stavros.
"710 Flatbush" | Specific street address of the Brooklyn property.
"Flatbush Holdings" | Entity name: 710 Flatbush Holdings LLC, the joint venture vehicle for the Brooklyn property.
"Commerce Boulevard" OR "Commerce Blvd" | Captures references to 1500 Commerce Boulevard, Newark, NJ — the property acquired through the 60/40 joint venture.
"1500 Commerce" | Specific street address of the Newark property.
"Stavros-Caldwell Industrial" | Entity name: Stavros-Caldwell Industrial LLC, the joint venture vehicle for the Newark property.
Newark w/5 warehouse OR industrial OR Commerce | Proximity search designed to capture references to the Newark, NJ property in contexts where the full address may not be stated but the property is described by its location and type.
Search Term | Rationale
syndication | Subpoena category (a) — investment syndication transactions involving Aegean Realty.
"co-invest" OR "co-investment" OR coinvest | Joint investment activity between Caldwell and Stavros or Aegean Realty entities; captures various spellings and hyphenation.
appraisal OR valuation | Subpoena category (c) — appraisals, valuations, and related reports. Critical to the government's anticipated theory regarding inflated property values.
"property inspection" | Subpoena category (c) — property inspection reports referenced in the subpoena.
"wire transfer" OR "wire confirmation" OR "funds transfer" | Subpoena category (d) — fund movements between Caldwell and Stavros/Aegean accounts.
"capital call" OR "capital contribution" | Fund investment activity; capital call notices are a primary form of communication between fund managers and investors.
distribution OR "return of capital" | Distributions received by Caldwell from the Aegean Realty funds or JV entities.
"management fee" OR "management fees" | Relates to the disputed approximately $340,000 in management fees charged by Stavros to 710 Flatbush Holdings LLC, which are understood to be a subject of investigative interest.
"loan agreement" OR "credit facility" OR "promissory note" | Subpoena category (b) — financing arrangements, including loans from Westlake Fidelity Bank and Harborview Trust Company.
mortgage OR "deed of trust" | Real estate financing documents; standard instruments associated with the subject properties.
"loan-to-value" OR LTV | Relates to the government's anticipated allegations concerning inflated appraisals used to obtain favorable loan-to-value ratios from Westlake Fidelity Bank.
mezzanine OR "mezz loan" | Captures references to the Harborview Trust Company $14.5 million mezzanine loan, which is believed to be a significant component of the financing arrangements under investigation.
escrow | Captures references to Harborview Trust Company's role as escrow agent for Fund IV and Fund V investor deposits.
"subscription agreement" OR "limited partnership agreement" | Fund investment documentation; the agreements governing Caldwell's participation in the Aegean Realty funds.
"operating agreement" OR "joint venture" OR "JV" | Joint venture entity governance documents, including the operating agreements for 710 Flatbush Holdings LLC and Stavros-Caldwell Industrial LLC.
buyout OR redemption OR "separation agreement" | Captures documents relating to the 2019 separation between Caldwell and Stavros, including the buyout of the Flatbush interest for $3.4 million, the buyout of the Newark interest for $1.85 million, and the Fund V redemption of $3.15 million in March 2020.
"PPM" OR "private placement memorandum" | Offering documents for the Aegean Realty funds, which are likely to contain representations by Stavros regarding fund strategy, risk factors, and use of proceeds.
Search Term | Rationale
"investor update" OR "investor report" OR "quarterly report" | Communications from Aegean Realty Partners to investors, including Mr. Caldwell, providing updates on fund performance, property-level performance, and other matters.
"financial statement" OR "balance sheet" OR "income statement" | Subpoena category (b) — financial reporting documents submitted in connection with loan applications, ongoing lender reporting requirements, or investor communications.
"K-1" OR "Schedule K-1" | Partnership tax reporting documents issued by the Aegean Realty funds and joint venture entities to Mr. Caldwell as a limited partner or member.
"closing statement" OR "settlement statement" OR HUD | Real estate acquisition closing documents, including HUD-1 settlement statements or their successors, associated with the acquisition of the Flatbush and Newark properties.
Field | Values / Format
Document ID | System-assigned unique identifier (auto-populated by Clearpath platform)
Bates Number | CALDWELL-NNNNN (five-digit sequential numbering; assigned at production stage; field left blank during review)
Custodian | Jonathan R. Caldwell / Caldwell Capital Advisors LLC (select one)
Source | Email / Mobile / Physical-Residence / Physical-Office / Shared Drive / Accounting Records (select one)
Date | MM/DD/YYYY format; enter "Undated" if no discernible date
Author / From | Free text — name and/or email address of the document's author or sender
Recipient(s) / To | Free text — name(s) and/or email address(es) of the document's recipients
CC | Free text — name(s) and/or email address(es) of individuals copied on the communication; leave blank if not applicable
Subject / Description | Free text — brief, objective description of the document's content (e.g., "Email from Stavros to Caldwell re Fund IV capital call notice, dated March 15, 2017")
Document Type | Email / Email Attachment / Letter / Memorandum / Agreement / Financial Statement / Bank Statement / Wire Confirmation / Appraisal Report / Tax Document / Other (specify in Notes field)
Responsiveness | Responsive / Not Responsive / Potentially Responsive — Escalate (select one)
Subpoena Category | A / B / C / D (multiple selections allowed; leave blank if Not Responsive)
Hot Document Flag | Yes / No
Hot Document Note | Free text — reason for flagging as a hot document; required if Hot Document Flag is "Yes"
Privilege Determination | Privilege — Withhold / Privilege — Redact / No Privilege / Privilege — Escalate (select one; populated during Pass 2)
Privilege Type | Attorney-Client / Work Product / Both / N/A (select one; populated during Pass 2)
Privilege Basis | Free text — identify the attorney, law firm, or communication at issue (e.g., "Communication with Patricia Sheldon, Whitmore & Kessler LLP re separation negotiation"); populated during Pass 2; leave blank if No Privilege or N/A
Confidentiality Designation | None required (grand jury production; no confidentiality agreement with the government is in effect)
Reviewer | Initials of the reviewing attorney (e.g., DO, LM, CA)
Review Date | MM/DD/YYYY — date the document was reviewed
QC Reviewed | Yes / No (populated during Pass 3)
QC Reviewer | Initials of the quality control reviewer (populated during Pass 3)
QC Date | MM/DD/YYYY — date the quality control review was performed (populated during Pass 3)
Notes | Free text — any additional observations, context, or issues identified during the review; this field should be used to record any information that does not fit within the other structured fields
Team Member | Primary Responsibilities
Conrad Ashby (Partner, White Collar & Investigations) | Overall supervision of the document review and production process; final privilege determinations, includi