Case 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 21 -5specified in Attachment B,” and then copy and retain those emails that are “within the scope of Attachment B.” C at 1. Id., Attach. Law enforcement personnel would then “seal any information from Apple that does not fall within the scope of Attachment B,” and would be prohibited from “further review [of] the information absent an order of the Court.” Id. The magistrate judge rejected the government’s revised application for a search warrant in a second memorandum opinion. In Re: Search of Info. Associated with [Redacted]@mac.com that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., Mag. Case No. 14-228 (JMF), 2014 WL 1377793 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2014). Reiterating the rationale set forth in the first memorandum opinion, the magistrate judge again denied the government’s application for a search warrant finding that it violated the Fourth Amendment because it amounted to an overly broad search warrant. Id. at *2-3, *5. In addition, the magistrate judge rejected the government’s use of the two-step procedure under Rule 41(e), stating that the government was “‘abusing the twostep procedure under Rule 41’ by requiring Apple to disclose the entire contents of an e-mail account.” Id. at *5 (quoting In Re: Search of Info., Mag. Case No. 14-228 (JMF), 2014 WL 945563, at *5). To avoid issuing a general warrant that would permit the government to seize large amounts of data not supported by probable cause, the magistrate judge recommended that Apple