Emails made public Wednesday show Cheryl Mills, then chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, was alerted to a "significant" Freedom of Information Act request for information about Clinton's emails in December 2012.

During a deposition in May, Mills testified that she had no "specific recollection" of the request, which sought documentation of the number of email accounts in use by Clinton for her State Department communications.

The 10 pages of emails are the latest in an agency production of documents to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch that has highlighted some of the activities Clinton had hoped to keep quiet, as she did not hand over the emails to the State Department when asked to do so in 2014.

The emails contain fresh evidence that the former secretary of state made herself available to Clinton Foundation donors and even instructed her aides to grant them favors just a few months into her diplomatic tenure.

A report published in January by the State Department's inspector general noted Mills had likely been aware of the 2012 FOIA request, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, but "found no evidence to indicate that any of these senior officials reviewed the search results or approved the response" to the group.

Mills said repeatedly in her testimony to Judicial Watch that she could not remember receiving a notice of the FOIA request for Clinton's email addresses, although the new records show she replied "Thanks" to the official who informed her of the request.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was told by the State Department that no responsive records existed in the agency's archives in a response the inspector general later labeled "inaccurate" given the numerous, well-documented email accounts Clinton used throughout her time as secretary of state.

The batches of emails published Tuesday and Wednesday raise new questions about the role Clinton Foundation donors played in Clinton's leadership of the State Department. She has repeatedly defended the charity's objectivity despite a growing body of evidence that, at the very least, her staff did little to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest when working with foundation donors.