DOJ-OGR-00021096.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page49 of 113 provision as to Epstein. See, e.g., LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In interpreting a contract under New York law, ‘words and phrases ... should be given their plain meaning,’ and the contract ‘should be construed so as to give full meaning and effect to all of its provisions.’”’) (citations omitted); Port Consol., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co. of Hannover, PLC, 826 F. App’x 822, 827 (11th Cir. 2020) (same under Florida law). The Justice Manual supports this view, admonishing prosecutors who do not wish to bind USAOs in other districts to “explicitly limit the scope” of the NPA to their districts. Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630 (emphasis added). The absence of the phrase “in this District” from the co-conspirator immunity provision therefore compels the inference that the parties did not intend to so limit its reach. As the NPA reflects, Epstein’s objective in negotiating the NPA was to obtain a global resolution that would, among other things, provide maximum protection for any alleged co-conspirators. A175 (noting that Epstein “seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability”). The NPA makes clear that its identification of four “potential co-conspirators” by name was not intended to limit the immunity provision to those four individuals (“but not limited to”). A178; Dkt 142, Exh. H (9/16/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz stating that “I will mention ‘co-conspirators,’ but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge”). The NPA on 34 DOJ-OGR-00021096