DOJ-OGR-00021361.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ON IR 3536038, Page189 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 187 of 348 proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafafia), noting that he “just got off the phone with Alex” and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later clarified for Villafafia that “Jay’s suggested revision has been rejected.” A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein’s obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative’s fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO’s interpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein’s advantage, the revision concerned attorney’s fees and did not materially impede the victims’ ability to seek damages from Epstein under § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue. OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting. Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (1) not to intervene with the State Attorney’s Office’s handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their counsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events, and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations he had with Acosta. Of more significance for OPR’s evaluation was a contemporaneous document—an October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz’s letter, which Sloman drafted, and Acosta reviewed. and edited for signature by Sloman—that disputed Lefkowitz’s claims. The draft letter stated: I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in that October 23rd letter. Your letter claimed that this Office would not intervene with the State Attorney’s Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as that sentence does not violate state law. As we discussed and, hopefully, clarified, and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such a 161 DOJ-OGR-00021361