DOJ-OGR-00021680.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page33 of 93 20 that “the federal Grand Jury investigation will be sus- pended.” (A.178 (emphasis added)). The grand jury in- vestigation is the one that USAO-SDFL agreed to de- fer in the same agreement (A.175), and not any poten- tial federal grand jury investigations in other districts. Furthermore, the NPA elsewhere refers to the “United States” on occasions that could only mean the USAO- SDFL. For instance, the NPA commits the “United States’—that is, the USAO-SDFL—to providing Ep- stein with a list of victims. (A.177 (‘The United States shall provide Epstein’s attorneys with a list of individ- uals whom it has identified as victims ....”)). Another provision states that the NPA will not be made part of the public record and commits “the United States’— again, the USAO-SDFL—to providing notice to Ep- stein if it receives a Freedom of Information Act re- quest requiring disclosure of the agreement. (A.178). The mere fact that the co-conspirator provision of the NPA used the phrase “United States” rather than “U.S. Attorney’s Office” is not evidence that the parties intended an unusually broad immunity provision. See, e.g., Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 540 (2013) (‘We are not aware, however, of any canon of interpretation that forbids interpreting differ- ent words used in different parts of the same statute to mean roughly the same thing.”). As Judge Nathan concluded, given the repeated limitations of the com- mitments in the NPA to the USAO-SDEL, including the commitment not to prosecute Epstein, “[i]t is not plausible ... that the parties intended to drastically expand the agreement’s scope in the single sentence on DOJ-OGR-00021680