DOJ-OGR-00003886.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document223 Filed 04/20/21 Page13 of 23 New York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309; Collins, 929 F.3d at 841; Penncro Assocs., 499 F.3d at 1156-57. Here, the NPA contains only two immunity provisions: one for Epstein, which is expressly limited to the SDFL, and one for co-conspirators, which is not. The government’s claim that this distinction reflects an intent to apply the limitation universally strains credulity.° It is simply inconceivable that any reasonable prosecutor who intended to limit the co- conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL—and who had thought to include precisely such limiting language in Epstein’s immunity provision—would have found it unnecessary to include identical language in the co-conspirator immunity provision. Indeed, the omission reveals an intent not to so limit that provision. Ms. Maxwell’s opening memorandum pointed out a second indication in the text of the NPA that the parties intended to apply the co-conspirator immunity provision outside the SDFL: where a provision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA’s explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term “the United States” in a plea agreement, without more, is insufficient under Annabi and its progeny to demonstrate an intent to bind other districts, the NPA’s references to both the USAO-SDFL and “the United States” require an inference that a distinction between the two is intended—and that where “the United States” is used, the intent is to refer to the government as a whole. Again, “where contract provisions use different language, courts must assume the parties intended different meanings.” Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309. The government does not even attempt to offer an ° The government incorrectly cites to a brief filed by the USAO-SDFL in 2013 as taking the position that “the NPA did not bind other districts.” Opp. 13 (quoting Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.)). But the cited passage in that brief argued only that the NPA did not bar the prosecution of Epstein in other districts, which is not in dispute; it made no such argument with respect to the prosecution of potential co- conspirators. In any event, any self-serving attempts by the USAO-SDFL to limit the NPA’s applicability years after it was executed—after the NPA had been widely criticized and scrutinized—are no more probative of the parties’ intent in 2007 than the arguments made by the government here. DOJ-OGR-00003886