DOJ-OGR-00004415.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 118 of 349 Lefkowitz’s description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were “several instances” in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading. Emails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who also later reported to Villafafia that Lefkowitz’s “suggested revision has been rejected.” Other emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting. C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein’s Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—citing a scheduling conflict— sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein’s entry of his guilty plea in state court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email, Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney’s Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he “didn’t want to dictate a schedule to the state.”!4° Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed to the postponement. With Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he quickly came up against the problem Villafafia and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October 12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative’s activities Epstein would be required to reimburse. Although it appeared that progress was being made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz emailed Sloman identifying “areas of concern” with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it “re-ploughs some of what we accomplished this week,” and raised “unnecessary” issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein, and Villafafia was concerned that “this may be the real reason for the delay in the... plea. She thinks that [Epstein] . . . want[s] to knock that lawsuit out before the guilty plea to deter others.” Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims. almost three weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis at Chapter Two, Part Three, Section IV.E.2. 145 Assuming Acosta made the remark Lefkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed Villafafia to omit language requiring the State Attorney’s Office to take action by a certain date, because he was “not comfortable with requiring the State” to comply with a specific deadline. During his interview, Acosta told OPR that “we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney.” 91 DOJ-OGR-00004415