DOJ-OGR-00004501.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 204 of 349 the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was “pushed under the rug” without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending. Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafafia continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of the computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose Epstein’s efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the defense, informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein at age 14 and had been photographed in the nude. A few days later, Villafafia told defense counsel that she had “conferred with the appropriate people, and we are not willing to agree to a stay.” Defense counsel then contacted Lourie, who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the upcoming meeting with Acosta. After the meeting, and when the court sought to reschedule the hearing, Villafafia emailed Sloman to ask if she should “put it off’; he replied, “Yes,” and the hearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed, however, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached the agreement. Villafafia told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epstein’s computers. She told OPR that, in her view, “the fact that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing . . . was further evidence of the importance of the evidence.” OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate, and continue with, the NPA negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending, and to agree to postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer evidence. Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafafia’s efforts to obtain the missing computers, but he believed that “there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly” regarding the plea. Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafafia’s efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only “vaguely.” Menchel expressed surprise to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain “an entire computer” through the method utilized by Villafafia, telling OPR, “I had not heard of that.” However, the contemporaneous records show that Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie had each been aware in 2007 of Villafafia’s efforts to obtain Epstein’s missing computer equipment. Villafafia kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007, all discussed her proposed steps. Villafafia told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions about her proposal to obtain the evidence. Lourie also received Villafafia’s July 16, 2007 email discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it, and on one occasion he spoke directly 177 DOJ-OGR-00004501