DOJ-OGR-00004534.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 237 of 349 for [victims] to enhance their stories” and that the defense would try to have Villafafia or the case agents removed from the case. Both the lead case agent and Villafafia told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafafia the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer for advice. Villafafia recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that “it’s not really that big a concern, but if you’re concerned about it then you should stop making the notification.”°* In her 2017 CVRA declaration, the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO, the case agents stopped notifying victims about the NPA. B. October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications While the case agents and Villafafia considered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two, after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special master to select the attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision. On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a letter responding to the USAO’s proposal to use a special master, he cautioned that “neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case” because such communications would “violate the confidentiality of the agreement” and would prevent Epstein from having control over “what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage.” Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that “[n]either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case.”*°° Rather, Lefkowitz wanted to “participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals.” On October 23, 2007, Villafafia raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman, stating: Wealso have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don’t do that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to ‘cold call’ the girls. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007, a0 The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about victim notification, nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted in July 2008 and he was assigned to handle the litigation. Villafafia told OPR that they consulted the Professional Responsibility Officer over the telephone, the call took no more than “five minutes,” and the Professional Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus “wouldn’t have [any] context for it.” 306 Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules. 210 DOJ-OGR-00004534