DOJ-OGR-00004554.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 257 of 349 an instance in which Wild “asked a question that wasn’t answered” of anyone in the USAO or of the FBI case agents. Edwards contacted Villafafia by email and telephone in mid-June, stating that he had “information and concerns that [he] would like to share.”*** In his affidavit, Edwards alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Villafafia, he “asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in,” and Villafafia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter “was an on-going active investigation[.]” Edwards attested that Villafafia gave him “the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity.”*” In her written response to OPR, Villafafia said that she “listened more than [she] spoke” during these interactions with Edwards, which occurred before the state court plea: Given the uncertainty of the situation — Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms, while the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards [filing charges] — I did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury. In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafafia explained that during these exchanges, Villafafia did not inform Edwards of the existence of the NPA because she “did not know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the NPA.”°°° Villafafia told OPR that she did not inform Edwards also had interactions with other victims’ attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to Villafafia two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under investigation. The attorney noted, “[W]e never got any information out of [Villafafia]. We were never told what was happening or going on to any extent.” Villafafia’s counsel told OPR that Villafafia did not have any interaction with the attorney or his law partner until after Epstein’s state court plea hearing, and that in her written communications responding to the attorney’s inquiries, she provided information to the extent possible. OPR found no documentation that Villafafia’s communications with the attorney occurred prior to June 30, 2008. Villafafia also had more ministerial interactions with other victims’ counsel, as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases. For example, in March 2008, one victim’s attorney informed Villafafia of his representation of a victim and requested that the government provide him with photographs of the victim and information concerning the tail registration number for Epstein’s airplane. Villafafia responded that she was unable to provide the requested information, but asked that counsel keep her updated about the civil litigation. A48 Villafafia later stated in a July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that, although she invited Edwards to provide her with information, “[n]othing was provided.” wae Edwards did not respond to OPR’s request to interview him, although he did assist OPR in locating other attorneys who were representing victims. 350 The government later admitted in court filings that Villafafia and Edwards “discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned.” Doe, Government’s Response to Petitioners’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 14, 101 June 6, 2017). 230 DOJ-OGR-00004554