DOJ-OGR-00003262.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * Case Number: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document Number: 204-3 * Filed Date: 04/16/21 * Page Number: 86 of 348 **Text Content** **Section 1:** * The text discusses a meeting between Villafaña and Oosterbaan, where they discussed the Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and the possibility of the USAO dropping the case. * Acosta expressed concern about the Department's involvement in the case and asked if they could participate by teleconference. * The text also mentions that Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about the Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and that "[i]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop this case." **Section 2:** * The text discusses the leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence. * On August 8, 2007, Villafaña informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th deadline." * Villafaña also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. * Noting that "there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea," Villafaña asked Acosta for guidance. * Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." * Lourie pointed out that CEOs "has no approval authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies." * Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyway, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit . . . it's worth it." **Section 3:** * As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. * On August 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. * Villafaña was reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant. * On August 13, 2007, Villafaña advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of the litigation. * However, Sanchez reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, which was scheduled for September 7, 2007. **Section 4:** * Villafaña told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence." * Villafaña suspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed." **Section 5:** * In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter. * Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of reasons why" defense counsel would resist "turn[ing] over an entire computer."