DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 48 of 239

OPR Report at 167.10 After reviewing the facts and circumstances of the negotiation, OPR concluded that “the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein’s political, celebrity, or other influential associates.” OPR Report at 168.11

In view of OPR’s conclusions—and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary proffered by the defendant—the defendant has failed to establish that that she was an intended third party beneficiary of the NPA. Accordingly, the defendant lacks standing to enforce the NPA.

C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing

The defendant’s motion for discovery and a hearing fares no better. Lacking any evidence—much less any legal authority—that the NPA applies to this District or the crimes in the Indictment, the defendant asks the Court to order discovery and conduct a hearing. In short,

10 The OPR Report further reflects that in OPR’s interview of Villafaña, she reported that she did not have anyone in mind aside from the four individuals named in the “co-conspirator” provision: “Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein’s co-conspirators, who at the time she understood to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, ‘[W]e considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn’t have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.’ She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern.” OPR Report at 70. Further, the OPR Report notes that: “Villafaña told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, ‘the investigation had not developed evidence of any other potential co-conspirators.’” Id. at 81. Similarly, the report reflects that a supervisor at USAO-SDFL told OPR “that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein.” OPR Report at 80-81.

11 Although the defendant correctly notes that the OPR Report reflects that the prosecutor remarked that Epstein “wanted to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened,” OPR Report at 167, that desire explains the existence of the “co-conspirator” provision, but it does not inform its meaning or scope.

21

DOJ-OGR-00002982