DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 86 of 348

jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the
details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to
participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.

Thoughts?

Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about 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.”96

2. 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] anyhow, if we don’t
meet with them. I’d rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our
deadline has to slip a bit . . . it’s worth it.”

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.

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.”97 Villafaña
suspected the computers contained evidence that “would have put this case completely to bed.”

96 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.

97 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.”

60

DOJ-OGR-00003262