{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "205",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 205 of 349\n\nwith one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he \"vaguely\" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafaña whether to put off a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously, the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations.\n\nContemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed, he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA itself provides that \"the federal . . . investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process] will be held in abeyance,\" that Epstein will withdraw his \"motion to intervene and to quash certain [legal process],\" and, further, that the parties would \"maintain . . . evidence subject to [legal process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate\" until the NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be \"deemed withdrawn.\" (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of evidence specified was \"certain computer equipment.\" In addition, Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer equipment.\n\nVillafaña knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant—and potentially critical—information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost.\n\n254 If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafaña or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafaña had consulted with the Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment.\n\n178\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004502",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 205 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "with one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he \"vaguely\" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafaña whether to put off a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously, the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed, he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA itself provides that \"the federal . . . investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process] will be held in abeyance,\" that Epstein will withdraw his \"motion to intervene and to quash certain [legal process],\" and, further, that the parties would \"maintain . . . evidence subject to [legal process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate\" until the NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be \"deemed withdrawn.\" (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of evidence specified was \"certain computer equipment.\" In addition, Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer equipment.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant—and potentially critical—information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation, the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "254 If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafaña or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafaña had consulted with the Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "178",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004502",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "FBI",
      "OPR",
      "Department"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 12, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004502"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It discusses the handling of certain evidence and the negotiations surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}