EFTA00233329

The Palm Beach Post and B.B. were granted leave to intervene and 
file their own motions similar to E.W.'s. 
The lower court, after two hearings, granted the motions and ordered 
the NPA and Addendum to be unsealed. Petitioner seeks review of that 
order and the order denying his motion to stay pending appellate review. 
For the reasons stated below and in the other responses, it is submitted his 
requests should be denied. 
2. Judge Marra expressly authorized the lower court to resolve 
the issue of whether the state court records should be unsealed. 
Petitioner places great emphasis on rulings entered by United States 
District Judge Kenneth Marra, asserting that the order under review here 
"violated" those rulings. 
In fact, at a June 12, 2009 hearing2 attended by petitioner's counsel, 
Judge Marra expressly authorized the lower court, the Honorable Judge 
Jeffrey Colbath, to resolve the issue of whether the state court records should 
be unsealed. 
Responding to a request that he look at the NPA in camera, Judge 
Marra stated: 
THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat [sic] will resolve this 
issue for me. 
2 The hearing was in the federal civil lawsuits against petitioner. 
3 
EFTA00233669

MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I believe 
we are allowed to show it to you. 
THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge Colvat 
[sic] to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain sealed, then I'll 
consider whether or not I want to have it submitted to me in camera. 
(E.W.-13, page 42, lines 8-15(emphasis added).) 
All of petitioner's assertions that Judge Colbath's order under review 
here "violated" Judge Marra's orders, that the lower court gave only "lip 
service" to Judge Marra, that the supremacy clause and the doctrine of 
federal grand jury secrecy are violated, are all shown by the above quotes to 
be false assertions. Judge Marra looked forward to a resolution by the lower 
court of what is purely a state law issue: should these state court records be 
unsealed? 
3. The federal court orders do not support the petition and in fact 
undermine it. 
Even if we were to ignore Judge Marra's quotes above, his written 
orders do not support the petition and in fact undermine it. 
The first federal order petitioner relies on is an "Order To Compel 
Production And Protective Order" dated August 21, 2008. The second is an 
"Order" dated February 12, 2009. (Copies, respectively, are A-2 and A-6 in 
petitioner's Appendix.4) 
3 Reference to E.W.'s Appendix is by "(E.W.-_)." 
4 
EFTA00233670

These orders were entered in a proceeding brought by two of 
petitioner's victims, Jane Does 1 and 2,5 against the United States under the 
federal Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3771. Petitioner was not 
a party to the proceeding. (A-1.) That proceeding is separate from the 
federal damages actions brought by petitioner's victims. It should also be 
noted that there has never been a federal court prosecution of petitioner. 
There was no federal indictment or information filed. 
In the proceeding where Judge Marra entered the two orders relied on 
by petitioner, the Jane Does sought to obtain production directly from the 
files of the U.S. Attorney of a copy of the NPA. They were not asking 
Judge Marra to "unseal" a state court record. 
Thus, the context of Judge Marra's two orders was a proceeding by 
two private citizens solely against the United States to get a federal judge to 
order the federal prosecutor to produce a document directly from the 
federal prosecutor's files, not to unseal state court records. The factors 
going into this extraordinary request—to order the federal prosecutor to turn 
over documents directly from the files of the prosecutor--are not at all 
relevant to the purely state law issues before this Court on whether a 
Reference to petitioner's Appendix is by: "(A- )." 
5 Undersigned's firm represents both Jane Does, filed the papers giving rise 
to the orders and attended the hearings referenced therein. 
5 
EFTA00233671

document was improperly sealed by a state court and should be unsealed by 
that court. 
The issues before this Court must be resolved by interpreting and 
applying the state constitution, state open government policies, state rules of 
judicial administration and the administrative orders of the state circuit court 
below. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government. 
In the August 21, 2008 order, Judge Marra granted the Jane Does' ore 
tenus motion seeking production of the NPA directly from the U.S. 
Attorney, but with restrictions. He ordered the U.S. Attorney to produce a 
copy of the NPA to Jane Does' attorneys under a nondisclosure restriction. 
Notably, the order makes no reference whatsoever to the state court order 
sealing the NPA in the state court record (even though the state court order 
(A-9) had already been entered on July 2, 2008) or to the fact that the NPA 
was already sealed in the state court file (at the plea colloquy on June 30, 
2008). That is because the dispute before Judge Marra solely involved two 
crime victims seeking a document directly from the files of the U.S. 
Attorney, not from the state court file, and had nothing to do with unsealing 
state court records. 
The second order entered on February 12, 2009 was on the Jane Does' 
written motion to remove any restrictions on disclosure so their attorneys 
6 
EFTA00233672

could discuss the NPA with third parties. Again, the context was two crime 
victims trying to publicly disclose a document directly from the files of the 
U.S. Attorney. Judge Marra denied the motion because the Jane Does had 
not shown that they should be able to publicly disclose a document they got 
directly from the U.S. Attorney's files. This issue, again, has nothing to do 
with whether the lower court should unseal the state court records. 
But in so ruling, Judge Marra indirectly acknowledged the state trial 
court's jurisdiction to unseal its own records. Judge Marra stated: "If a 
specific tangible need arises in a civil case petitioners or other alleged 
victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, 
with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement." (A-6, 
page 2.) 
Judge Marra's orders were entered after the NPA was sealed by the 
lower court; they can have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the NPA 
was properly sealed. 
Neither federal order, by their express terms, precludes the lower 
court from unsealing its own court records. Judge Marra did not enjoin and 
does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the lower court from unsealing its own 
records. Younger'. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As Judge Marra noted, 
"the [NPA] was not filed in this case [the federal proceeding], under seal or 
7 
EFTA00233673

otherwise." (A-6, page 1.) The copy of the NPA in the file of the lower 
court is a state court record, not a federal court record. Playing Judge Marra 
off on the lower court is a red herring. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the petition should be denied and the stay 
on disclosure vacated. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been served by 
mail on the parties listed below this 
ay of July, 2009. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is submitted in Times New 
Roman 14-point font and complies with the font requirement of Rule 9.100. 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 
Attorneys for E.W. 
By:  
W. iam 
/ 
J. Berger 
8 
EFTA00233674

SERVICE LIST 
Jane Kreusler-Walsh 
Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 
Deanna K. Shullman 
Spencer T. Kuvin 
Leopold- Kuvin, P.A. 
Robert D. Critton of 
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 
Jack A. Goldberger of 
Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 
a p.e. a 
. 
I • 
å 
n 
at 
(...Sa.. 1 A nn 
we 
an 
w Ir 
4. 0 
I 
U.S. Attomey's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 
Judith Stevenson Arco 
State Attomey's Office- West Palm Beach 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 
EFTA00233675

Honorable Jeffrey Colbath 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
Room 11F 
West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 
10 
EFTA00233676

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
CASE NO: 4D09-2554 
L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
et. al, 
Respondents. 
APPENDIX TO 
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
ROBERT D. CRITTON 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
and 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
and 
JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
Counsel for Petitioner 
EFTA00233677

Document 
Tab 
Proceedings in Southern District Court 
Transcript of Epstein's Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings (6/12/09) 
E.W.-1 
EFTA00233678

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Appendix has been 
served by mail on the parties listed below this  T )day of July, 2009. 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 
Attorneys for E.W. 
By: 
Willi 
J. Berger 
SERVICE LIST 
Jane Kreusler-Walsh and 
Barbara J. Compiani or 
ICrencler-Walsh Cnmniani Rr Varoac P A 
Deanna K. Shullman 
Spencer T. Kuvin 
Leopold- Kuvin P A 
Robert D. Critton of 
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 
EFTA00233679

Jack A. Goldberger of 
Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
Judith Stevenson Arco 
State Attorney's Office- West Palm Reach
Honorable Jeffrey Colbath 
EFTA00233680

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
B 
9 
10 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
SCAMPI) 
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 
CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA 
I 
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 
JANE DOE, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
I 
JUNE 12, 2009 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
I 
Defendant. 
11 
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 
12 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
APPEARANCES: 
13 
14 
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 
ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz 
15 
16 
For Jane Doe 
17 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
18 
Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
19 
Jbc). 
20 
ISIDRO M. GARCIA, 
Garcia Elkins Boehringer 
21 
22 
23 
RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 
24 
25 
For C.M.A. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233681

1 
ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 
2 
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 
'S What Plaaler Street 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
(Via telephone) 
KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. 
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., 
MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 
Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 East Broward Boulevard 
16 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
For U.S.A. 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 
JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 
(Via telephone) 
REPORTED BY: 
LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-AE 
22 
Official United States Court Reporter 
Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 
23 
400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 
Miami, FL 33128 
305.523.5290 
24 
25 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233682

1 
THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein 
2 cases. 
3 
May I have counsel state their appearances? 
4 
MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 
5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 
6 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
7 
MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 
8 Doe. 
9 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
10 
MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 
11 Jane Doe II. 
12 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
13 
MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 
14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 
15 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
16 
MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 
17 Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 
18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 
19 appear by telephone. 
20 
THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 
21 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 
22 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
23 
MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 
24 
THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 
25 stated their appearances? 
Okay. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233683

4 
1 
2 
3 
Defense? 
MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 
Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 
4 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
5 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 
6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 
7 
THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 
8 the United States Attorney's Office here. 
9 
MS. 
Good morning, Your Honor. 
10 
for the U.S. Attorney's office. 
11 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
12 
Who else do we have on the phone? 
13 
MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 
14 defense team are on the phone, also. 
15 
THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 
16 
MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 
17 Honor. 
18 
MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 
19 Honor. 
20 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
21 
I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues 
22 which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to 
23 stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have 
24 concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by 
25 defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233684

5 
1 may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the 
2 non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and 
3 therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. 
4 
I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the 
5 United States to present its position to me. And I received 
6 the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find 
7 very helpful. And I still am not sure I understand what the 
8 Government's position is on it. 
9 
So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys as 
10 to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 
11 non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 
12 I correct? 
13 
MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 
14 
THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the 
15 entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 
16 
MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed 
17 under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 
18 seal in your court. 
19 
THE COURT: Okay. 
20 
MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 
21 
THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 
22 in that case? 
23 
MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 
24 
THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 
25 about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK FtEALT1ME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233685

1 yourself to a claim for a breach by the United States of the 
2 non-prosecution agreement? 
3 
MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. 
4 
Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is 
5 somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the 
6 Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the 
7 case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking 
8 a stay. And I think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then 
9 subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 
10 were filed on or about the same time. 
11 
And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 
12 was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 
13 Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 
14 reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 
15 pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 
16 
In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, i 
17 believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 
18 Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 
19 time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 
20 
And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 
21 the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 
22 warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 
23 defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 
24 concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 
25 self-incrimination. 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233686

7 
1 
The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law 
2 enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these 
3 civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the civil 
4 litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they 
5 arise in the course of the litigation. 
6 
And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the 
7 position that the Government has taken in its most recent 
8 filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what 
9 the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 
10 saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 
11 to some discovery in the civil cases. 
12 
What they have, in essence, said is if you take some 
13 action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 
14 on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 
15 to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 
16 agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 
17 one side breaches, the other side can sue. 
18 
In this instance what the Government will do is if we 
19 believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 
20 indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 
21 circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 
22 is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a 
23 great option. 
24 
In this particular instance my mandate in defending --
25 and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233687

8 
1 because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty 
2 specific in what you asked the Government for in its response 
3 is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more limited 
4 fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of 
5 the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the 
6 non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. 
7 
And the Government refuses to answer that question. 
8 They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. 
9 What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 
10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 
11 if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 
12 it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 
13 cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 
14 opportunity to cure. 
15 
We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 
16 certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 
17 no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 
18 under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 
19 indictment. 
20 
Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 
21 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 
22 certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases 
23 that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 
24 the NPA. 
25 
Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry 
TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 
EFTA00233688