EFTA02729297

Page 1
606 50.24 1267
17 Ha. L. Weekly D2571
(Cite as: 606 So.2d 1267)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,
Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 91.3128.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Oct. 29. 1992.
*1267 An appeal from the Leon County
Circuit Cowl; P. Kevin Davey, Judge.
Robert G. Gough, Asst. Gen. Counsel,
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation,
Tallahassee, for appellant.
Judith S. Kavanaugh, William L. Hyde and
Richard A. Russell of Peeples, Earl & Blauk,
P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Barry M. Hartman, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., and Susan
Hill P002011, Asst. U.S. Auy., Miami, Keith E.
Saxe, David C. Shilton and Ellen J. Durkee,
Dept. of Justice, Washington. D.C., for arnicus/
U.S.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Wait v. Florida Power & Light
Co.. 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979).
MINER, ALLEN and ICAHN. 33., concur.
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. ° West 1995 No claim to wig. U.S. govt. works
SMENEMININOIMI
MSTLAIV
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITTENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331585
EFTA_OO2O43 I I
EFTA02729297

•
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 4D09-2554
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
E.W., and B.B.,
Respondents.
Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida,
Case Nos. 2006 CF 9454AMB, 2008 CF 938 1 AMB
PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POSTS
RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THOMAS, LoCICERO & BRALOW PL
Deanna K. Shullman
James B. Lake
101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITTENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331586
EFTA_002043 12
EFTA02729298

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
INTRODUCTION
JURISDICTION 2
NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 7
ARGUMENT 8
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW. 8
II. TILE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NM. 8
A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance. 8
1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly Occurred
without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper Order 11
2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any Procedures to
Protect the Right of Access at all. 12
B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or
Its Addendum. 13
1. Petitioner Cannot Identify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants
Closure. 16
2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did
Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19
3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's
Orders Unsealing the NPA 21
CONCLUSION 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 26
Pag3e1 88
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331587
EFTA_002043 13
EFTA02729299

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Craig v. Harney
331 U.S. 367 (1947) 8
Doe v. Hammond,
502 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2007) 24
In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel,
441 F. Supp. 1299 (M.D. Fla. 1977) 23, 24
Lockhead Martin Coro. v. Boeing Co
393 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2005) 23
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court
920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) 9
U.S. v. Rosen,
471 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2007) 23
United States v. Kooistra,
796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9
State Cases
Anderson v. E.T.,
862 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) 8
Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers. lac.,
531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) 10
Combs v. State,
436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983) 8
Doe v. Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Ter
Case No. 92.32567, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) 17
Fla. Sugar Cane League. Inc. v. Fla. Dept. ofEnvtl. Reg.
Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir. Sept. 20, 1991) 22
Efous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach v. Gomillion,
639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) 21
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420
954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007)
507 So. 2d 667(Fla. 2d DCA 1987) 9
Sarasota-Herald Tribune v. State,
924 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) 2
Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watson
615 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) 9
Wallacos—augman,
687 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) 21
ii
09/12/2019 Page 3189 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411
CONFIDENTIAL
SDNYGM_00331588
EFTA_0020431 4
EFTA02729300

Other Authorities
Ha. Const. Art. I, § 23 18
Ha. Const. Art. I, § 24 2
Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d) 2
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 18
iii
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331589
EFTA_002043 15
EFTA02729301

INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns attempts to thwart public scrutiny of how government
responded to the prostitution of children in Palm Beach County. In the order at
issue below, the trial court correctly unsealed a non-prosecution agreement and its
addendum. A predecessor judge found that the agreement significantly induced
Petitioner to accept a plea agreement that allowed him to serve 18 months in jail
for luring children to his Palm Beach mansion for "massages" or sexual activity.
At the time that the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively "the
NPA") were accepted for filing, no basis for closure was asserted or found. Thus,
the NPA was not properly sealed, and the prior closure order was properly vacated.
Moreover, no basis currently exists for closure, and the pending petition — like
Petitioner's filings below — contain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions
that confidentiality is required. Thus, continued closure is not warranted.
Certainly unsealing the documents was not such a clear departure from the
essential requirements of law as to warrant certiorari relief. Consequently, the
pending petition must be denied.
In addition, this Court should exercise its inherent authority under Rule
9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to sanction Petitioner for his
frivolous and bad faith attempts to cloak the resolution of the criminal charges
1
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFPITIENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331590
EFTA_002043 16
EFTA02729302

against him in secrecy by awarding to Respondent, Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc.
d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post") its attorneys' fees and costs in responding
to this petition.
JURISDICTION
The Post adopts Respondent E.W.'s statement concerning jurisdiction.
Insofar as this Court finds jurisdiction, the Post requests that this Court expedite its
consideration of this matter, so as to remedy the denial to date of the public's and
press's constitutional and common law rights of access. Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const.;
Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d); Sarasota-Herald Tribune v. State, 924 So. 2d 8, I I (Fla.
2d DCA 2006) (rule 9.100(d) permits "expedited" review of orders excluding the
press).
NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT
The Post asks this Court to deny the pending petition and to let stand the
circuit court's Orders dated June 25, 2009 and June 26, 2009, which unsealed the
NPA, and directed the Clerk of Court in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of
Florida to release these records to the public.'
Petitioner has sought review of the June 26, 2009 Order by motion rather than
by petition for writ of certiorari. Though the June 26 Order does address the
matter of Petitioner's request for stay, the order also directs the Clerk of Courts to
release the records, review of which should have been sought by certiorari.
2
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331591
EFTA_002043 17
EFTA02729303

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
This proceeding concerns the public's constitutional and common law rights
of access to records crucial to the disposition of criminal charges against Petitioner
Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, Petitioner seeks review of two orders unsealing a
non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively the "NPA"), which are
records of the trial court below. State v. Epstein, Case Nos. 06 CF9454AMB, 08
CF9381AMB.
Petitioner was investigated by the State of Florida for felony solicitation of
children for prostitution. (A-7 at p. 3,1. 15 — p. 4,1.4; A-8.) The victims allege
Epstein brought and paid teenage girls to come to his home for sex and/or
"massages." (A-11 at ¶ 6 and n. 1.) Epstein's minor victims are numerous (A-7 at
p. 20, 11. 13-18) and the case drew attention of the highest-ranking law enforcement
officials in Palm Beach County. Frustrated during the course of the investigation,
Police Chief Michael Reiter even penned a letter to State Attorney Barry Krischer,
calling his office's handling of the investigation "highly unusual" and suggesting
that he disqualify himself from the case if the state would not act (A-11 at ¶ 6; A-
18 at p. 36,11. 7-142.) A federal investigation of Epstein's conduct as it relates to
soliciting children for prostitution ensued.
References to "A-" arc to Petitioner's Appendix.
2
3
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPIDaeENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331592
EFTA_002043 I
EFTA02729304

Then abruptly, in June 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in the trial court below
to felony solicitation of minors for prostitution, was designated a Sexual Offender
pursuant to Florida law, and was sentenced to 18-months jail and community
control. (A-8.) Before accepting the terms of his state plea, Epstein entered into
a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. (A-7 at p. 38,11. 9-18.) The
non-prosecution agreement and its addendum were filed under seal in the lower
court on July 2, 2008 and August 25, 2008, respectively.3
According to Epstein's lawyers (and presumably the NPA itself), taking
the state plea was a condition of the NPA. (A-7 at p. 38,11. 13-18.) The NPA is
invalidated if Epstein fails to fulfill the obligations of the state plea deal (A-7 at p.
38, 11. 22 — 25.) In accepting the state plea, the trial court viewed the NPA a
"significant inducement in accepting" the plea and recognized that the NPA
influenced the defendant to make the state plea. (A-7 at p. 39,11. 19-21; p. 40, Il.
10-13.)
In considering the plea at the hearing, the court requested a sealed copy of
the non-prosecution agreement and asked whether Petitioner had signed it. (A-7 at
3 The NPA and its addendum were filed under seal in this Court on July 1,
2009.
4 The Post and its lawyers have not seen the NPA, though it was reviewed, in
camera, by the trial court (A-19).
4
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFITDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331593
EFTA_002043 19
EFTA02729305

p. 40, Il. 4-6.) Epstein's lawyer indicated it was signed and interjected that he
"would like to seal the copy." (A-7 at p. 40, 11.7-9.) Representatives from the
U.S. Attorneys' Office were present at the hearing (A-7 at p. 39, II. 22-23) but
stated no objection to filing the non-prosecution agreement in the state court file.
Thereupon, without any further consideration, the trial court requested a sealed
copy of the non-prosecution agreement. (A-7 at p. 40, II. 9-10.) On July 2, 2008,
without any further proceedings on the issue, the court entered an Agreed Order
Sealing Document in Court File, which allowed Epstein to file the non-prosecution
agreement that was attached to the Agreed Order under seal. (A-9.) By its terms,
the closure order was limited to the non-prosecution agreement and did not include
its addendum. The order makes no findings with respect to closure and never
expires. (A-9.) The addendum was filed six weeks later, on August 25, 2008,
without any further order of the Court with respect to closure.
Since Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution, he has
been named in at least 12 civil lawsuits that — like the charges in this case — allege
Epstein lured teenage girls to his Palm Beach mansion for sex and/or "massages."
(A-1)5 At least 11 cases are pending. In another lawsuit, one of the Epstein's
5 See also A-11 at ¶ 6 (citing Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla.
2008); Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 3. v.
Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 4. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-
&ooinote continued on next page)
5
0911212019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331594
EFTA 00204320
EFTA02729306

accusers has alleged that federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding
the disposition of possible charges against Epstein. (A-1; A-18 at p. 22,1.20— p.
23,1. 15.)6
Given the important public interest in this matter, on June 1, 2009, the Post
moved to intervene below for the purpose of obtaining access to the NPA. The
Court granted the Post's motion to intervene on June 10, 2009 (Supp.A.-1 at 1)7
The trial court granted the Post's petition for access on June 25, 2009 (A-I6, A-18)
and on June 26, 2009 denied Epstein's motion for stay and directed the clerk to
release the records at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. (A-17, A-I9.) Epstein's
emergency petition for writ of certiorari regarding the June 25, 2009 order and his
emergency motion to review the June 26, 2009 order followed.
80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80381 (S.D. Fla. 2008);
C.M.A. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Epstein, Case No.
08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No, 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla.
2008); Doe No. 6 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Poe 1I v.
Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 101 v. Epstein, Case No.
09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla.
2009); Doe No. 8 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009)).
See also (A-11 at ¶ 6) (citing Jn re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.
6
2008)).
References to "Supp.A." correspond to the supplemental appendix filed by the
Post simultaneous with this brief.
6
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331595
EFTA 00204321
EFTA02729307

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Petitioner's initial filing of the NPA under seal was achieved without any
regard for the public's constitutional, statutory and common law rights of access.
Florida law flatly prohibits the standardless permanent closure that was achieved in
this case. The public has a right to know what transpires in its courtrooms
generally and in particular has an interest in understanding how the resolution of
this highly unusual prosecution occurred.
Moreover, no present basis for closure exists. Petitioner has not shown —
and cannot show — that continued closure is proper. Instead, he has made
conclusory assertions and relied on red herrings in attempting to keep the public
from understanding how government responded to his solicitation of children to
perform sex acts.
The trial court, having reviewed the records in camera, saw through
Petitioner's flimsy arguments. The trial court did not depart from the essential
requirements of law in ordering the records unsealed.
7
09/1212019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPITIENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331596
EFTA_00204322
EFTA02729308

ARGUMENT
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
The standard of review for a petition for writ of certiorari is whether the trial
court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Combs v. State, 436
So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983); Anderson v. E.T., 862 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003).
H. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NPA.
The NPA was neither properly sealed in the first instance nor is properly
sealed at present. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of
law in unsealing the records.
A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance.
The NPA — a significant inducement to Petitioner's acceptance of the plea—
was accepted for filing under seal without any deference to the public's right of
access to court records. Such standardless closure cannot withstand scrutiny.
Florida has traditionally served as a model for open government and courts.
It is well-settled in Florida that "[a] trial is a public event [and] [w]hat transpires in
the court room is public property." Miami Herald Pubrg. Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d
1, 7 (Fla. 1982) (quoting Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947)). When
considering a request to seal judicial records, this Court's "analysis must begin
8
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331597
EFTA_00204323
EFTA02729309

with the proposition that all civil and criminal court proceedings are public events,
records of court proceedings are public records and there is a strong presumption in
favor of public access to such matters." Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watson,
615 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Indeed, the people of this State added
Article I, Section 24 to the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution to
make clear that the right of access to the records of all three branches of
government is of constitutional magnitude. All citizens possess the right to
"inspect or copy" such records.
Plea agreements and related documents typically are public record. See
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465
(9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"); United
States v. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (11th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to
defendant's change of plea and sentencing could be sealed only upon fmding of a
compelling interest that justified denial of public access). Florida law likewise
recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in
connection with sentencing. See Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. of the New York
linagsco,A,tf, 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("While a
judge may impose whatever legal sentence he chooses, if such sentence is based on
a tangible proceeding or document, it is within the public domain unless otherwise
9
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFPITDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331598
EFTA _00204324
EFTA02729310

privileged.").
Under Florida law, closure of judicial records is warranted only under very
limited circumstances. In particular, the party seeking closure must demonstrate
that:
1. restricting public access is necessary to prevent a serious and
imminent threat to the administration of justice;
2. no alternatives, other than a change of venue, would protect the
defendant's right to a fair trial; and
3. closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused,
without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose.
Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 6 (Fla. 1982). This test, as well
as the standard announced in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. 531 So.
2d 113 (Fla. 1988), was essentially codified in former Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.051, now 2.420, which was applicable in both criminal and civil
cases. Sarasota-Herald Tribune, 924 So. 2d at 11.
In April 2007, the Florida Supreme Court adopted emergency amendments
to Rule 2.420 in response to Florida media reports of hidden cases and secret
dockets, a process that has come to be known as "super-sealing." In re
Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla.
2007). In adopting the interim rule, the Florida Supreme Court confirmed its
commitment to safeguarding the public's constitutional right of access to court
10
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFPIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331599
EFTA_00204325
EFTA02729311

records, which the Court held "must remain inviolate." Id. at 17. By its terms,
Rule 2.420 does not apply to criminal cases; however, later this year the Supreme
Court will consider amendments to the rule that essentially seek to apply the
standards applicable in civil cases to criminal ones. See In re Amendments to
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, Case No. 07-2050 (Fla. 2007). In
the circuit below, however, the new Rule 2.420 procedures have been in effect
since September 29, 2008. (Supp.A.-2.) In addition, the sealing of the NPA
violated principles of Florida law established long before the amendments to Rule
2.420. Consequently, the unsealing of these documents was proper.
1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly
Occurred without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper
Order.
The non-prosecution agreement was sealed pursuant to an agreed order
dated July 2, 2008 (A-9.) At the time, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Administrative
Order 2.032 applied to requests for closure of court records in the lower court.
(Supp.A.-3.) The order requires a motion, notice, and a hearing, none of which
occurred in this case. (Id. at ¶¶ 1 —3.) The order further provides that closure is
proper only upon showing that the factors set forth in Lewis have been met (Id. at ¶
4) and that "[t]he reasons supporting sealing the file must be stated with specificity
in the order sealing the court record" (Id. at ¶ 5), neither of which occurred in this
•
11
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CCOONNFFPIIDDEENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331600
EFTA_00204326
EFTA02729312

case.
Contrary to Petitioner's assertion (Petition at 13) neither this rule, nor the
common law of Florida, nor the Florida constitution contemplates sua sponte
closure of court records upon simple request of the Court or any party. Nor was
the closure, in fact, sua sponte, as Epstein himself requested closure (A-7 at p. 40,
II. 7-9.) and admittedly filed the NPA in the court file under seal pursuant to an
agreed order (A-18 at p. 11, II. 22-23). The agreed order (A-9) contains none of
the findings required by Lewis or paragraph 5 of the Administrative Order. The
closure order is invalid and was properly vacated.
2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any
Procedures to Protect the Right of Access at all.
With respect to the sealing of the addendum to the non-prosecution
agreement, no procedures were put in place at all. The original non-prosecution
agreement was attached to the July 2, 2008 agreed order, which allowed to be filed
under seal the "attached document" only. (A-9.) It appears from the record that
the addendum — which was not attached to the July 2, 2008 order but was filed six
weeks later — was simply filed and accepted under seal without any order allowing
for closure. Closure of the addendum was thus improper on that basis as well. The
trial court properly unsealed these documents.
12
09/12/2079 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFPIDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331601
EFTA_00204327
EFTA02729313

B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution
Agreement or Its Addendum.
After the Post intervened, at a June 10, 2009 hearing on the issue of closure,
the trial court asked Epstein's counsel about the Post's motion (A-11) specifically.
Epstein's counsel replied:
If the Post's position is the public has a right to acc — access this then
there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct a
hearing and do a balancing test where you look at whether there is
some compelling government interest and that's going to require an
evidentiary hearing. So I have no great objection to filing the Request
for Closure and then having a hearing in front of the Court.
(Supp.A.-1 at p. 3,1. 22 —p. 4,1. 5.) Importantly, Petitioner's counsel did not
assert that he had complied with these requirements, but that he would. The Court
reset the hearing for June 25, 2009.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13) on
June 11, 2009. In it, Epstein cited four reasons the NPA should remain under seal:
1. to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice8; 2. to
protect a compelling government interest; 3. to avoid substantial injury to innocent
8 This assertion apparently has been abandoned by Petitioner, because his
petition asserts that he has asserted three bases for confidentiality, and does not
include this basis. Accordingly, it will not be addressed, except to make note of
the fact that Epstein has not at any point in this proceeding identified a threat to the
administration of justice, much less a serious and imminent threat.
13
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011
CONFI1DE2 NTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331602
EFTA 00204328
EFTA02729314

third parties; and 4. to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters
protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in these
specific type of proceedings sought to be closed. (A-I3 at115.) The motion failed
to explain how these interests were implicated, failed to address alternatives to
closure, and failed to explain how closure would protect the interests. (A-I3.)
The lower court heard argument on June 25, 2009. The United States
Attorneys' Office was provided notice of the hearing, but chose not to appear. (A-
18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on
this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed
counsel for E.W. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing,
the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not
followed and then heard argument from Epstein's counsel on his June 11, 2009
motion (A-13). Epstein's counsel consented to that procedure. (A-18 at p. 9, Il. 16
-18.) The Judge held that neither the State, nor the U.S. Government, nor Epstein
had shown why the NPA ought to remain confidential and ordered the records
unsealed.9 (A-16.)
9 It is important to note that the State Attorney's Office appeared at the hearing
for the limited purpose of objecting to the release of minor victim's names, which
turned out to be a non-issue because the Court, having reviewed the documents in
camera, determined that no victim's names were included in the documents (A-19
at p. 21,11. 14-19.) The federal government, as mentioned above, took no position
(Footnote continued on nest page)
14
09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFITDENTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331603
EFTA 00204329
EFTA02729315

The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in
unsealing the NPA. Administrative Order of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 2.303
applies to Petitioner's June 11, 2009 request to seal the records in this case.
(Supp.A.-2.) That administrative order — consistent with Lewis and its progeny —
applies Rule 2.420's standards to requests for closure of records in criminal
proceedings in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Any order authorizing closure must
contain findings that one of the interests set forth in Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420(c)(9XA) is met and that closure is no broader than necessary
to protect that interest. (Supp.A.-2 at114.); see also Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 3.
Motions seeking closure must include a "signed certification by the party making
the request that the motion is being made in good faith and is supported by a sound
factual and legal basis." (Supp.A.-2 at ¶ 1.) Epstein's initial oral request for
closure failed to comply with the requirements of then-applicable law, and he has
never presented a sound factual or legal basis for present closure. Consequently,
unsealing the documents was fully consistent with the essential requirements of
law.
and did not appear at any of the hearings on this matter. Nor has either agency
appealed the lower court's decision.
15
Pag e
09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411
CONFIDE2 NTIAL
SDNY_GM_00331604
EFTA_00204330
EFTA02729316