EFTA00222670

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 21 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07'162008 
Page 2 of 3 
a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any 
competing interest advanced." United Stalest Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. 
Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate 
purposes. 
696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court may consider whether "the press has 
already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Id. 
In his motion to seal, Defendant has made no argument as to why his Notice of Continued 
Pendency of Federal Criminal Action should not be made available to the public. Defendant 
states only that he wishes "[t]o avoid disclosure of confidential material." (Def. Mot. 2.) The 
Court finds this justification insufficient to justify keeping this document (filed ex parte) under 
seal. The Court is supported in this conclusion by its decision in a similar case, In re: Jane Doe, 
No. 08-80736-CW (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008), in which the Court unsealed, over the objection of 
the United States Attorney, documents containing similar information regarding Defendant's 
criminal plea agreement. Thus, any argument regarding confidentiality is vitiated by the fact that 
information regarding Defendant's criminal plea arrangement is already a matter of public 
record. See, e.g., Sally Apgar, Victims Object to Palm Beach Billionaire's Plea Deal in 
Underage Sex Case, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, July 12, 2008. Similarly, Defendant has not justified 
the necessity of filing his Notice ex parte. As such, Defendant's Motion to Seal shall be denied. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File Ex 
Parte and Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 19 and 20 and make 
them available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. Defendant is 
further ORDERED to serve a copy of his Notice on Plaintiff within five (5) days of the date of 
2 
EFTA00222690

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 21 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2008 
Page 3 of 3 
entry of this Order. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this le day of July, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
Copies furnished to: 
all counsel of record 
3 
EFTA00222691

Case 9:08-cv-80-OSstO4108-DeaCifirlellit 2A of: CEntgred0BICEISDAAncfidefi07:1Ball98 
Page 1 of 3 
U.S. District Court 
Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) 
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Internal Use Only 
Doe'. Epstein 
Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra 
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson 
Case: 212S232-lithl 
Cause: 28:1391 Personal Injury 
Plaintiff 
Jane Doe 
No. 2 
Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein 
Date Filed: 02/06/2008 
Jury Demand: Plaintiff 
Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other 
Jurisdiction: Diversity 
represented by Adam D. Horowitz 
Herman &Mermelstein, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Blvd. 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 305-931-0877 
Email: ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
Jeffrey Marc Herman 
Herman &Mertnelstein 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 931-0877 
Email: jherman@hermanlaw.com 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
Stuart S. Mermelstein 
Herman &Mertnelstein 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
305-931-2200 
Fax: 931-0877 
Email: Irivera@hermanlaw.com 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
represented by Jack Alan Goldberger 
Atterbury Goldberger &Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 
561-659—8300 
Fax: 835-8691 
Email: jagesq@bellsouth.net 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
Michael Ross Tein 
Lewis Tein 
3059 Grand Avenue 
Suite 340 
EFTA00222692

Case 9:08-cv-80-OSsKA108-Eraelrleit 2Ae2of: CatliadethollIDIEIMEN07/11156138 
Page 2 of 3 
Coconut Grove, FL 33133 
305-442-1101 
Fax: 442-6744 
Email: tein@lewistein.com 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED 
Date Filed 
# 
Docket Text 
02/06/2008 
1 COMPLAINT against Jeffrey Epstein; Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 542215, filed 
by Jane Doe No.2.(1k) (Entered: 02/06/2008) 
02/06/2008 
2 Summons Issued as to Jeffrey Epstein. (1k) (Entered: 02/06/2008) 
02/08/2008 
I 
Order Requiring Counsel to Confer and Joint Scheduling Report.Signed by 
Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/8/08.(ir) (Entered: 02/08/2008) 
05/22/2008 
A AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein 
on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 
05/22/2008 
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe. Jeffrey Epstein served on 
5/7/2008, Answer due 5/27/2008. (1k) (Entered: 05/27/2008) 
05/27/2008 
6 NOTICE of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer: reA Affidavit of Service 
filed by Jane Doe. Error: Wrong Event Selected; Correction=Redocketed as 
"Summons returned executed", D.E. 5 . Instruction to Filer=In the future please 
select "summons returned executed" as the proper Event. (1k) (Entered: 
05/27/2008) 
05/29/2008 
1 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane 
Doe. (Attachments: #_1, Exhibit A and B, #.2 Text of Proposed Order Default 
Ord)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/29/2008) 
06/06/2008 
8 CLERK'S NOTICE Denying for Improper Service 7 Plaintiffs MOTION for 
Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant ( ) (Entered: 06/06/2008) 
06/1 UMW 
2 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter Default Against Defendant, or 
Alternatively, for an Enlgargement of Time to Serve Process, and Incorporated 
Memorandum of Law by Jane Doe. Responses due by 6/30/2008 (Attachments: # 
.I. Exhibit A, #_2 Exhibit B)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/11/2008) 
06/13/2008 
22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jack Alan Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey 
Epstein (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/13/2008) 
06/13/2008 
a 
RESPONSE to Motion fel Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter 
Default Against Defendant, or Alternatively, for an Enlgargentent of Time to 
Serve Process, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Jeffrey Epstein. 
Replies due by 6/23/2008. (Attachments: #J. Affidavit for Richard 
Barnett)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/13/2008) 
06/20/2008 
12 Defendant's MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 7/10/2008 
(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/20/2008) 
06/20/2008 
12 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise 
Respond To Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 
06/20/2008) 
06/24/2008 
14 MEMORANDUM in Support re_2 Plaintiffs MOTION to Compel Clerk to Enter 
Default Against Defendant, or Alternatively, for an Enlgargentem of Time to 
Serve Process, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Jane Doe. 
(Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/24/2008) 
06/30/2008 
II 
NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Of Filing Deposition (Attachments: #_1. 
Exhibit)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 06/30/2008) 
07/01/2008 
16 NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Concerning Motion To Stay (DE 12] (Attachments: 
#_1. Exhibit A)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 07/01/2008) 
EFTA00222693

Case 9:08-cv-801216s1MO8-difs8Ohleit 2AS2of: CalifloW31692DilikkEDT07/1366101)8 
Page 3 of 3 
07/08/2008 
12 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael Ross Tein on behalf of Jeffrey 
Epstein (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/08/2008) 
07/10/2008 
18 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 12 Defendant's 
MOTION to Stay by Jane Doe. (Attachments: CI, Text of Proposed 
I 
Order)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 
07/10/2008 
19 Sealed Document. (yc) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 
07/10/2008 
20 Sealed Document. (yc) (Entered: 07/10/2008) 
07/16/2008 
21. ORDER denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Seal. The clerk shall unseal 
DE 19 and 20 and make them available for inspection through CM/ECF at the 
earliest possible time. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/16/08. (ir) 
(Entered: 07/16/2008) 
07/16/2008 
22, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why default should not be entered against 
Defendant. Show Cause Response due by 7/28/2008. Signed by Judge Kenneth 
A. Marra on 7/16/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/16/2008) 
EFTA00222694

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 23 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07,17'2008 
Page 1 of 4 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
FILED EX PARTE 
UNDER SEAL 
I-
 
I 
0 
fV
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE EX PARTE AND UNDER SEAL 
EFTA00222695

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 23 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 
Page 2 of 4 
Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4, defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves to 
file his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, as well as this 
motion, ex pane and under seal, stating as follows: 
1. 
In support of his motion to stay [DE 12], defendant has herewith filed 
a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action. 
2. 
The Notice relates to a confidential agreement between the United 
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and the defendant. 
3. 
The information contained in the Notice is material to this Court's 
consideration of Epstein's motion to stay. 
4. 
To avoid disclosure of confidential material, Epstein requests leave to 
file the Notice, and this motion, ex parte and under seal. 
5. 
Pending a ruling from this Court, Epstein has not served this motion 
or the Notice on counsel for plaintiff: 
2 
EFTA00222696

. 
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 23 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07)17/2008 
Page 3 of 4 
WHEREFORE, defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests leave to file 
this motion and his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action, ex 
parte and under seal. 
Respectfully submitted, 
LEWIS TEIN, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 
Tel: 305 442 1101 Fax: 305 442 6744 
By: 
GUY A. LEWIS 
Fla. Bar No. 623740 
lewis@lewistein.com 
MICHAEL R. TEIN 
Fla. Bar No. 993522 
tein@lewistein.com 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 
By: 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
Fla. Bar No. 262013 
jgoldberger@agwpa.com 
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
3 
EFTA00222697

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 23 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2008 
Page 4 of 4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 
5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July I0, 
2008. 
Michael R. Tein 
4 
EFTA00222698

,Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 24 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07,17.2008 
Page 1 of 4 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
FILED EX PARTE 
UNDER SEAL 
EFTA00222699

.Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 24 
Entered on FLSD Docket 071 7/2008 
Page 2 of 4 
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PENDENCY 
OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL ACTION 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the continued 
pendency of a federal criminal action against him, stating as follows: 
On June 30, 2008, after defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed his motion to stay 
IDE 121, he was sentenced in the state-court criminal case described in that motion 
(State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX, Fifteenth 
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action"). 
As 
explained below, the parallel federal criminal action against him described in that 
motion (In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB), United States District Court for 
the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"), remains pending. 
On September 24, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida ("USAO"), represented by Assistant United States 
 
, and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred-
prosecution agreement ("Agreement"), which the parties agreed to keep 
confidential. Prior to entering into that Agreement, 
idvised that she 
had already prepared a federal criminal indictment against Mr. Epstein in the 
Federal Criminal Action. 
Under the Agreement, beginning on the date Mr. Epstein began serving his 
sentence in the Florida Criminal Action, the USAO agreed to suspend its grand 
jury investigation in the Federal Criminal Action. The USAO, however, retains the 
2 
EFTA00222700

,Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 24 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07)1T2008 
Page 3 of 4 
right to reactivate the grand jury and indict Mr. Epstein should he breach any part 
of the Agreement during its term, which runs for 33 months, beginning on the date 
Mr. Epstein began serving his sentence in the Florida Criminal Action. 
Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Action will remain pending against Mr. Epstein 
for 33 months from June 30, 2008. 
Mr. Epstein will provide the Court with a copy of the confidential 
Agreement for its in-camera inspection at the Court's request. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein hereby notifies the Court of the 
continued pendency of the Federal Criminal Action. 
Respectfully submitted, 
LEWIS TEM, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 
Tel: 305 442 1101 
Fax: 305 442 6744 
By: 
IAN 
GUY A. LEWIS 
Fla. Bar No. 623740 
lewis@lewistein.com 
MICHAEL R. TEN 
Fla. Bar No. 993522 
tein@lewistein.com 
3 
EFTA00222701

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 24 
Entered on FLSD Docket 07)17:2008 
Page 4 of 4 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Tel. 561 659 8300 
Fax. 561 835 8691 
By: 
Jack A. Goldberger 
Fla. Bar No. 262013 
jgoldberger@agwpa.com 
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion, in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 
5.4, has not been served on opposing counsel and was filed under seal on July 10, 
2008. 
Michael R. Tein 
4 
EFTA00222702

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 33 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/0512008 
Page 1 of 5 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
1. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay 
(DE 12), filed June 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed and is ripe for review. The Court 
has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant") seeks a stay of this civil action under a federal 
statute which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 
If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for 
damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is 
pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is 
the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the 
criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal 
proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is 
pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 
18 U.S.C. § 3509 (k). In his motion, Defendant cites a state case, Florida.. Epstein, No. 2006 
1 
EFTA00222703

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 33 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 
Page 2 of 5 
CF 09454AXX (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2008)' and a federal case, In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) 
(S.D. Fla.), that arise out of the same occurrences and are pending and thus require a stay of this 
civil case. The federal "case," according to Defendant, involves a "deferred-prosecution" 
agreement whereby the U.S. Attorney agreed to suspend its investigation of Defendant while 
"retaining the right to reactivate the grand jury." (DE 24.) Defendant essentially reasons, 
because the U.S. Attorney could bring criminal charges against Defendant, that a criminal action 
is "pending." The Court rejects this definition of a "pending criminal action." 
When interpreting the text of a statute, the Court begins with the plain meaning of the 
text. In re Hedrick, 524 F.3d 1175, 1186 (11* Cir. 2008). If the plain meaning of a statute is 
clear, the Court should not deviate from that interpretation. Id. Pending is defined as "remaining 
undecided" and "awaiting decision." Blacks Law Dictionary (81h ed. 2004).2 Likewise, an 
'As Defendant recognizes, the state court case was "finally adjudicated" and thus no 
longer pending as of June 30, 2008. (See DE 12.) 
'Defendant attempts to argue that the fact that grand jury subpoenas are still 
"outstanding" and "not withdrawn" and that the grand jury will not be dismissed until Defendant 
completes his obligations under the state plea agreement means that a "criminal action" is 
"pending." (Def. Reply 4.) Defendant misunderstands the purpose of a grand jury. A grand 
jury, as Blackstone writes, is composed of citizens who "inquire, upon their oaths, whether there 
be sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer" the charge of criminal activity. Beavers" 
Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 84 (1904) (quoting William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries *303). The grand 
jury's sole purpose is to inquire into whether there is probable cause to bring an individual before 
a tribunal to determine his guilt or innocence of an alleged crime. Id. The grand jury is simply 
an investigative body. See U.S.. Aired, 144, F.3d 1405, 1413 (11'h Cir. 1998). A "criminal 
action" is not instigated by the calling of a grand jury, because a grand jury is convened "to 
determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be 
instituted against any person." U.S. I. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974). An "action" is 
commenced against a person after the grand jury actually finds probable cause to make an 
individual answer specific charges and renders a bill of indictment against that individual. Until 
a grand jury's investigation is complete and there has been a determination by a lawful authority 
that probable cause exists, there can be no criminal action. 
2 
EFTA00222704

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 33 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 
Page 3 of 5 
"action" is defined as a "criminal judicial proceeding." Id. Because the U.S. Attorney has not 
filed an indictment or an information against Defendant, the Court fails to see how there is an 
undecided judicial proceeding in federal court against Defendant. 
Defendant argues that this statute should be read to include the definition of "criminal 
action" used in 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2), which reads as follows: "In this subsection, a 'criminal 
action' includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial 
court." Defendant argues that "Congress specifically intended that the term 'criminal action' 
would be applied extremely broadly" under § 1595, so Congress "took pains to ensure that courts 
would give it the broadest possible construction" and defined "criminal action" as including 
investigatory stages. (Def. Reply 4.) Defendants argue that the Court should borrow this 
definition. 
The Court disagrees. The Court believes that Congress's inclusion of this broader 
definition under § 1595 evinces Congressional intent to depart from the normal meaning of the 
term "criminal action."' This addition to the text suggests that Congress knows the plain 
meaning of the term "criminal action" and that Congress decided, under § 1595, that the 
definition of "criminal action" should be broader. In contrast, Congress could have made such an 
addition to § 3509 had it intended the mandatory stay provision to apply to pre-indictment 
investigations, but it did not. In other words, by not broadening the definition of "criminal 
action" § 3509, Congress intended that the term should only have its ordinary meaning: that an 
indictment or information has been filed naming a specific defendant. Instead, it seems clear that 
'In fact, Congress made this intent clear by stating that this broader definition of a 
"criminal action" applied only "in this subsection." 
3 
EFTA00222705

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 33 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08;05'2008 
Page 4 of 5 
Congress intended that these two statutory provisions should each have a different scope. 
Defendant's argument of statutory construction fails. 
The single case cited by Defendant in support of his motion is not on point. In Doe 
Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005), the stay was 
entered because criminal charges had been filed against the defendant in a state court several 
months earlier (i.e., the defendants had been indicted by the state attorney). See Memorandum in 
Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Parallel Criminal Proceedings at 3, 
Doe li Francis, No. 5:03CV260/MCR/WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2003). The Court agrees with 
Defendant that a stay under § 3509(k) is mandatory when a criminal action is pending; the Court 
simply disagrees that the "deferred-prosecution agreement" constitutes a pending criminal action. 
The Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is warranted. Defendant did not seek 
this relief in his motion; including such a request in the reply brief is inappropriate. Further, the 
Court sees no reason to delay this litigation for the next thirty-three months. After all, Defendant 
is in control of his own destiny - it is up to him (and him alone) whether the plea agreement 
reached with the State of Florida is breached. If Defendant does not breach the agreement, then 
he should have no concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The 
fact that the U.S. Attorney (or other law enforcement officials) may object to some discovery in 
these civil cases is not, in an of itself, a reason to stay the civil action. Any such issues shall be 
resolved as they arise in the course of this litigation. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
I 
Defendant's Motion to Stay (DE 12) is DENIED. 
2. Defendant's Motion for Hearing (DE 27) is DENIED AS MOOT. 
4 
EFTA00222706

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 33 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 
Page 5 of 5 
3. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response (DE 18) is GRANTED NU NC 
PRO TUNC. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 4ih day of August, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
Copies furnished to: 
all counsel of record 
5 
EFTA00222707

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 34 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/0512008 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE NO. 2, 
Plaintiff, 
1. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File 
Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under 
seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully 
advised in the premises. 
As the Court has previously explained to the parties, the Local Rules for the Southern 
District of Florida state that "proceedings in the United States District Court are public and Court 
filings are matters of public record." S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and 
the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon 
I. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy 
records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the 
administration of justice and hence may have to be curtailed." 
Graddick, 696 F.2d 
'The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed 
under seal) must be filed with the Clerk's Office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 
EFTA00222708

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 34 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2008 
Page 2 of 2 
796, 803 (11th Cir.1983). This right of access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court 
records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States" 
Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether 
the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. 
696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court 
may consider whether "the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of 
the records." Id. 
In his motion to seal, Defendant states that he seeks to file this document under seal "to 
comply with the confidentiality clause" in the agreement between Defendant and the U.S. 
Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney's 
objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. 
Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney's objections 
do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the 
agreement contained in Defendant's Reply brief have, in large part, already been unsealed and 
released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal. 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File 
Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 29 and 30 and make them 
available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 4ih day of August, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 
2 
EFTA00222709