EFTA00230786

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 6 of 7 
demanded disclosure of the Agreement to them, and discussions ensued about what 
constituted the Agreement. Epstein's attorneys then told the Government that Epstein 
believed the Agreement consisted only of the first and second parts. These were the parts 
disclosed to petitioners pursuant to the Protective Order in compliance with the Court's 
order to compel production. The fact that an erroneous disclosure was inadvertently 
made to one petitioner after Epstein had already entered his guilty plea, was sentenced, 
and surrendered to begin serving his sentence does not create an injury where one did not 
exist before. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court 
deny Petitioners' Motion to Unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
Respectffilly submitted, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
By: 
6 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Fla. Bar No. 0936693 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
33132 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
Attorney for Respondent 
EFTA00231206

RECYCLED PAPER 
7O REORDER CALL 954406-9399 
EFTA00231207

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 1 of 6 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE 41 AND JANE DOE #2, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
VICTIMS' REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO 
VICTIMS' MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
COME NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and 
through undersigned counsel, and reply to the Government's Opposition to Victims' Motion to 
Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
The victims have moved for a lifting of the protective order barring them front publicly 
disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and 
the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The 
Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victims 
cannot show any injury from the protective order. The Government's position is wrong for three 
reasons. First, the Government bears the burden of showing some good cause for a protective 
order. It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. 
Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has 
_made inacrAirate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in itrnotices 
to the victims and in its filing before the Court. To set the record straight, therefore, the victims 
EFTA00231208

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLED Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 2 of 6 
should be allowed to publicly discuss the agreement. Finally, the victims are burdened by 
provisions in the protective order. For all these reasons, the protective order should be lifted. 
I. 
No Good Cause Has been Shown for Sealing the Agreement. 
In their motion to unseal the agreement, the victims argued that there was no good reason 
for the protective order requiring them not to further disseminate the agreement. Curiously, the 
Government's response does not offer any substantive reason for the agreement to remain under 
seal or under a protective order.' Instead, the Government contends that victims have "no legal 
right to disclose the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality 
provision." Gov't Response at 2. But this argument has things backwards. It is not the victims' 
task to show some reason for not entering a protective order, rather, it is the Government's task. 
to show some affirmative reason for entering the order in the first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 
26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown'); 
see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good 
cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial 
action"). Having been given the opportunity to explain why the document has to remain 
confidential, the Government chose not to do B And Jeffrey Epstein was served with the 
victims' motion, but chose not to respond. Presumably this was because Jeffrey Epstein had no 
real interest at stake in the confidentiality of the agreement. Therefore, the protective order 
should be lifted because it lacks any articulated justification — much less any justification that 
constitutes good cause. 
' The Government prefers to view the Issues in this case as involving not the sealing of a document but rather the 
entry of a protective order preventing the disclosure of a document. To simplify the dispute in this case, we will 
proceed on the Government's view of the situation. 
EFTA00231209

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 3 of 6 
2. 
The Government. With the Apparent Aid of Epstein, Has Provided Inaccurate 
Information to the Victims (and to the Court). 
The victims also asked that the protective order be lifted to help clarify the record in this 
case. The Government has made public representations in its pleadings in this case about the 
civil remedy provision in the non-prosecution agreement. It also specifically sent notices to Jane 
Doe #1 and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes describing this provision in the agreement 
Those representations were inaccurate — as the Government now seemingly admits. See Gov't 
Response at 6 (referring to "erroneous disclosure" that was "inadvertently made" to Jane Doe 
#1). Indeed, the Government now takes the position that the responsibility for those inaccurate 
representations to the victim — as well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. 
See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's 
attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now 
complain.'). 
The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys of inaccurate information being sent 
to crime victims (and possibly their approval of inaccurate information being provided, as a 
result, to the Court) raises very significant issues under the Crime Victim's Rights Act The 
victims have, therefore, sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office requesting clarification of 
exactly how Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys participated in misleading the victims. See Attachment 1 
(Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA =M). 
Indeed, it appears that the 
Government may have provided an inaccurate description of another feature of the non-
prosecution agreement to the victims. See Attachment 2 (Oct 15, 2008 Letter from Brad 
Edwards, Esq,  to AUSA 
(noting Goverament-s represen
' 
teflon to victims of atight to 
recover at least $150,000 in damages from Jeffrey Epstein while Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers take 
the position that the agreement allows automatic recovery of only $50,000). In light of all these 
1 
it 
EFTA00231210

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 4 of 6 
apparent misrepresentations about precisely what the non-prosecution agreement entails, the 
victims should not be bound by a protective order barring their public disclosure of the 
agreement 
3. 
The Protective Order Unfairly Burdens the Victims. 
In their motion, the victims also explained how the protective order burdened their efforts 
to confer with other victims' rights attorneys regarding how best to proceed in light of the non-
prosecution agreement. The Government does not seriously contest the victims' representations 
about the burdens imposed by the protective order. Instead, it takes the truly remarkable position 
that "the Protective Order does not prevent [the victims] from consulting with anyone; it only 
prevents them from disclosing the Agreement" Gov't Response at 4. But the whole point of the 
victims' motion was that the protective order places burdens on the victims in consulting with 
other attorneys about the agreement. Obviously, it is of no help to the victims to be able to 
consult with other attorneys on that issue if the agreement itself cannot be disclosed. 
CONCLUSION 
The provision in the protective order barring the victims and their attorneys from publicly 
disclosing the non-prosecution agreement should be lifted. 
DATED this 15.1 day of October 2008. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & 
ASSOCIATES, LLC 
By: 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioners 
_Florida Bar No, 542075-
2028 Harrison Street • Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 3 
Telephone: 
E-Mail: 
EFTA00231211

1 
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 5 of 6 
is 
Paul G. Cassell 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake City 
84112 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
Jay C. Howell, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Pro Hac Vice 
644 Cesery Boulevard - Suite 250 
Jacksonville, F orida 221 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICFa
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 16.200$, I electronically filed the foregoing 
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 
SERVICE LIST 
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 
Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
AUSA 
United States Attorney's Office 
500
 Australian Avenue 
West Palm Beach, Florida  33401 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner 
Florida Bar No. 542075 
I;
! 
F 
is 
EFTA00231212

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 30 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 
Page 6 of 6 
I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that on October 6. 2008, a true and correct copy of 
the above and foregoing document is being provided by United States mail to: 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire 
Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
Florida 33401 
Michael R. Tein, Esquire 
Lewis Tein, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue 
Suite 340 
33133 
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire 
Michael J. Pike, Esquire 
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 
515
 Flagler Drive 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner 
Florida Bar No. 542075 
EFTA00231213

LEGAL 
ii•OPIONItileliff 
otoogenmeleo.••• 
RECYCLED PAPER 
II) REORDER CU I ',544i16,399 
EFTA00231214

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 36 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 08-80736-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOES #1 AND #2, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution 
Agreement (DE 28), filed September 25, 2008. Respondent filed its response (DE 29), on October 
8, 2008, and Petitioners filed their reply (DE 30) on October 16, 2008. The Court has carefully 
considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 
Petitioners motion seeks the Court to enter an order unsealing the Non-prosecution 
Agreement, including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the 
"Agreement"), between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 
("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein'). At a hearing held on August 14, 2008, the Court ordered 
the USAO to produce the Agreement to counsel for the Petitioners and to any other victims 
identified by the USAO and their counsel, pursuant to the terms of the Court's Order. (See DE 26, 
August 21, 2008). Petitioners argue that the Agreement "should now be unsealed." 
First, as-Respondent points ""t, 
IL Agreement was not filed irr this-case, under al or 
otherwise. Petitioners also assert that the Agreement should be "unsealed" because the victims 
EFTA00231215

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 36 
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 
Page 2 of 2 
and/or their attorneys believe the Government has mischaracterized some of its provisions. If and 
when such alleged mischaracterizations become relevant to an issue to be decided by the Court, the 
parties will be given the opportunity to advance their positions and the Court will resolve the issue. 
If disclosure of the Agreement will be required for the Court to resolve the issue, appropriate 
disclosure will be ordered. 
Furthermore, to the extent Petitioners are seeking modification of the restrictions placed 
upon their use of the Agreement by the Court's August 21,2008 order, Petitioners have not met their 
burden to justify a modification. Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties 
is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have 
a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. 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. Accordingly, it is 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution 
Agreement (DE 28) is DENIED. 
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 
this 12th day of February, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Copies furnished to: 
all counsel of record 
2 
EFTA00231216

7 
EFTA00231217

3. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 
 
 _FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
vs 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
. Defendant. 
CASE NO. 06 CF9454AMB 
08 9381CFAMB 
PLEA CONFERENCE 
10 
11 
PRESIDING: HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILLO 
12 
APPEARANCES: 
13 
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 
BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE 
14 
State Attorney 
401 North Dixie Highway 
15 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By: 
LANNA BELOHLAVEK, ESQUIRE 
16 
Assistant State Attorney 
17 
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS,P.A. 
18 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
19 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 
CERTIFIED COPY 
20 
21 
22 
23 
June 30, 2008 
24 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
25 
Beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231218

2 
1 
BE IT REMEMBERED that the following 
2 
proceedings were had in the above-entitled cause 
_
3 
before the HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILLO, one of 
4 
the judges of the aforesaid court, at the Palm 
5 
Beach County Courthouse, located in the City of 
6 
West Palm Beach, State of Florida on June 20, 2008 
7 
beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. with appearances 
8 
as hereinbefore noted, to wit: 
9 
THEREUPON: 
10 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Judge, 
11 
Jack Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey 
12 
Epstein. 
13 
THE COURT: Good morning. 
14 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, we are 
15 
here for a plea conference. 
16 
THE COURT: Raise your right hand. 
17 
THEREUPON: 
18 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
19 
after being called as a witness by the Defense and 
20 
after being first duly sworn by the Court, was 
21 
examined and testified as follows: 
22 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
23 
THE COURT: 
Is this one case or two? 
24 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Two. 
25 
THE COURT: May I see the PC 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231219

3 
4 
1 
affidavit in both cases, please? 
2 
3 
4 
5 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: There are no PC 
affidavits. There was originally an 
Indictment, the second charge was filed 
arising out of the booking. It was all 
6 
testimony presented to the grand jury. 
7 
THE COURT: Let me see the Indictment 
8 
then? 
9 
10 
11 
12' 
13 
14 
• 15 
16 
I have one Indictment, one 
Information? 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
THE COURT: II one case is charged by 
Indictment, one is charged by Information? 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
THE COURT: In case 2006036744 you 
are charged with procuring a person under 
17 
18 for prostitution, a second degree 
18 
felony, maximum penalty of fifteen years 
19 
Department of Corrections; minimum, some 
20 
period of probation. No mandatory minimum 
21 
apply, is that correct, State? 
22 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
23 
THE COURT: And in case number 06 
24 
9454CF, you are charged with felony 
25 
solicitation to prostitution, a third 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231220

4 
1 
degree felony, punishable by a maximum 
2 
penalty of five years in the Department of 
3 
Corrections, and a minimum, probation. No 
4 
mandatory minimums, correct? 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
THE COURT: The defendant has no 
prior criminal record? 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: You checked the NCIC as 
well as State records? 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes. 
THE COURT: And the guideline score 
sheet I have before me shows 21.5 months in 
the Department of Corrections as the lowest 
permissible prison sentence in months. 
Both sides agree to the preparation of the 
guideline score sheet? 
MR. GOLDBERGER: We II agree, Your 
20 
Honor. 
21 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes. 
22 
THE COURT: 
What is proposed -- it 
23 
goes on for pages. 
24 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, much of 
25 
the documentation is acknowledgement by my 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231221

4 
5 
1 
client to community control, sex offender 
2 
status. 
3 
THE COURT: I understand. 
4 
Okay. What is proposed -- those 
• 
5 
are the maximums and minimums, Mr. Epstein. 
6 
What is proposed is that you will be 
7 
pleading guilty to felony solicitation to 
8 
prostitution and procuring a person under 
9 
18 for prosecution. A PSI would be waived, 
10 
you would be adjudicated guilty of both 
11 
felonies, is that correct? 
12 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
13 
THE COURT: And on 06 9454, the 
14 
defendant to be sentenced to 12-months in 
15 
the Palm Beach County -- detention 
16 
facility? He's going to do time in the 
17 
jail? 
18 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes. 
19 
THE COURT: With credit for one day 
20 
served. And on 08 9381, he is to be 
21 
sentenced to six months in the Palm Beach 
22 
County jail detention facility, with credit 
23 
for one day served. And the six month 
24 
sentence is to be served consecutive to the 
25 
12 month sentence? 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231222

4 
6 
1 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct.. 
2 
THE COURT: falowng tie six months 
3 
sentence, the defendant will be placed on 
4 
12-months of community control one. The 
5 
6 
7 
8 
conditions of the community control are 
attached hereto and incorporated herein. 
As a special condition of 
community control, he's to have no 
9 
unsupervised contact with minors and the 
10 
supervising adult must be approved -- and I 
13. 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
would say, pre-approved, approved ahead of 
time, not after the fact by the Department 
of Corrections. And you would mean by that 
his community control officer? 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Correct. 
THE COURT: The defendant is 
17 
designated as a sexual offender pursuant to 
18 
Florida Statute 943.0435. and must abide by 
19 
all the corresponding requirements of the 
20 
statute, a copy of which in attached hereto 
21 
and incorporated herein. The defendant 
22 
must provide a DNA sample in court at the 
23 
time of this plea. Is this the -- and the 
24 
attachments are the terms and conditions of 
25 
community control. There are some 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231223

7 
1 
squiggles on the bottom of the page, what 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
would those squiggles be? 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Your 
Honor, those are my client's signature 
acknowledging that we have gone over all 
the conditions. 
THE COURT: One page after the plea 
8 
sheet that really spells out the terms and 
9 
conditions of community control, Florida 
10 
Statute 948.101, Mr. Epstein, is that 
11 
squiggle at the bottom your squiggle? 
12 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
13 
THE. COURT: Would those be your 
14 
initials? 
15 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
16 
THE COURT: Did you read all of that 
17 
page? 
18 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
19 
THE COURT: Can you read? 
20 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
21 
THE COURT: 
How far did you go in 
22 
school? 
23 
THE DEFENDANT: High school. 
24 
THE COURT: That's your highest 
25 
degree? 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231224

8 
1 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 
2 
THE COURT: And is this your 
3 
signature on the plea sheet that recites 
4 
the terms of the plea I just read? 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
6 
THE COURT: Did you read that 
7 
document as well? 
8 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 
9 
THE COURT: You understand once you 
10 
do your 12 months followed by your six 
11 
months all in the Palm Beach County jail 
12 
you will then be put on community control 
13 
which involves having an electronic monitor 
14 
attached to you and --
15 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually Your Honor, 
16 
the agreement of the parties is to, it!s 
17 
community control one which is not monitor. 
18 
THE COURT: Oh, community control 
19 
one, is that spelled out in here? 
20 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: Yes. 
21 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, it is, Your 
22 
Honor. 
23 
MS. BELOHLAVEK: He does not fall 
24 
under the Jessica Lunsford Act which 
25 
requires the bracelet. 
PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
EFTA00231225