EFTA00231917

day of June, 2009. 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH 
COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" 
CASE NO. 502008CF009381A>O(MB 
502006CF009454AXXMB 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 
THIS MATTER came before the Court at a hearing on June 26, 2009, on Jeffrey 
Epstein's Motion to Stay the Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Addendum 
thereto. The Court notes the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon 
argument, it is 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 
1. 
The Motion to Stay is denied. 
2. 
The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at 
noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the 
Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this 
Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from 
the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred 
to above. 
DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 
GTIKDAiti t5 DATED 
JUN 2 6 nog 
JEFFREY 3 
Circuit Court Judge 
EFTA00232237

Page Two 
Case No. 502008CF009381A)0(MB/502006CF009454AXXMB 
Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement 
Copies furnished: 
R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
William J. Berger, Esq. 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 
Robert D. Critton, Esq. 
Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. 
P. O. Box 2602 
Tampa, FL 33602 
EFTA00232238

i Judge Jeffrey 3. Colbath 
205 North Dixie Highway 
West_Palm Beach, FL 33401 
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
 
.
 
Albeit 
AcoSTAi CSC\ 
U.S. Attorney's O ice Southern District 
500 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
334Oi4S2SS 
I II II I III 
IlAlmdeltdinhMI.A.AW 
EFTA00232239

ft
EFTA00232240

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 
1.11. tEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN 
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, 
FLORIDA 
CASE NO. 2008CF009381A 
DIVISION W 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
v. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE OF THE NON-
PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW 
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned 
counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay 
disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") 
pending review, and states: 
1. 
In the event the Court grants Nonparty 
's Motion to Vacate Order 
Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and 
Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records 
Confidential, EPSTEIN moves to stay the disclosure of the NPA pending review by the 
Fourth District Court of Appeals. 
2. 
Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in pertinent 
part, "...a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a 
motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion , to 
grant, modify or deny such relief." 
EFTA00232241

3. 
A stay pending review is warranted under the circumstances because of 
the irreparable harm that would be caused by disclosure of the NPA including, but not 
limited to, substantial injury to a party by disclosing matters protected by common law 
and privacy rights, substantial injury to a compelling government interest, substantial 
injury to innocent third parties and a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial and 
orderly administration of justice as set forth in the hearing record date June 25, 2009. 
4. 
In Mariner Health Care of Nashville. Inc. v. Baker, 739 So. 2d 608, 609 
(Fla. 1st DCA 1999), defendant Mariner filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the trial 
court compelled it to produce certain incident reports. Mariner also moved for a stay 
pending review pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310. The trial court advised the parties 
that Mariner would be required to submit the incident reports to the court under seal as a 
prerequisite to a stay. Mariner refused to produce the documents under seal and the trial 
court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were 
produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and 
noted 
Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the 
reports under seal would result in any prejudice. To the 
contrary, the records will be protected from disclosure 
during the entire course of the certiorari proceeding before 
this court. No harm can be done if this court ultimately 
determines that the reports are protected by the work 
product privilege. 
Id. at 610. 
5. 
In the instant case the NPA is already filed under seal. Should the Court 
grant Nonparty 
's Motion to Vacate Order Scaling Records and Unseal Records, 
grant Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or deny 
2 
EFTA00232242

EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN requests the Court 
exercise its discretion under Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310(a) and enter a stay pending review 
by the 4th DCA. 
6. 
No harm will be done if the NPA remains under seal pending appellate 
review. To the contrary, EPSTEIN will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not entered 
and the NPA is disclosed to the public. 
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that if the 
Court grants Nonparty 
's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal 
Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or 
denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, the Court enter a stay 
pending review and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. 
Certificate ot Service 
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 
furnished by Hand Delivery to 
ESQ., United States Attorney's 
Office — Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 
33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office — West Palm 
Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, 
ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas 
Boulevard, Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., 
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, Wect 
Palm Beach, FL 33401, SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA 
BIvd., Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, and DEANNA K. SHULLMAN, 
3 
EFTA00232243

400 North 
Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, this 25th 
day of June,  2009. 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & 
COLEMAN, LLP 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
latch, 
FL 
401 
By: 
Robert D. Cri o i Jr. 
Florida Bar 
Michael J. Pike 
Florida Bar 31 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
and 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
Wes 
FL 33401-5012 
Fax: 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
4 
EFTA00232244

iris el" 1"N 
1/4
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER 
& COLEMAN LLP 
L'A'W
- Y•B•R•S 
515 N. FLAOLER DRIVE / sun 400 
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 
Gi 
$ 00.44° 
MAILED r PC1A /iP C.c;0F 
. Attorneysice Southern District 
500 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
334O1:S623S c023 
hili.M.LHL.AAndWM.Lidkdk.Md 
EFTA00232245

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY 
L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 
Petitioner/defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves this Court for an order 
allowing him to file the September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("Agreement") and October 29, 2007 Addendum to the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement ("Addendum"), which are the subject of his contemporaneously filed 
emergency petition for certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay, 
under seal. 
1. 
The Agreement and Addendum were executed by petitioner/defendant 
and the United States Attorney's Office in September 2007. They are attached in 
the sealed envelope. 
2. 
The Agreement contains a confidentiality clause, precluding it from 
EFTA00232246

being disclosed to third parties or made part of any public record. Federal District 
Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to third parties. 
3. 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Pucillo ordered Mr. 
Epstein's attorney to file the documents under seal during his plea conference on 
June 30, 2008. 
4. 
On June 25, 2009, Judge Colbath granted non-parties' motions to 
vacate the order sealing records and ordered them disclosed. 
5. 
On June 26, 2009, Judge Colbath denied petitioner's motion for stay, 
and ordered the Clerk of Court to make the documents available for disclosure at 
noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, unless this Court granted a stay. 
6. 
It is necessary that this Court review the Agreement and Addendum in 
conjunction with these proceedings. To protect the purpose of the petition for writ 
of certiorari pending before this Court, petitioner asks to file the documents under 
-seal. 
Accordingly, petitioner requests that this Court grant this motion and allow 
2 
EFTA00232247

him to file the Agreement and Addendum, which are separate from the appendix to 
his emergency petition and motion for review, under seal. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by email 
and Federal Express this 3oM.. day of June, 2009, to: 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
WILLIAM J. BERGER 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 
Counsel for 
SPENCER T. KUVIN 
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 
Palm Beach anlens, FL 33410 
Counsel for M. 
JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO 
State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 
400 North 
Drive, Suite 1100 
P. O. Box 2602 (33601) 
Tampa, FL 33602 
Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 
HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
ROBERT D. CRITTON of 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
3 
EFTA00232248

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
Counsel for Petitioner 
By: 
. N-Qi---
NE 
USLER-WALSH 
orida Bar No.M 
4 
EFTA00232249

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
/ 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY 
L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT 
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND 
EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY 
Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves to file one appendix in support of his 
contemporaneously filed emergency petition for writ of certiorari and emergency 
motion to review denial of stay. The documents in the appendix support both the 
petition and motion to review denial of stay. In order to expedite review, avoid 
duplication of paper and unnecessary expense, Mr. Epstein requests that this Court 
allow him to use the appendix in support of both the petition and motion to review 
denial of stay. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and 
1 
EFTA00232250

Federal Express this 3**4., day of June, 2009, to: 
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
WILLIAM J. BERGER 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale FL 33394 
Counsel for 
SPENCER T. KUVIN 
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Counsel for 
JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO 
State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 
400 North 
Drive, Suite 1100 
P. O. Box 2602 (33601) 
Tampa, FL 33602 
Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 
HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
ROBERT D. CRITFON 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
2 
EFTA00232251

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
Counsel for Petitioner 
By: 
oU,t•-
&'-.AZEe1=R-WALSH 
lorida Bar No. 
3 
EFTA00232252

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH 
LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW 
ORDER DENYING STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL 
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM 
Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate 
Procedure 9.310(f), requests this Court review the order denying his Motion to Stay 
Disclosure of Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum pending his 
contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari and grant the stay.' Mr. Epstein seeks 
review of the stay denial on emergency basis. The court stayed disclosure until noon 
on Thursday, July 2, 2009 so Mr. Epstein could seek review in this Court. Absent a 
stay by this Court, the documents will be disclosed and there will be no adequate 
remedy. 
• 
Petittoner Jeffrey Epstein is referred to bLuo
• name. 
Non-party 
interveners,..,. and The Post are referred to as M., M. and The Post. All 
emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A —
Petitioner's appendix. 
1 
EFTA00232253

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation 
of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 
for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same 
conduct. 
In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein 
negotiated and signed a non-prosecution agreement (A-7:38).2 The non-prosecution 
agreement contains an express confidentiality provision and makes specific reference 
to a grand jury investigation of Mr. Epstein (A-7:38). The United States Attorney's 
Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein 
comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state 
charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the 
non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). 
On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution 
and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A-
2 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a 
motion to seal. 
2 
EFTA00232254

8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the 
plea (A-7). 
During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any 
promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A-7:37-38). Mr. 
Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non-prosecution agreement 
with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). 
He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state 
plea would violate the non-prosecution agreement (A-7:39-40). 
Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted "a sealed 
copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply 
and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order 
was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing 
Document in Court File" (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was 
filed under seal on August 25, 2008. 
On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in the 
federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. 
Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office 
3 
EFTA00232255

opposed disclosure (A-2). On August 16, 2008, Judge Main of the Southern District 
ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement 
to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not 
disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including 
those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. 
In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal 
action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United 
States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the 
movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which 
the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,3 Judge Marra denied 
the motion, stating in pertinent part: 
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. 
(A-6). 
3 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 
4 
EFTA00232256