Epstein Secrets

1992 (documents received by state agency in course of settlement negotiations to resolve federal lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice open to inspection because federal law did not clearly require confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida

. 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 Page 3188 CONFIDENTIAL 09/12/2019 Ag

1992 (documents received by state agency in course of settlement negotiations to resolve federal lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice open to inspection because federal law did not clearly require confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida

e. 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 EFTA00183963 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Fe

1992 (documents received by state agency in course of settlement negotiations to resolve federal lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice open to inspection because federal law did not clearly require confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida

— expressly noting lack of conflict with Judge Marra's orders) and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.t3 Finally, unsealing the NPA did not conflict with federal law. Records available unde