Epstein Secrets

ation in opposition. That 11 can be unsealed in full because there is no material included 12 in the caveats in the document. 13 185-2. Copy of Jane Doe's no. 3 and 4 corrected 14 joinder motion. Already filed in public. 15 185-3. Response to the motion to intervene. Already 16 filed in public. 1

ed in full because there are no -- there is no material within the caveat in the document. 165-3. Exhibit C. This is a copy of a motion to join in Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 files in court. That document is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00075533 Case 20-2413, Document40,08/20/202

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

his victims. In return, prosecutors declined to bring federal charges. Shortly after Epstein entered his plea, two of his victims, proceeding as "Jane Doe 1" and "Jane Doe 2," filed suit against the Government in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). The victims

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

his victims. In return, prosecutors declined to bring federal charges. Shortly after Epstein entered his plea, two of his victims, proceeding as "Jane Doe 1" and "Jane Doe 2," filed suit against the Government in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). The victim

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred

on granted the government's ex parte request, Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Judge Netbum recognized the government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of not

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o