Epstein Secrets

us conduct would cause emotional trauma and damage to Jane Doe. 24. As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jef

turned executed" as the proper Event. (Ik) (Entered: 05/27/2008) 05/29/2008 2 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doc. (Attachments: #J, Exhibit A and B, #2 Text of Proposed Order Default Ord)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/29/2008) 06/06/2008 8 CLERK'S NOTICE Denyi

.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 ! 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 w

295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFI

s already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. II). "Although difficult to define in absolute terms," the term `good cause' "generally signifies a sound basis or

295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFI

e press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixonl. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. II). "Although difficult to define in absolute terms," the term `good cause' "generally signifies a sound basis or

rney 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 i

. 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 v. 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 wi

nt 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-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008), in which the Court unsealed, over the objection of the United States Attorney, documents containing si

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 v. 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 w

ein's "first-known victim" says she was sexually abused by the now-dead pedophile — who called himself her "Godfather" — when she was 13 years old. Jane Doe met Epstein and his friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the summer of 1994 at Michigan's interlochen Arts Camp, where she was In voice training, according

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of Preside

rney 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 i

. 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 v. 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 wi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

s already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records.@ Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. 11). AAlthough difficult to define in absolute terms,@ the term >good cause= Agenerally signifies a sound basis or