Epstein Secrets

. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF' OBJECTION Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for disclosure of settlement letters between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein du

AM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 19 Non-Prosecution Agreement reached between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doc 2 also seek other unspecified relief, which they call "appropriate remedies," for the government's purported failure to keep them invol

d by the government arc subject to a protective order prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 EFTA00177187 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on

r Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Assn, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y.

court. At the outset of the June 12, 2009 hearing on Mr. Epstein's renewed motion to stay the civil cases pending in front of federal Judge Marra, Jane Doe's attorney, Brad Edwards, also counsel for respondent E.W., advised Judge Marra that he had filed the non-prosecution agreement "under seal in your c

Brad Edwards, also counsel for respondent E.W., advised Judge Marra that he had filed the non-prosecution agreement "under seal in your court" in "Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America" (EWA at 5). Mr. Epstein's counsel advised Judge Colbath of Mr. Edwards' sealed filing in federal court at the J

ly entitled to protection, as there may have been accusations made for which no indictment was returned." Id. at 218 n.8; see also United States v. Steinger, No. 08-21158-CR, 2009 WL 1674798, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2009) (discussing the "devastating consequences" from revealing names of "those person

the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 10 EFTA00208124

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougla

/2011 Page 1 of 2 • aitadedataa% • AND ASSOCIATES October 9, 2008 United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV- Dear I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements t

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougl

• aitadedataa% • AND ASSOCIATES October 9, 2008 Dexter Lee, AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear Mr. Lee: I am writing to call to your attention two potential

cy seeks to protect . . unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and public castigation that may result from disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000941 EFTA00230765 e•;;S",:%%::: - - • /len" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Pag