Epstein Secrets

v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). 6 See also (A-11 at ¶ 6) (citing Jn re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). References to "Supp.A." correspond to the supplemental appendix filed by the Post simultaneous with this bri

fy a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 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

2 I Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 I Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). 6 See also (A-I I at 116) (citing In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). 7 References to "Supp.A." correspond to the supplemental appendix filed by the Post simultaneous with this b

tify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 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

Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 Jane Doe II. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. WILLI

n determining that no such privacy interest was implicated. 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Ha. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.1° Nor did the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In t