Epstein Secrets

ld a stay not be 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad completely ignores the likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defe

n's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it. P mg on the production of the NM agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NM was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has