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

to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. 1.4, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

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

to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. 14„, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

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

d to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic