Epstein Secrets

rred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 1960245

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so thee is no good basis for sealing. (Counse

rred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at •11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 1960245

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

rred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at •11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 1960245

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

curred," the CVRA clearly provid for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States . BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. 11-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20125, 2008 WL 196024

overnment offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government claims that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns