Epstein Secrets

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

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

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

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

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

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian. Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did