Epstein Secrets

RK, • App. Div. No. 6081 Respondent, • On Appeal from New York Supreme Court, • New York County, Index No. 30129/10 - against - (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. : x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO UNSEAL APPELLATE BRIEFS DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LIP Robert D. Balin John M.

iction for Sex Crimes and Designation as a Level Three Sex Offender 3 B. Media Interest in New York and Florida Prosecutors' Lenient Handling of Epstein's Case 5 C. The Post's Efforts to Obtain the Appellate Briefing Filed with the First Department 8 ARGUMENT 9 I. THE POST HAS THE RIGHT TO M

had never spoken to the federal investigators in Florida who had reached the conclusion that Epstein was a serial abuser of underage girls. Id Ex. C. Epstein subsequently commenced this Appeal, seeking to overturn the trial court's ruling that he is a level three sex offender. The appellate briefs submitt

Index No. 30129/10 - against - (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. : x MEMORANDUM

Index No. 30129/10 - against - (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. : x MEMORANDUM O

008), available at https://nypost.com/2008/06/30/jeffrey-epstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitution-chargest Mother se

n on the disclosure of the appellate briefs. Id. Mr. Epstein's lawyer stated that he would not take a positio

e appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 569-71). For this reason, the appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the public has the benefit of seeing the very documents that fo

Post, moyes pursuant to Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) for Summary Judgment and states: I. INTRODUCTION The material facts in this case are not in dispute. Jeffrey Epstein was an extraordinarily wealthy, influential, and serial pedophile. It is indisputable that the State failed or refused to use the tools available to

therwise available in the public record-to inform the public as to whether the then State Attorney for Palm Beach County presented truncated evidence ofEpstein’s criminal wrongdoing to the 2006 grand jury in a manner that precluded Epstein’s indictment for the serious crimes he committed, including sex traff

effrey Epstein, till when he had been informed of Mr. Epstein’s reputation and his wealth, and I just thought t

e material facts in this case are not in dispute. Jeffrey Epstein was an extraordinarily wealthy, influenti

rmation informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994). 6 While it is lar

Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMEN

ve journalist at the Miami Herald with over twenty years of experience. For over three years, the Miami Herald has reported on and investigated Mr. Epstein and others who were involved in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Recent court filings, both in federal and state court, have raised new allegatio

I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERB

tions between those law enforcement agencies and Mr. Epstein's legal defense team, and the ultimate decision

h civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open." E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980)). Recently, the Second Circuit reiterated the common law presumption in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz B

elieving Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Law Firm") of its obligations under the protective order issued on November 29, 2018, in Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. 17-CV-616 (JGK)(SN) (S.D.N.Y.). The purpose of such order is to permit the Law Firm to comply with a grand jury subpoena and provide materi

to promote the settlement of disputes."). In response to an identical application seeking to modify a protective order in a different case between Epstein and an alleged victim, another judge in this District has reached a different conclusion. That judge found that Epstein's reliance on the protective

r issued on November 29, 2018, in Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. 17-CV-616 (JGK)(SN) (S.D.N.Y.).

D.N.Y. 2017) ("(The First Amendment] provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil.") (citing Richmond Newspapers. Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (alterations omitted). 4 The Government also argues that the Confidential Information covered by the P