Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 16-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 4 : tiP • ' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rtnivz•zrt : . • . 7 'Crt. Rep. lun,L__ Date : • -17 vcri J „Asir )----=-- • / PD e--P:9fot Pres, D

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Factual Allegations 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52 years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to billionaires. He is hims

, represented by Assistant United States , and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement (

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"r

ach, Florida 33401 Tel. 561 659 8300 Fax. 561 835 8691 By: Jack A. Goldberger Fla. Bar No. 262013 jgoldberger®agwpa.com Attorneys for Defendant Jay Epstein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 711.A.3 While defense counsel admittedly did not confer with plaintiffs' counsel prior to filing the moti

l distress based on the same factual allegations. Defendant Epstein has moved to dismiss only Count I of the Complai

' CASE PIO ±-122OO.1.:IFO-51/4 541sXXX CF V. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Z41 'FP ^i ria4 Y tr..mr.y..PRzia"rt

.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with th

/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action unde

LRJ U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80232-KAM Internal Use Only Doe No. 3'. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Case: 9:08-cv-80119—KAM Cause: 28:1332 Diversity—Personal Injury Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 Defendant Jeffre

3/11/2008) 05/22/2008 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Jeffrey Epstein on May 7, 2008, filed by Jane Doe No. 3. (Herman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2008) 05/29/2008 1 Plaintiffs MOTION for Entry of Default by Clerk Against Defendant by Jane Doe No. 3. (Attachments: # I Exhib

tates Attorney Ann Marie C. Villafana, Esq., and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement (

R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with th

0119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. __________________________/ ORDER DEN

CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed J

AL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal,

inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The right to inspect

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. __________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under seal. The Court has carefully cons

CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008.

AL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 2

. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the

ket 08705:2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 2

CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008

L THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July

. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with the

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

terial should remain sealed to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI. The decision in Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) shows why. In that case, members of the media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the tr

/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Pane and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action under

JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEA

.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere with th

, Denver, CO 80203, By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq., Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq., Ty Gee, Esq. Counsel for Int

British tabloids, described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), that she, M, had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2011, and that she had discussed Maxwell's involv

described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), that she, M, had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2011, and that she had discussed Maxwell's involvement in t

uments may be kept under seal if ... `higher values' in the First Amendment framework so demand."). Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, "courts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of President Ni