Epstein Secrets

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

AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adoranta, Inc., Page(s) No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) 12 Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 9, 11, 14

n of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b)

ce and scope of the Investigation in this district is not publicly known. While counsel for certain victims are aware of the Investigation, neither Epstein nor other subjects of the investigation are believed to be similarly aware. Accordingly, the ordinary exercise of grand July power to "subpoena witn

issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of T

urt may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants but where, a

r to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Application"), in connection with the matter Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al. ("Jane Doe"), 17 Civ. 616 (JGK) (SN) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Background As described in the A

n of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b)

issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of T

urt may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants but where, a

n of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594(c) (unlawfully trafficking minors) and Section 2422(b)

ce and scope of the Investigation in this district is not publicly known. While counsel for certain victims are aware of the Investigation, neither Epstein nor other subjects of the investigation are believed to be similarly aware. Accordingly, the ordinary exercise of grand July power to "subpoena witn

issued pursuant to an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others, for possible violations of T

urt may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants but where, a