Epstein Secrets

H; TIO I/ e li ti:: : ! ill' ; 1. ':. ': l • I ; II, • I.' I . • fi ,'. .:' i • • , . . ii I! tkillm.IEloioh NeWsiJapests, Trio., a The Palm Beach Pöst (dte! ost") moves to , i',' , , T. ; "! • i ; '.' i• . ; • • i • 4., ,. . , • 111 i intorvgain this acta for the limited ose of seeking ao4ess

ords and Unseal Records was filed by Non-Party EW on or about May 15, 2009. 3. A Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access was filed by Non-party Palm Beach Post on June 1, 2009. 4. This Court granted Non-Party E.W. and Palm Beach Post Motion to Intervene on June 10, 2009 but took no immediate action on E. W

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

The court has already entered an order dated June 25, 2009 on: a) Non-party, M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court

3). Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties . and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard .'s, The Post's, and ■.'s motions to unseal and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The

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

t. The court has already entered an order dated June 25, 2009 on: a) Non-party,E's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court

3). Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties . and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard M.'s, The Post's, and M's motions to unseal and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The c

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

. : .. • • . • :2008r93$ICF- : JEFFREY EP FTED1 • ; 1 . . • • 04 • I 1•P•i:i • T'6 MOTIONTO R'YE E .; "IIPPPerl1/2 ON FORA a The Palm Beach Pest (the? ost, moves to i • • • ; , docuttuints go to theheirt of the disposition of this mac. :But In req gestinf that Stri p Pucillo • • • . ; •

ndant ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on the following: a) Non-party M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and Petition for Access M.'s Motions to Intervene and for an Order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Cour

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

ords and Unseal Records was filed by Non-Party EW on or about May 15, 2009. 3. A Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access was filed by Non-party Palm Beach Post on June 1, 2009. 4. This Court granted Non-Party E.W. and Palm Beach Post Motion to Intervene on June 10, 2009 but took no Immediate action on E. W

ed to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. a The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain bow the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

ndant ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on the following: a) Non-party M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and Petition for Access c) B.B.'s Motions to Intervene and for an Order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Mak

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