Epstein Secrets

orum in which to disclose these facts. •4 Although there is no case directly on this point, the present question comes fully within the holding of Barron, which thoroughly considered the com- petition between the people's interest in public courts and the personal interest in private facts. In effect

rong presumption in favor of public ac- cess to such matters." Sentinel Communications Co. I Watson, 615 So.2d 768, 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing Barron I Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla.1988)). This presumption rests on the most fundamental values of American government. O200

lic identification. However, Barron teaches that this is the wrong question because it overlooks the higher purpose of openness in the courts. In Barron, a case involving privacy concerns inher- ent in a divorce case, the court strongly reaffirmed the presumption that Florida civil courts are open.

ATE OF FLORIDA, E.W., THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. E.W.'S SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, E.W., would show the Court as follows: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition. The order under review is a non-final order for which no

Va. 2007) 23 United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9 State Cases Anderson v. E.T., 862 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) 8 Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers. lac., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) 10 Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983) 8 Doe v. Museum of Science and His

fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel for E.W. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not

Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post") its attorneys' fees and costs in responding to this petition. JURISDICTION The Post adopts Respondent E.W.'s statement concerning jurisdiction. Insofar as this Court finds jurisdiction, the Post requests that this Court expedite its consideration of this

D. Va. 2007) 23 United States'. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9 State Cases Anderson I E.T., 862 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) 8 Barron'. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) 10 Combs State 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983) 8 Doe I Museum of Science and History

for respondent, State of Florida) B.B. (non-party intervener) William J. Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (counsel for non-party intervener, E.W.) Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (circuit court judge) Barbara J. Compiani of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petiti

fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel for E.W. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not

the news media, the Post has a right to intervene in criminal proceedings for the limited purpose of seeking access to proceedings and records. See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'a

s: 1. EW is filed a motion to vacate the agreed order sealing records and to unseal the nonprosecutuion agreement and addendum in this file. Also, E.W. opposed defendant's motion to unseal said records. E.W.'s motion was granted and defendant's was denied at hearing on June 26, 2009. 2. E.W. is en

mper: or me news a, the Post has a right to intervene in criminal , I i is fOr the hotbed punxise of seeking access to proceedings 04 records. gm Barron v • '2 1 • . • I : . • ! ' ' Florida Freedom Neivspatates? Inca 531 Sc. 2d 113,118 (Fla. 1!88Vners media have standing , L. i. : • . 1

quy, they were an inducement for defendant to enter into his guilty pleas. They are proper objects of discovery. However, unless they are unsealed, E.W. is unable to obtain them or utilize them in her case. 7. Pursuant to Rule 2.420(dX5), the Court must hold a hearing on this motion in open court.