Epstein Secrets

rms of his Non-Prosecution Agreement, served his time, and made significant restitution to alleged victims. In that case, on August 21, 2008, Judge Marra ruled that the Non-Prosecution Agreement could not be disclosed to third parties without prior order of the court and notice to Mr. Epstein [D.E. 26

a review of the docket sheet in Doe v. U.S., that Judge Marra administratively closed the cases for non-prosec

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t

A FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTE

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintif

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on