Epstein Secrets

deral government prosecutorial authorities, are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day of June, 2013. ,en Kenneth Marta United States District Judge cc. All counsel 11 EFTA00600064 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 187 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 4

scriptive references to the grand jury material in question. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18"' day of June, 2013. Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge cc. All counsel 4 EFTA00600068

oe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceed

asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential." Romero at 1246, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11' Cir. 2001). In balancing the competing interests, the court appropriately considers "whether allowing access would impair

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

apply the correct legal standard and follow the proper procedures in determining whether a protective order should issue. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (I I th Cir. 2001). A. Legal Standard Intervenor Epstein argues that the proper legal standard is the "good cause" standard

ement" (an amendment that still does not clearly require that CVRA rights apply to a Non- Prosecution Agreement), Motion at 48, fn 175. Despite Judge Marra's determinations that the CVRA rights are applicable in the absence of a formal federal charge, see e.g. Dkt 189 at 8, the USAO was acting consiste

ecution Agreement), Motion at 48, fn 175. Despite Judge Marra's determinations that the CVRA rights are applic

, 180 (1st Cir. 2003)(Both the constitutional and the common law rights of access have applied only to judicial documents"); Chicago tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("when applying the common law right of access federal courts traditionally distinguish between those items w

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

apply the correct legal standard and follow the proper procedures in determining whether a protective order should issue. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (I I th Cir. 2001). A. Legal Standard Intervenor Epstein argues that the proper legal standard is the "good cause" standard

ecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women

erly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crim

ture of discovery" Looney I Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11'1' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process because the litigants and the court

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

e of discovery" Looney v. Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11t' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process because the litigants and the courts

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, VS.

the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidentiarRomero at 1246, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11* Cir. 2001). In balancing the competing interests, the court appropriately considers "whether allowing access would impair