Epstein Secrets

hird parties. Just 1 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPI535ENTIAL SDNY_GM_00331783 EFTA 00204509 EFTA02729494 last week, Judge Marra reviewed the non-prosecution agreement and addendum in camera in conjunction with Mr. Epstein's renewed motion to stay civil lawsuits against him (

motions to unseal. Instead, Judge Colbath stated that his "Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). But there is no way unsealing does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. 1. JURISDICTION E.W. contends there i

0331783 EFTA 00204509 EFTA02729494 last week, Judge Marra reviewed the non-prosecution agreement and addend

ly entitled to protection, as there may have been accusations made for which no indictment was returned." Id. at 218 n.8; see also United States v. Steinger, No. 08-21158-CR, 2009 WL 1674798, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2009) (discussing the "devastating consequences" from revealing names of "those person

requited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(eXI)(A). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of March, 2011. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 2 EFTA00230163 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DIST

ments there. 3 EFTA00230175 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 10 On October 20, 2010, this Court (Marra, J.), entered an order (Doc. #222) remanding to the magistrate judge to give Epstein an opportunity to file a reply brief. On November 1, 2010, Eps

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougl

requited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(aXI)(A). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of March, 2011. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 2 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000917 EFTA00230741 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page

CV-MARRA 000929 EFTA00230753 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 10 On October 20, 2010, this Court (Marra, J.), entered an order (Doc. #222) remanding to the magistrate judge to give Epstein an opportunity to file a reply brief. On November 1, 2010, Eps

cy seeks to protect . . unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and public castigation that may result from disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000941 EFTA00230765 e•;;S",:%%::: - - • /len" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Pag

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

r Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Assn, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y.

1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern D

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougla

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I U

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, v.

ght of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Doug

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I U

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D