Epstein Secrets

losed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.Q., Wallace v. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Nous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach v Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (Federal Privacy Act

fy a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION

losed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.g., Wallace I. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach'. Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (Federal Privacy Act

ify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION

closed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.g., Wallace,. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach'. Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (Federal Privacy Act

n determining that no such privacy interest was implicated. 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Ha. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.1° Nor did the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In t