1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ____________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518). Plaintiffs filed responses to the motion (DE’s 524, 525), and Defendant filed a reply (DE 529). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has reviewed the motion, response, reply, and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Defendant states that he intends to file a request for a Rule 4 Review and Appeal of portions of Magistrate Judge Johnson’s Orders dated February 4, 2010 (DE 462), March 4, 2010 (DE 480), and April 1, 2010 (DE 513). In the instant motion, Defendant moves “for leave to file redacted versions of sensitive Fifth Amendment arguments and submit original, un-redacted Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2010

Page 1 of 4 Defendant points out that it previously filed briefs before Judge Johnson in which 1 substantial portions of the arguments were blacked out and unredacted briefs were submitted for in camera review. See DE’s 282, 283. However, Defendant did not seek leave to file his legal arguments in a redacted format, nor did Judge Johnson formally approve such a procedure. The mere fact that Judge Johnson previously acquiesced to Defendant’s filing of memoranda with his legal arguments redacted is not any indication that it was proper or that this Court will allow it in connection with the instant appeal. 2 arguments to the Court for in-camera inspection.” (Mot. at ¶ 1).1 First, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for permission to redact legal arguments in his memoranda to be filed on appeal. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs, as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to respond adequatel to critical legal arguments which have been redacted. Defendant relies upon cases that do not support allowing the filing of legal memoranda with redacted arguments. See U.S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F.Supp. 1503 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (allowing the taking of pleas in camera and the filing of redacted plea agreements based upon a discretionary determination of compelling government interest); In re Duque, 134 B.R. 679, 687 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (affirming bankruptcy court's procedure- by which appellants may redact the communicative materials from the documents produced to appellee and submit the original documents under seal for the bankruptcy court's in camera inspection); Sterling Merchandising, Inc. v. Nestle, S.A., 2008 WL 3200702 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (acknowledging that parties can file certain privileged information in a redacted format); Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026 (7 Cir. 1996) (allowing redaction of th physician salaries from brief as “gratuitous” rather than seal entire memorandum). Second, the Court will not consider in Defendant’s appeal any legal arguments or documentary evidence which were not previously provided to Judge Johnson in the discovery motions and motions for reconsideration being appealed. “Systemic efficiencies would be Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2010

Page 2 of 4 3 frustrated and the magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearsal if a party were allowed to feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round.” Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, the District Court has discretion to refuse to consider Defendant’s argument that is raised for the first time on appeal. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d at 1292 (“a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge”); see, e.g., Thomas v. Harris, 2009 WL 5214965, *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec 29, 2009) (“the Court declines to consider a non-jurisdictional argument that Dr. Poveda raises for the first time in his Objections to the Report”). Finally, the Court denies Defendant’s request that this Court “provide in its order the procedure for submitting in camera Rule 4 Appeals for both Jane Doe and Jane Doe Nos. 2-8 as well as a reasonable deadline for submitting and filing same.” See Reply at ¶ 12. Plaintiffs have not even requested permission to file “in camera Rule 4 Appeals.” Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Sensitive Fifth Amendment Arguments and Submit Un-Redacted Arguments to the Court (DE 518) is DENIED. The deadline for Defendant to file his appeal, if he so chooses, is extended to May 5, 2010. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 26 day of April, 2010. th ______________________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2010

Page 3 of 4 4 Copies to: all counsel of record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2010