Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 85 of 100 sor & Associates Repanimp, and Transaipdan. inc. Page 59 1 MR. LEOPOLD: I'll certify it. 2 CERTIFIED QUESTION 3 She's answered that question. She's explained it five 4 tines already. The fact that Counsel doesn't like the 5 answer, that's a different query. 6 MR. TEIN: Stop making speaking objections. 7 MR. LEOPOLD: I'm not. I'm not going to 8 put up with it, because it's in appropriate, Jack, 9 and you know it. I will not allow Counsel to 10 berate a witness, whether it's in a criminal case 11 or a civil case, whether my client or -- 12 MR. TEIN: Calm down. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. 14 No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not 15 proper. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's 18 lying after asking it five times and her 19 explaining in great detail, he can do that. But 20 I'm not going to allow her to answer, nor be 21 harassed by him. It's improper. 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. But your response . 23 that Counsel doesn't like the question -- or 24 doesn't like the answer -- just let me finish. 25 N.R. LEOPOLD: Absolutely. I wasn't going pasta Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232217

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 86 of 100 sor & Associates • Rept-inns end Tali< ti pncm, Inc Page 60 of 316 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 to interrupt you. 2 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just requires us to say we 3 like the answer to that question. And it's not 4 you and I or you and Mr. Tein who are testifying 5 here. It's the witness. 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Fine. But after the sixth 7 time of asking the same question and then coming 8 back and pointing a finger at her and saying, 9 "You're a liar" -- 10 MR. TEIN: That didn't happen. 11 MR. LEOPOLD: That's fine. But I'm not 12 going to allow her to answer that question, 13 because she's answered that same question and has 14 explained it. 15 Now Counsel might be sitting there rubbing 16 his head with a migraine. That's his problem. 17 But if he can't ask a question appropriately in a 18 professional manner, we will leave. I will not 19 allow her to be berated like that. MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, we're very happy with the answer. MR. LEOPOLD: That's great. MR. GOLDBERGER: Do you want us to get into that? MR. TEIN: Ted -- Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232218

Case 91)8<v-80804-KAM ment 1 EnteredonFLSDDocket07/21/2008 Page87of100 nsor & Associates Stspornig and Transcaptiem, loc.... $7 of 316 Page 61 1 2 3 your question and move on. But do it one time. 4 If you don't understand it, I'll let you follow MR. LEOPOLD: This is really big stuff that you're going through. But that's fine; just ask up, but I'm not going to allow you to ask the same 6 question time and again and then call her a liar. 7 Just ask the question, get the answer and move to 8 the next subject matter. 9 MR. TEIN: Ted, I'm sitting right across 10 the table from you. 11 MR. LEOPOLD: Yes, sir. 12 MR. TEIN: Please be quiet. Don't yell. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: I will not be quiet. 14 MR. TEIN: Stop yelling. 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Lewis, when I'm yelling 16 you'll know it. I will not -- 17 MR. TEIN: My name is not Lewis. 18 MR. LEOPOLD: I thought your first name was 19 Lewis, Mr. Tein. 20 MR. TEIN: You watched me for three days at 21 the evidentiary hearing where you sat in the back 22 of the courtroom. You should know who I am. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Well, that's the impression 24 you must have made in the courtroom. 25 I will not be quiet. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232219

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM t 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 88of 100 Domen sor & Associates Redd inp and ItAtasctijI:lay Page 62 1 MR. TEIN: That's obnoxious. Stop being 2 obnoxious. It's stupid. Let's go ahead with the 1111e4311 23 24 25 3 questions. 4 MR. LEOPOLD: I will make the record. 5 MR. TEIN: Let's get on with the questions. 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Do you need a break? 7 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. Okay. grAff after you told your manager 10 at the Quarterdeck Tavern everything that was going on 11 and he told you he would help you any way he could, he 12 hid you in the kitchen from the process servers, correct? 13 A. Incorrect. 14 Q. Isn't it true that lying to avoid service 15 is a meaningless lie to you, 16 A. Incorrect. 17 Q. What is your manager's name? 18 A. I have three. Would you like to know 19 all -- 20 Q. Who's the one who lied for you? 21 A. IIIIIIII, 22 Q. And what did do to lie for you? A. Said I wasn't there. Q. And who did he tell wasn't there? A. Ask him. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232220

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 89 of 100 Gtof MG nsor & Associates Reparnaa and ltaascrinnon. Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Page 63 Q. Where were you when IIIIII,told this soreone that you were not at the Quarterdeck Tavern? A. Eating nachos. Q. At the Quarterdeck Tavern? A. Yes. Q. What did you do so that would lie to the process servers for you? A. Nothing. Q. You just got him to lie for you, didn't 10 you? 11 A. No. i had no influence on him saying I 12 wasn't there. 13 Q. He took that upon himself? 14 15 servers had to ask the police to get you out of the 16 restaurant so that they could serve you? 17 18 foundation, predicate. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. You can answer the question. 21 Isn't it true that Mr. Epstein's process MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess. 22 THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the I 23 question? 24 MR. TEIN: Don't coach. 25 MR. LEOPOLD: Don't guess. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232221

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doc ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 90 of 100 sor & Associates ROpOrtillg mJ TOLIIIICripliall, Page 64 1 MR. TEIN: That's a coaching. 2 MR. LEOPOLD: No. That's an instruction to 3 the client. 4 MR. TEIN: No. You don't do that. 5 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Let me just state for the 7 record -- 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. Once the police -- isn't it true that 10 Mr. Epstein's process servers had to ask the police to 11 get you out of the restaurant so that they could serve 12 you? 13 A. Incorrect. My boss called the police. 14 Q. And once the police showed up, to stop you ; 15 from lying to avoid service, you made up another lie that 16 the process servers had harassed you. Isn't that 17 correct? 18 A. Incorrect. 19 Q. You lie all the time, don't you? 20 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 22 BY MR. TEIN: 23 Q. You have a MySpace page, don't you? 24 A. No longer do I have a MySpace page. I 25 deleted it. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 66 of 316 EFTA00232222

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dcyment1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 91 of 100 sor & Associates Raporsins and Trauctiptian, Page 65 1 Q. When did you delete your MySpace page? 2 A. A couple days ago. 3 Q. Who told you to take your MySpace page down 4 a couple of days ago? 5 A. Nobody. I'm sick and tired of MySpace. 6 Q. You all of a sudden got sick and tired of 7 MySpace and just a few days before this deposition you 8 decided to delete your MySpace page, correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Is that your testimony under oath? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you take your MySpace page down because 13 you thought the government might subpoena it? 14 A. Incorrect. 15 Q. Hadn't your MySpace page been up for over 16 three months before you took it down? 17 A. Correct. But I also had made tons of 18 MySpaces over the last years. I just get tired of them 19 and delete them because -- drama -- and make new ones. 20 Q. We're going to talk about that. 21 So you deleted your MySpace page after you 22 were already under subpoena for this deposition, correct? 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q• What about the MySpace page didn't you want us to see,'"lilt Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 91 of 314 EFTA00232223

92 o1916 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM uncument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 92 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting-and Transcripnrm. Inc. 1 2 3 in a second. Page 66 A. Nothing. Q. Well, we're going to come back to MySpace 4 A. You do that. 5 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions 6 abort why you lie about your age so often, okay? 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form. 6 Argumentative. 9 BY MR. TEIN: 10 Q. You lie about your age all the time, don't 11 you? 12 N.R. LEOPOLD: Objection, argumentative. 13 THE WITNESS: Incorrect. 14 BY MR. TEIN: 15 Q. You lie about your age to get body 16 piercings, don't you? 17 A. Incorrect. 18 Q. You have body piercings, don't you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You have four body piercings; isn't that 21 right? 22 A. Five. 23 Q. Other than the piercings on your ears 24 I'm not talking about that -- 25 A. Oh, then no; just one. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00232224

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dgpyypent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 93 of 100 sor & Associates Reporting and Tresscriptiecloc Page 67 . 1 Q. And where is the one body piercing? A. Belly. Q. When did you get that? 4 A. For my birthday, with my stepmother and my 5 father. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. When I was 14. 8 Q. Okay. So you had that body piercing when 9 you met Epstein, correct? 10 A. It might have been, or maybe that -- yeah, 11 either my 14th birthday or my 15th. I honestly don't 12 remember. 13 Q. Now you've lied about your age to get into 14 bars by using driver's licenses that aren't yours, 15 correct? 16 A. Incorrect. 17 Q. Are you swearing under oath that you've 18 never done that? 19 A. Yes, I swear under oath. 20 Q. And you've lied about your age to buy beer, 21 correct? 22 A. Incorrect. 1 I 23 0. You're swearing under oath that you've 24 never lied to stores about your age? 25 A. I've never lied to a store about my age or Ph. - Fax. 1655 Pa,m Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL. 33401 9304316 EFTA00232225

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ment 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page94 01100 l i k41 sor & Associates Roraniap anti Transcriptive, Inc. 1 anything. 2 Q. You try to look much older than you are, 3 don't you? 4 A. Incorrect. 5 Q. And you've lied about your age on your 6 MySpace pages, don't you? 7 A. Incorrect. 8 Q. All right. Let's look at Exhibit 26-01 9 one. 10 MS. BELOHLAVEK: 26-001? 11 MR. TEIN: Yes. 12 BY MR. TEIN: 13 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 14 were 18, didn't you? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 33. 17 MS. BELOHLAVEK: That's 33-001? 18 TEIN: Correct. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. On this page you lied to everyone that you 21 were 19, didn't you? 22 A. Incorrect. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: Just answer the question. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, incorrect. 25 BY MR. TEIN: Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes B!vd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 140311 EFTA00232226

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ument 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 95 of 100 sor & Associates Repnninp bat! Transcription, Mr Page 69 1 Q. Now you can explain your answer. 2 A. I know that I have seen all of these and I 3 know that this one is mine. 4 Can you go down? 5 MR. LEOPOLD: Just for the record, you're 6 pointing to the photo. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm pointing to -- 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. You're pointing to the one where it says 10 your age is 18? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. That's yours, right? 13 A. Correct. That's mine from a couple years 14 ago that I have not been on, because I don't use that. 15 Please keep going down, please. And I think that's it, 16 because there's no one -- just that one is mine. 17 Q. So the one you pointed to where it says 18 your age is 18, that's yours, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And when you wrote 18 as your age on your 21 MySpace page, that was a lie, wasn't it? 22 A. Correct. I 1 23 Q. Did you lie about your MySpace page back 24 then because you couldn't post on MySpace unless you were 25 18? Ph. - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 1601016 EFTA00232227

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Docyrnent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 96 of 100 nsor & Associates Roportinp and Trauctipoon, )nc. 2 3 4 post on MySpace, right? 5 A. Yes. Page 70 A. Correct. There was a rule many years ago that you had to be 18 to have a MySpace. Q. So you lied about your age so you could 6 7 33-01. 8 Q. Let's go back to the top one on this page, Are you testifying now under oath that this 9 'MySpace page where the headline says, 'Sills do have more 10 fun," and the location is given as Lox, abbreviation for 11 Loxahatchee, and the age is 19, and it saysjillill, 12 is it your testimony that you did not post 13 that? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Now let's go back to the one that you were 16 pointing to before on this page, where it says your age 17 is 18 and you lied about your age to post MySpace, okay? 18 A. Uh-huh, yes. 19 Q. All right. Why did you finally put your 20 true age on your MySpace profile four days before you 21 were scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury? 22 A. I don't know what you're talking about. 23 MR. LEOPOLD: If you don't understand, ask 24 him to ask the question again. 25 MR. TEIN: Don't coach. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Sulte 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 No/316 EFTA00232228

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM D ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 97 of 100 sor & Associates itoponios nil Transcription, Mc. Page 71 THE WITNESS: I don't know which MySpace 2 you're talking about. 3 BY MR. TEIN: 4 Q. The MySpace page that you're just pointing 5 to, where it says you were 18. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And you were lying about your age, right? 8 A. Qh-huh. 9 Q. Why did you finally post your true age on 10 your MySpace profile -- 11 A. Uh -- 12 Q. -- four days before you were scheduled to 13 testify before the Grand Jury? 14 A. I honestly don't know which MySpace, 15 because I've had like a bazillion MySpaces, and in that 16 year, I had two, that one and another one, and that one's 17 been deleted. So I don't know which one you're referring 18 to. 19 Q. You remember that you changed your age on 20 your MySpace page from 18 to your true age just four days 21 before you went and testified in the Grand Jury? 22 A. No. 23 Q. You don't remember that. 24 A. No. 25 0. Do you remember Detective Recarey? Did you Sale M.I .,.••• MOVE. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 NOM, EFTA00232229

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dgcujnent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 98 of 100 sor & Associates • Reporting and Transcription. Inc Page 72 ever meet a Detective Recafey? 2 A. I don't know the names. 3 Q. How many different detectives have you met 4 with on this case from Palm Beach? 5 A. Probably a good six or seven, maybe. 6 Q. Did one of the detectives tell you before 7 you testified in the Grand Jury that you should take your 8 MySpace age and put your true age? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Didn't Detective Recarey have to come to 11 your house to pick you up to get you to testify in front 12 of the Grand Jury? 13 A. Possibly; maybe because I didn't have a 14 rice; I was only 14 or 15 at the time. 15 Q. Your mom didn't drive you? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Stepmom didn't drive you? 18 A. I think my dad. Oh, my dad; my dad drove 19 me. 20 Q. Your dad drove you? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. So your testimony is Detective Recarey did 23 not drive you, correct? 24 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. /asked and 25 answered. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 III a100 EFTA00232230

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Dq ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 99 of 100 sor & Associates Reponota and Transcription, Inc. Page 73 THE WITNESS: No. I'm pretty sure my dad 2 drove me, because he was there with me. 3 BY MR. TEIN: Q. Did any detective tell you to change your 5 age on your MySpace page, to put your true age? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. Now you also lied on your MySpace page 8 about your income, didn't you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you lied, saying that you made a 11 quarter million dollars a year and higher, correct? 12 A. As a joke, yes. 13 Q. That was a lie, wasn't it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you also lied on your MySpace page, 16 saying that you were married, didn't you? 17 A. Possibly. And that might have been an 18 error on my part. 19 Q. Now you also lie to the police, don't you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, you lied to the police in your 22 tape-recorded statement that you gave to Detective 23 Pagan three years ago, didn't you? 24 A. To my knowledge, no, I did not. 25 Q. Well, you lied to the police when you Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 19 64 314 EFTA00232231

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 100 of 100 Dionsor & Associates Ropartinp and "franscription, inc Page 74 1 accused Mr. Epstein of attempting to murder your father, 2 didn't you? 3 A. No. I never heard a statement saying that 4 Mr. Epstein tried to murder my father. 5 O. You made that statement, didn't you? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Do you have a statement to 7 show her? That's been asked and answered. 8 MR. TEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the 9 witness' answer, Mr. Leopold. 10 BY MR. TEIN: ll Q. you told the police, didn't you, 12 that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, didn't you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Three years ago, before Mr. Epstein even 15 knew about this investigation, you told the police that 16 Epstein had "already come to my dad's house and did 17 something to my dad's tires and my dad almost died. didn't want my dad to get hurt, because Jeff already 19 almost killed him." 20 Didn't you say that? 21 A. Not to my knowledge or recollection. I 22 have never said anything like that. 23 Q. That would have been a complete lie, 24 wouldn't it have been? 25 A. Yeah. Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401 100 et 316 EFTA00232232

EPSTUN es morN TO SEAL NoN -PROS *air EFTA00232233

JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:28 P11 FAX NO. 5618358691 P. 01 Date: 6/26/09 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEY. LAW SUITE 400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH FLO 01-5066 TELEPHONE FAX- FAX COVER SHEET To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. USAO Barbara Burns, Esq. ASAO Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton. Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Subject: State of Florida v. Epstein Pages: 3 , including this cover sheet. See attached letter. ORIGINAL WILL BE SENT: YES X NO IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH SSION, PLEASE CONTACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The information contained In this facsimile message Is attorney privileged and confidential information Intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone. Thank you. EFTA00232234

JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:28 PM TELECOPIED THIS DATE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 FAX NO. 5618358691 June 26, 2009 Re; State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: P. JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY ' JACK A.GOLDBERGER JASON! S. WEISS Ulan' CCrtalIWI CrintoorPOI tome., ! MendKr of Now Jersoy A hot Hors On behalf of Mr. Epstein, we strongly object to the proposed order submitted by Deanna Shullman on behalf of the Palm Beach Post. The court has already entered an order dated June 25, 2009 on: a) Non-party,E's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential. The only matter before the court today was Defendant Epstein's Motion for a Stay which the court denied. Contrary to the assertions in the proposed order submitted to you by the Palm Beach Post, the court made a_specific finding-that the-Defendant - -Epstein-has met-his burden of Irreparable harm. Additionally, all of the other matters contained in the proposed order were addressed in the court's Order of June 25, 2009. It is the position of Defendant Epstein that the order on today's Motion to Stay should simply state that the Defendant's Motion to Stay is denied. In this way, the court's order of June 25, 2009 on the merits of the issue and the order of the court One ClearlAke Contre,Suito 1400 230 Australian Avenue South Wftsr NMI Reach. FL. 3340i www.agwpa.com EFTA00232235

P. 03 JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:28 PM The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath June 26, 2009 Page 2 FAX NO. 5618368691 denying the stay motion can properly be reviewed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Very truly yqurs, ACK A. GOLDBERGER JAG:cg cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorneys Office(via facsimile) Deanna K. Shullman, Esquire (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire (via facsimile) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00232236

day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381A>O(MB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT THIS MATTER came before the Court at a hearing on June 26, 2009, on Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay the Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the Addendum thereto. The Court notes the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon argument, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Motion to Stay is denied. 2. The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this GTIKDAiti t5 DATED JUN 2 6 nog JEFFREY 3 Circuit Court Judge EFTA00232237

Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381A)0(MB/502006CF009454AXXMB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 William J. Berger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Robert D. Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. P. O. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 EFTA00232238

i Judge Jeffrey 3. Colbath 205 North Dixie Highway West_Palm Beach, FL 33401 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 . Albeit AcoSTAi CSC\ U.S. Attorney's O ice Southern District 500 S. Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 334Oi4S2SS I II II I III IlAlmdeltdinhMI.A.AW EFTA00232239

ft EFTA00232240

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1.11. tEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2008CF009381A DIVISION W STATE OF FLORIDA v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE OF THE NON- PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") pending review, and states: 1. In the event the Court grants Nonparty 's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN moves to stay the disclosure of the NPA pending review by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. 2. Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in pertinent part, "...a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion , to grant, modify or deny such relief." EFTA00232241

3. A stay pending review is warranted under the circumstances because of the irreparable harm that would be caused by disclosure of the NPA including, but not limited to, substantial injury to a party by disclosing matters protected by common law and privacy rights, substantial injury to a compelling government interest, substantial injury to innocent third parties and a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration of justice as set forth in the hearing record date June 25, 2009. 4. In Mariner Health Care of Nashville. Inc. v. Baker, 739 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), defendant Mariner filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the trial court compelled it to produce certain incident reports. Mariner also moved for a stay pending review pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310. The trial court advised the parties that Mariner would be required to submit the incident reports to the court under seal as a prerequisite to a stay. Mariner refused to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudice. To the contrary, the records will be protected from disclosure during the entire course of the certiorari proceeding before this court. No harm can be done if this court ultimately determines that the reports are protected by the work product privilege. Id. at 610. 5. In the instant case the NPA is already filed under seal. Should the Court grant Nonparty 's Motion to Vacate Order Scaling Records and Unseal Records, grant Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or deny 2 EFTA00232242

EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN requests the Court exercise its discretion under Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310(a) and enter a stay pending review by the 4th DCA. 6. No harm will be done if the NPA remains under seal pending appellate review. To the contrary, EPSTEIN will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not entered and the NPA is disclosed to the public. WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that if the Court grants Nonparty 's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, the Court enter a stay pending review and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Certificate ot Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Hand Delivery to ESQ., United States Attorney's Office — Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office — West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, Wect Palm Beach, FL 33401, SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA BIvd., Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, and DEANNA K. SHULLMAN, 3 EFTA00232243

400 North Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, this 25th day of June, 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 latch, FL 401 By: Robert D. Cri o i Jr. Florida Bar Michael J. Pike Florida Bar 31 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 Wes FL 33401-5012 Fax: Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 4 EFTA00232244

iris el" 1"N 1/4 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP L'A'W - Y•B•R•S 515 N. FLAOLER DRIVE / sun 400 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 Gi $ 00.44° MAILED r PC1A /iP C.c;0F . Attorneysice Southern District 500 S. Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 334O1:S623S c023 hili.M.LHL.AAndWM.Lidkdk.Md EFTA00232245

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Petitioner/defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves this Court for an order allowing him to file the September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Agreement") and October 29, 2007 Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Addendum"), which are the subject of his contemporaneously filed emergency petition for certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay, under seal. 1. The Agreement and Addendum were executed by petitioner/defendant and the United States Attorney's Office in September 2007. They are attached in the sealed envelope. 2. The Agreement contains a confidentiality clause, precluding it from EFTA00232246

being disclosed to third parties or made part of any public record. Federal District Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to third parties. 3. Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Pucillo ordered Mr. Epstein's attorney to file the documents under seal during his plea conference on June 30, 2008. 4. On June 25, 2009, Judge Colbath granted non-parties' motions to vacate the order sealing records and ordered them disclosed. 5. On June 26, 2009, Judge Colbath denied petitioner's motion for stay, and ordered the Clerk of Court to make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, unless this Court granted a stay. 6. It is necessary that this Court review the Agreement and Addendum in conjunction with these proceedings. To protect the purpose of the petition for writ of certiorari pending before this Court, petitioner asks to file the documents under -seal. Accordingly, petitioner requests that this Court grant this motion and allow 2 EFTA00232247

him to file the Agreement and Addendum, which are separate from the appendix to his emergency petition and motion for review, under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by email and Federal Express this 3oM.. day of June, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach anlens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 3 EFTA00232248

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner By: . N-Qi--- NE USLER-WALSH orida Bar No.M 4 EFTA00232249

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves to file one appendix in support of his contemporaneously filed emergency petition for writ of certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay. The documents in the appendix support both the petition and motion to review denial of stay. In order to expedite review, avoid duplication of paper and unnecessary expense, Mr. Epstein requests that this Court allow him to use the appendix in support of both the petition and motion to review denial of stay. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and 1 EFTA00232250

Federal Express this 3**4., day of June, 2009, to: JEFFREY H. SLOMAN U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITFON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 2 EFTA00232251

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner By: oU,t•- &'-.AZEe1=R-WALSH lorida Bar No. 3 EFTA00232252

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f), requests this Court review the order denying his Motion to Stay Disclosure of Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum pending his contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari and grant the stay.' Mr. Epstein seeks review of the stay denial on emergency basis. The court stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009 so Mr. Epstein could seek review in this Court. Absent a stay by this Court, the documents will be disclosed and there will be no adequate remedy. • Petittoner Jeffrey Epstein is referred to bLuo • name. Non-party interveners,..,. and The Post are referred to as M., M. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A — Petitioner's appendix. 1 EFTA00232253

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same conduct. In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein negotiated and signed a non-prosecution agreement (A-7:38).2 The non-prosecution agreement contains an express confidentiality provision and makes specific reference to a grand jury investigation of Mr. Epstein (A-7:38). The United States Attorney's Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A- 2 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a motion to seal. 2 EFTA00232254

8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the plea (A-7). During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A-7:37-38). Mr. Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state plea would violate the non-prosecution agreement (A-7:39-40). Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted "a sealed copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File" (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was filed under seal on August 25, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in the federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office 3 EFTA00232255

opposed disclosure (A-2). On August 16, 2008, Judge Main of the Southern District ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non-prosecution agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,3 Judge Marra denied the motion, stating in pertinent part: Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief If and when Petitioners have a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). 3 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 4 EFTA00232256

Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non-party , a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10). alleged that the proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein; that she, as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued sealing violates public policy (A-10). On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The Post") moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged that the procedures for sealing had not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance." (A-11:3). Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard M's and The Post's motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later hearing (A-13). 5 EFTA00232257

The next day, June 11, 2009, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13). Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; to protect a compelling government interest; to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties . and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard M.'s, The Post's, and M's motions to unseal and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The court granted M's, The Post's, and M's motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court concluded: At the time the State court took these matters under seal, the proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been followed. Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. (A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as 6 EFTA00232258

permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). Subsequent to this oral ruling, Mr. Epstein provided the court with a Motion to Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to stay, scheduled for the next day (A-16:3). The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, so Mr. Epstein could seek emergency review of the denial in this Court (A-17). ARGUMENT Whether to grant a stay is discretionary with the trial court. See Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Factors courts consider in deciding whether to grant a stay pending appellate proceedings include the likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if not stay is granted, and the remedial quality of any such harm. See Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037, 1038 n.3 (Fla. 1980). The trial court agreed that Mr. Epstein had established irreparable harm (A-17:16), denied a 7 EFTA00232259

stay. The trial court abused its discretion by denying a stay. As set forth in the contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari, Mr. Epstein will likely succeed on the merits. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. Disclosure also violates Judge Marra's two orders in the federal district court, denying disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating 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 disclosure does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court 8 EFTA00232260

on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)--an attorney for the government "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury." As a consequence of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal grand jury proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, "Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Non-Criminal Cases 9 EFTA00232261

Confidential") do not apply to criminal cases. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 Court Commentary ("New subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court records in non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (c)(9)."); see also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 So. 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules committees for further study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(c)(9)(D), make clear that advance notice is not always required: Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has been held to require notice and hearing prior to closure, see Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982), the closure of court records has not required prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court record may be impractical and burdensome in emergency circumstances or when closure of a court record requiring confidentiality_is_requested during a judicial proceeding. The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 10 EFTA00232262

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when she sealed the documents in June 2008. Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. Epstein met them. At all times, the rules ofjudicial administration provided that court records be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is required. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Rule 2.420(c)(9) provides: (c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial branch be confidential: (9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that (A) confidentiality is required to (i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) protect trade secrets; 11 EFTA00232263

(iii) protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law; (B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); and (C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a fmding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice," to "avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties" or to "avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(i), (v), (vi). Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate grounds for confidentiality. He first argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect 12 EFTA00232264

a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, i.e., the other persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that confidentiality is necessary to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed. Disclosure of these documents is not generally inherent in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common law right to confidentiality. Granting a stay would vindicate the values and purposes of grand jury secrecy which will be implicated, if a stay is denied, by the public disclosure of a confidential agreement that references matters related to a federal grand jury investigation. There is no prejudice to non-parties/interveners ■., ■. and The Post, if disclosure is stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced--a fact 13 EFTA00232265

the trial court recognized (A-19:16). CONCLUSION This Court should grant review and order the trial court to stay the order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pending certiorari review. CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this motion constitutes an emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, provides that the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum will be disclosed. Once these documents are disclosed, irreparable harm will result. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and Federal Express this 3ccu. day of June, 2009, to: JEFFREY H. SLOMAN U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAILLBERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33394 Counsel for JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. ST-IT IT WAN. 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 14 EFTA00232266

SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTTER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTEFLBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 By: or Petitioner NEIGREUSLER-WALSH lorida Bar No. 15 EFTA00232267

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. PALM BEACH LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, seeks a writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(cX1), to review an order compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum, pursuant to motions to unseal, filed by non-parties, and Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post").1 The confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein were filed under seal in state court at the express directive of the judge who heard Mr. Epstein's guilty plea- "I want a sealed c"py of that filed in this care"—and not by I Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to by proper name. Non-party interveners, ., M. and The Post are referred to as ., M. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A — Petitioner's appendix. 1 EFTA00232268

motion of any party (A-7:40). Federal Court Judge Marra has twice denied public access to these documents. Mr. Epstein seeks certiorari review on an emergency basis.2 The court stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Once the documents are produced, there will be no adequate remedy. I. JURISDICTION Mr. Epstein seeks to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(bX2)(A) and 9.100. Certiorari review is appropriate where, as here, an order unsealing a court record departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal after final judgment. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). This Court should exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to quash the order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum. Production of these-deco irreparab! „}-to-Mr. Epstein. The order departs from the essential requirements of law because 2 Mr. Epstein has contemporaneously filed an emergency motion to review denial of stay. 2 EFTA00232269

the court failed to recognize principles of supremacy and comity and failed to apply the correct law as to sealing these records. Alternatively, Mr. Epstein appeals the order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(D) as an order entered after a {hiding of guilt in a criminal case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) ("If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought. . .."). II. STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same conduct. In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein—emeeuted—a—nen-preseetition—agreentent—(4-7-.38)---Tii .3 prosecution agreement contains an express confidentiality provision (A- 3 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a motion to seal. 3 EFTA00232270

7:38). The United States Attorney's Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A-8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the plea (A-7). During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A- 7:37-38). Mr. Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non- prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state plea would violate the non- prosecution-agreement-644:39-40)z- Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted 4 EFTA00232271

"a sealed copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply, and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File" (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was filed under seal on August 25, 2008. On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure (42). On August 16, 2008, Judge Marra of the Southern District ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non- prosecution agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal criminal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement (A-3). The 5 EFTA00232272

United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,4 Judge Marra denied the motion, finding in pertinent part: Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have a specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they should file an appropriate motion. If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non- Party ., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10)... alleged that the proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein and that she, 4 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 6 EFTA00232273

as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued sealing violates public policy (A-10). On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The Post") also moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged the procedures for sealing had not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance." (A-11:3). Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard M's and The Post's motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later hearing (A-13). The next day, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13). Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and ordcrly administration—of • , },elling government interest; to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common 7 EFTA00232274

law and privacy right, not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). Also on June 11, non-party filed motions to intervene and for an order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties.. and The Palm Beach Post (A-12). Judge Colbath heard M's, The Post's, and M.'s motions to unseal, and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality, on June 25, 2009 (A- 16). The court granted M's, The Post's, and M.'s motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court concluded: At the time the state court took these matters under seal, the proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been followed . . . [and that] [n]either the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the court. (A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous a d‘rs." (A-16.3). Subsulticnt to this oral ruling, M. Epstein provided the court with a Motion for Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to stay, scheduled for the 8 EFTA00232275

next day (A-16:3). The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, so Mr. Epstein could seek review of the denial in this Court (A-17). Mr. Epstein has filed an emergency motion to review denial of stay in this Court, contemporaneously with this motion. HI. NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT Mr. Epstein seeks to quash the June 25, 2009 order granting non- parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution agreement and addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. IV. ARGUMENT The—tTia 14.1111 tnVC C 14 rt.gtlarcn lento OI law granting the motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and EFTA00232276

Mr. Epstein. These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. Disclosure also violates Judge Marra's two orders in the federal district court, denying disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating 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 disclosure does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)--an attorney for the government "must net-diselese-a-matter-eeetwring-before the grand j y." As 4 cons aeuce of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal grand jury 10 EFTA00232277

proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See a Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule a ). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, "Request to Make Circuit and Cormtrecturt-Records2m-Noneintinal-eases-C-orrfidentian-du nut apply to criminal cases. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 Court Commentary ("New subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court records in 11 EFTA00232278

non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (c)(9)."); see also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 So. 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules committees for further study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(cX9)(D), make clear that advance notice is not always required: Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has been held to require notice and hearing prior to closure, see Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982), the closure of court records has not required prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court record may be impractical and burdensome in emergency circumstances or when closure of a court record requiring confidentiality is requested during a judicial proceeding. The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 12 EFTA00232279

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when she sealed the documents in June 2008. Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. Epstein met them. At all times, the rules of judicial administration provided that court records "shall be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is required. Ha. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Rule 2.420(c)(9) provides: —0)-Exemptionsr-The following records of the judicial branch shall be confidential: (9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that 13 EFTA00232280

(A) confidentiality is required to (i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) protect trade secrets; (iii) protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law; (B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); and (C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a finding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justieee-teaveitl-substantittlAnjury-te-inneeent-third-partics" or to "avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding 14 EFTA00232281

sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(cX9Xi), (v), (vi). Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate grounds for confidentiality. He fast argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, i.e.. the other persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that confidentiality is necessary to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought e-be-elosecl-.—Diselosurrof-these-doeumentr ir not-generallrinherent----------- in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common law right to confidentiality. 15 EFTA00232282

There is no prejudice to non-parties/interveners ., ■. and The Post, if disclosure is stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced—a fact the trial court recognized (A-19:16). CONCLUSION This Court should grant certiorari and quash the June 25, 2009 order granting non-parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution agreement and addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this petition constitutes an emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, provides that the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum will be disclosed. Once these documents are disclosed, irreparable-harm will result. 16 EFTA00232283

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and Federal Express this 30*-4. day of June, 2009, to: JEFFREY H. SLOMAN U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUITIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 17 EFTA00232284

Counsel for Petitioner JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Dive, Suite 503 est Palm ch, FL 33401-5913 18 EFTA00232285

06-26-'09 13:39 FROM & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-059 P001/005 F-889 THOMAS LOCICERO B RALOW 400 IM O verSukel100•Tmm a FL 33602 (Phone (Fax) TolFree: [._ facsimile transmittal To: Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Judge FAX Colbath R. Alexander Acosta, Esq., USAO Barbara Burns, Esq., ASAO Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Re: State v. J. Epstein Date: 06/04/2009 Pages: 5 Urgent C For review El Please see attached proposed Order. Please comment jJ I_ Please reply U Please recycle El CONFIDESITIALITYSTATISSABNT This electronic message transmission contains Information from the law finn of— LoCicero it Bralow PL and is confidendal or privileged. The information is intended to be for tic use of the individual or entity ove. If you ere not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure. copying. disnl • contents of this information is whined. If you have received this eicetronie transmission in error. please notify us by telephone immediately. Thank you for your cooperation IRS Circular 230 Disclosure. To the extent rhis conesponderct contains federal tax advice, such advice was na intended to be used, and cannot be used by any taxptyct, for the purpose of (i) :voiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (I) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transacdon or matter addressed herein. If you would like us to prepare written tax advice designed to provide penalty prolectin please contact us and we will be happy to discuss the muter with you bi more detail confidential EFTA00232286

06-26-'09 13:39 FROMM 8, LOCICERO 8139843070 T-059 P002/005 F-889 THOMAS June 26, 2009 I OCICERO BRALOW VIA FASCIMILE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach Palm Beach County Courthouse Main Judicial Complex 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 1 IF West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: Tampa dC0 N p., Ste. 1100, Tamed, FL 33602 P. - 02 ph. fax tea am Ft. Lauderdale tOi N E. Third Ave std. 1500 FL 3 AIME toll free oh New York City 220 E 42nd St., 10th Elder N 17 ph fax- ww•SlS2M Dea Reply To Tampa This law firm represents the Palm Beach Post in the above matter. I have prepared a proposed Order, which I believe accurately reflects your ruling at the hearing on June 26, 2009 on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review. By copy of this letter, I am providing all counsel of record a copy of the proposed Order. If the attached Order meets with Your Honor's approval, please enter the same. If you would like to have an electronic copy of this proposed order, please have your Judicial Assistant call my office to make arrangements for us to send you the order via email. Sincerely, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL &swat K 0441411Vra%. Deanna K. Shullman EFTA00232287

06-26-'09 13:40 FROMM & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-059 P003/005 F-889 Hon. J. Colbath 06/26/09 Page 2 of 2 DKS/kb Enclosures cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorney's Office (via facsimile) Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (via facsimile) Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. (via facsimile) Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile) EFTA00232288

06-26-'09 13:41 FROM & LOCICEPO 8139843070 T-059 P004/005 F-889 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-AXX ORDER This matter came before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review and upon further consideration of this Court's June 26, 2009 Order unsealing certain records in this case. A hearing was conducted on these matters on June 26, 2009. On June 26, 2009, this Court entered an order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and an addendum on file in this case. Having inspected the documents, this Court finds that they do not name any victims and do not contain any material subject to confidentiality pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Thus, the Court declines to make any redactions to the records before releasing them to the public. The Court further finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Defendant has not shown any irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits on appeal. These documents were not properly closed in the first instance, no present basis for closure exists, and good cause supports disclosure given the public interest in these proceedings and the lack of compelling interest in closure. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows: 1. Effective at noon on July 2, 2009, the non-prosecution agreement (docketed July 2, 2008) and addendum (docketed August 25, 2008) are unsealed; EFTA00232289

06-26-'09 13:42 FROMM 8. LOCICERO 8139843070 T-059 P005/005 F-889 2. Defendant's Motion for Stay pending appellate review is DENIED; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to release the documents to the public at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Done and ordered this day of June, 2009 in Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Florida. Hon. Jeffrey Colbath CIRCUIT JUDGE cc: U.S. Attorney's Office State Attorney's Office Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 2 EFTA00232290

KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPLUsa & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE 503, FLAGLER CENTER SOI SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5913 JANE KREUSLER-WALSH TELEPHONI BARBARA J COMPIANI PAESIMILE REBECCA MERCIER VARGAS BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE LAWYERS June 30, 2009 By Hand Delivery Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 205 North Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Epstein v. State of Florida 15th Circuit Court Case No. 2008CF009381A Dear Judge Colbath: JKW/bl Enclosure ostenerRebert-DrEritton Jack A. Goldberger Jeffrey H. Sloman Judith Stevenson Arco William J. Berger Deanna K. Shullman Spencer T. Kuvin Enclosed is a copy of Epstein's Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay, Motion to Use One Appendix and Motion to Seal, as filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Due to the volume of the appendix, we have only enclosed the table of contents. Please let us know if you wish to receive a copy of the appendix. Thank you. Very truly yours, ;--- ICREUSLER-WALSH EFTA00232291

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. PALM BEACH COUNTY Petitioner, L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & , P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KRETTST.F.12-WAT COMPLANT & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00232292

9. RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALL EFTA00232293

Document Tab Proceedings in Southern District Court Victim's (Doe) Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 Judge Marra's Order to Compel Production and Protective Order (8/21/08) Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Motion to Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement (9/25/08) A-1 A-2 A-3 Respondent's (U.S. Attorney's Office) Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (10/8/08) A-4 Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Reply to Respondent's A-S Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (10/16/08) Judge Marra's Order Denying Petitioners' (Doe #1 and Doe #2). A-6 Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (2/12/08 [sic should be 2/12/09]) Proceedings in 15th Judicial Circuit Transcript of Epstein's Plea Conference (6/30/08) A-7 Epstein's Plea (6/30/08) A-8 Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File (7/2/08) A-9 NonParty M's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records A- 1 0 And Unseal Records (5/12/09) Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for A- 1 1 Access (6/1/09) Applicant, M.'s Motion to Intervene and Supporting A- 1 2 Memorandum of Law (6/11/09) EFTA00232294

Document Tab Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (6/11/09) A-13 Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution A-14 Agreement and Addendum Pending Review (6/25/09) Intervener's [..] Response to Motion to Stay and Supporting Memorandum of Law (6/26/09) A-15 Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath granting motions to unseal (6/25/09) A-16 Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath denying motion to stay (6/26/09) A-17 Transcript on non-parties' motions to unseal and Epstein's motion for confidentiality (6/25/09) A-18 Transcript on Epstein's motion to stay (6/26/09) A-19 EFTA00232295

nbs :LEGAL RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALL EFTA00232296

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07107/2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80736-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. Fle-WelltitY1 ail) D.C. ELECTRUNC JULY 7, 2008 STITCH M. LARIM0Nt CLOW O.S. 0151. 5.0. OF FLA. MIAMI amers ewe y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 3771 COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 1. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, as well as wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, Florida. 2. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States of America in the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant has recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution. 3. Upon information and belief. the Defendant is _engaged in plea negotiations-with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal 10110 EFTA00232297

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 2 of 10 %or crimes which he is alleged to have committed against minor children, including the Petitioner. Such negotiations may likely result in a disposition of the charges in the next several days. 4. Under the CVRA, before any charges are filed against the Defendant, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to notice of her rights under the CVRA, to confer with the prosecutors, and to be treated with fairness. As soon as charges are filed, the Petitioner has the rights (among others) to timely notice of court proceedings, the right not to be excluded from such proceedings, the right to be heard at such public proceedings regarding conditions of release, any plea, and any sentence, the right to confer with the attorney for the government, the right to restitution, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for her dignity and privacy. 5. The Petitioner has been denied her rights in that she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges, no notice of any public court proceedings, no information regarding her right to restitution, and no notice of rights under the CVRA, as required under law. 6. The Petitioner is In jeopardy of losing her rights, as described above, if the government is able to negotiate a plea or agreement with the Defendant without her participation and knowledge. WHEREFORE, for the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to grant her Petition, and to order the United States Attorney to comply with the provisions of the CVRA prior to and including any plea or other agreement with the Defendant and any -------attendant proceedings. 2 Gene EFTA00232298

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07107/2008 Page 3 of 10 vet MEMORANDUM I. THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT MAKES CRIME VICTIMS INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. In October 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, I I8 Stat. 2251 (codified at I8 U.S.C. § 3771). Because this appears to be the first case involving the Act to come before this Court, a bit of background may be in order. A. The CVRA Gives Crime Victims Rights to Participate in the Criminal Justice Process. Congress passed the CVRA "to give crime victims enforceable rights to participate in federal criminal proceedings." Opinion at 14. Congress was concerned that in the federal system crime victims were "treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors too busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 Cowl REc. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victims and their families can provide may be material and relevant ... ." Id. The CVRA gives victims of federal crimes a series of rights, including the right to notice of court proceedings, to be heard at plea and sentencing hearings, and to reasonably "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Victims also have a "right of access to the terms of a plea agreement ... ." In re Interested Party 1, 530 F.Supp. 2d 136, 2008 WL 134233 at •7 (D.D.C. 2008). The CVRA also assures victims broadly that they will "be treated with fairness." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(aX8). 3 o/10 EFTA00232299

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 4 of 10 Of course, these rights would be of little use to most crime victims unless they were told about them. To ensure that victims are notified of their rights, the CVRA directs employees of the Justice Department "and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime" to use their "best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of... the rights described (in the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added).1 B. The CVRA Gives Victims Rights During the Investigation of a Crime. The CVRA gives victims rights during the investigation of a crime. The Fifth Circuit recently reached this conclusion, holding: The district court acknowledged that "Where are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." 13P Prods., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12893 at *36 Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." 18 U.S.C. & 3771O)(5). At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). The position that CVRA rights apply before charges have been filed is consistent with the Justice Department regulations under the CVRA, which explain that government officials "must advise a victim (about their rights under the CVRA) ... at the earliest opportunity at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation." A.G. GUIDELINES FOR Vicnm AND WITNESS I Further supporting this requirement is another statute. 42 U.S.C. § I0607(cX3), which directs government officials to provide victims with "the earliest possible notice of," among other things, "the filing of charges against a suspected offender." 4 of 10 EFTA00232300

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 5 of 10 Ist ASSISTANCE 23 (May 2005). And the plain language of the CVRA undergirds this conclusion, as it applies not simply to prosecutors but to government agencies "engaged in the detection [and] investigation ... of crime ... ." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Indeed, if there were any doubt, the plain language of the CVRA extends victims' right to situations "in which no prosecution is underway." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). II. PETITIONER IS A "VICTIM PROTECTED BY THE CVRA. Under the CVRA the crime victim is defined as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense ... ." 18 U.S.C. Section 3771(e). In particular, Defendant called Petitioner when she was a minor over a telephone (a means of interstate communication) requesting that she perform a massage in exchange for payment. As Defendant well knew, that request was fraudulent, as he not only intended to receive a massage, but also intended to have her perform sexual acts in exchange for a cash payment to Petitioner. Only when Petitioner arrived at a Defendant's mansion as directed by Defendant, did Defendant reveal his true purpose of obtaining sexual favors in exchange for payment. This conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which forbids using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly "induce" or "entice" a minor "to engage in prostitution." In addition, this conduct was both a use of "fraud" to obtain a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 1591, and use of wire communications to perpetrate a "scheme and artifice to defraud," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. It appears obvious that Petitioner was "directly and proximately" harmed by these crimes, thereby making her a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA-"was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States v. 5 50110 EFTA00232301

Case 9:08-cv-60736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 6 of 10 %so Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Utah 2005) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S4261 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein)). Congress intended the CVRA to dramatically rework the federal criminal justice system. In the course of construing the CVRA generously, the Ninth Circuit observed: "The criminal justice system has long fbnctioned on the assumption that crime victims should behave like good Victorian children -- seen but not heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for CD. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it "liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent." Elliott Industries Lid. Partnership v. BP America Production Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting remedial legislation should be "interpreted liberally to facilitate and accomplish its purposes and intent"). The CVRA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at '3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (ED.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its definition of "crime victim" requires a generous construction. After reciting the direct-and-proximate-harm language at issue here, one of the Act's two co-sponsors -- Senator Kyl -- explained that "jt]his is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected ." I.50 Cong. Rec. S10912 (Oct. 9, 2004) (emphasis added). The description of the victim definition as "intentionally broad" was in the course of floor colloquy with the other primary sponsor of the CVRA and therefore deserves_significant weight—See Kenna, 435 Fid-at-1015-71 6 (discussing significance of CVRA sponsors., floor statements). 6 gel Ill EFTA00232302

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 7 of 10 v✓ %or The definition of "crime victims" must thus be construed broadly in favor of Petitioner. She obviously qualifies as a "victim" under the CVRA. III. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF HER RIGHTS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND TO BE TREATED WITH FAIRNESS. Because Petitioner is a "victim" under the CVRA, she has certain protected rights under the Act. Most important, the Act promises that she will have an opportunity to "confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." To date, Petitioner has not been given that right. This raises that very real possibility that the Government may negotiate and conclude a plea agreement with the Defendant without giving Petitioner her protected rights.2 Petitioner is entitled to have this conference with prosecutors before any final plea agreement is reached. The Fifth Circuit reached exactly this conclusion in a very recent case. In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Government negotiated a plea agreement with the well-heeled corporate defendant without conferring with the victims. When the Government's failure was challenged in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Government had indeed violated the CVRA. The Fifth Circuit observed: "In passing the [CVRAJ, Congress made the policy decision-which we are bound to enforce-that the victims have a right to inform the plea negotiation process by conferring with prosecutors before a plea agreement is reached." Id. at 394. This Court is obligated to protect the rights of Petitioner. The CVRA directs that "[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the 2 On information and belief, roughly the same crimes were committed against several other young females. These victims, too, are in danger of losing their right to confer under the CVRA. 7 7 0110 EFTA00232303

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 8 of 10 crime victim is afforded the rights described in [the CVRA]." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). The CVRA also confers on crime victims the right to "assert the rights described in (the CVRA)." 18 U.S.C. § 377I(d)(1). Therefore, this Court has its own independent obligation to intercede and ensure that the Government respects the rights of Petitioner under the CVRA. CONCLUSION The Petitioner requests the intervention of this Court to ensure that her rights are respected and accorded, as promised in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar if 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: 8 $0410 EFTA00232304

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 9 of 10 r► vs, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been provided by United States mail and via facsimile to: AUSA, United States Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, this lth day of July, 2008. Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar Nc 9 ol10 EFTA00232305

011:VaiThfecbSIMA/MAPPN 1•/1 44 1107 3 00 ntered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 FfP5lleyl0all 0 D.C. ELECTKOINIC CIVIL COVER SHEET ' 11 ,44 do 1month/enmities Infortoollon swanned herein nother replaecnoe supplement the Ming ondsesoke of &wimps or othe papere by rules of coon. This four, approval Spin Coofesence °TIM lineal Stoics in Ss:member 1974, Li :mussed for the um of theClerk UM civil [Onkel sheet 'SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE RE% ERSE OF IRE FORM I NOTICE: Attorneys MUST ledlatte All Re-filed I. (a) PLAINTIFFS 2-/-7 re: Dane Poe (b) Count) coiRelidalcc fire' Limed Plaintiff f il2/131 44 , MU DT IN US. PLAINT/IF EASES) (t) AUCIAt341/144•244m. A•lieu, V Telepbone Hiatt) 4.1 49 0rAe t.F l 60,1 64/At f,sso(efry eoz S gineseet c-freter-f .f.../s/ 202. 00/4/442., are '63 OZO DEFENDANTS 04,1-0/ SPaftc JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN N, LARTMORE WIRE O.S. O1ST. Et 8.0. OF FLA. • MIAMI Cagily of RedIlarce of Firm Limed Mandan ON Us. PLAINTIFF CA SET no NOT 0: IN LAND CONDE MNA /ION CATESJ/111 THE LOCATION or THE TR ACT LAND IIIVOL VIE. /ee a reyS check COMIly Mkt AEISIXIMaNt 3 MIAMI. DADS 3 MONROE 3 MOW' PALM BEACH 3 MARTIN 3 ST. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 3 OKEECHOBEE 1414111LAHDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION nun Joon en own 7 1 1,74.4.04ettame 3 3 NNW.: 43.0014. 1710.011 03.6. 00,40..... Hos • Posy) 134.4.143.7.404, 3 4 Obasli, C eft-am Colemehip it fume rt Nat III) c-V 80/36 MAfl4 V. A I T otiN.SO III. C TIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIEStsta. an-x- mom Set Sit Piemdef NM DIM.* Cis 041,1 4•4 Oµ On 1.4061444•40 PIP Off PEP TIP CM. • of TEN ems 3 I 3 I Imorp464.4 •Prkelmil Piece 3 4 2 4 of lams Is TIM Slit Clam" AfA•4044 Seelt Cline es 5.48441 a. 04 Om Gene • 3 3 taeorponsed waParOpal MOW 3 1 7 1 Or thisiatss In A•40.40 • 1 3 .1 hemp Mmis• 5 4 3 6 C s'alt:TRAPT POIPIITUILEHRNAL 1Y PANKRUPTCY runt sy 44 V 4 ES i its, ' 44444 ••• : IN Mmes. im /4.110 Ael : i 80 Wejnoble hAtrionical ' 130 A me.437.( 000pmemil R to fonte•sos of1Nyµa : IS' M Seery An ' ITT Reemoy•113460•4 Smeass Uµ. , Mil . Vtiaral If 1 Rite. my *I theepaymmel 44006 We 10.40. 7 140 SITe kbelder.' Seas : 1 190 OAT C16.1161 PERSONµ 844360 V 3 310 A .014•• 3 311 A 44144. Pmeluct Lob.), 3 )14 AUTO( MN & Mater 3 IND Teekrel eamlemne L.6016 7 la Moine 3 HT Mabee trod... CRUM 3 334/ MON Y000. 3 SST Mom Yeltlele 0ffiduti Lisbilky 3 30 D'44, P 4•I IT 07 PIESON•L 'EMORY 3 341 P614tel NWT .. Med. Marsala , MO Perms& 6007 • Proton Lleatho S 30 Aelesuat termstal hmee ProIncl Llskillm PERSONAL PROPERTY 3 31d (1314! Mel 3 111 Till* la Lelia. 3 leo ono roman 06Peell °INTO 3 333 Pnµrly Damp r00µ' LIAM Ty S 61044410.1eme 2 620 Oiler TOW IL Dr•E 3 0/ Diu Rd.µ llama 41Propeetl II USC MO 3 440 Limon Lin 3 44011.R. A Emig 2 140AMMe Rep, 2 Oa (04.4pelismal Sallegaln10/ 3 PM 004.4 / .11 A opal Pr USC Ii. 7 ill WiRen.al IP UST ITT 7 400 Mu'. 44444 melmatost 3 Ile Asm4tm8 3 µ0 Serbs INN Reek's' 7 00 Consomme 3 440 Deponas144 2 470 Rat Mem 14(04•6•4 m0 C°10PI 0 lteMmisems 7 Oa l' easniit Credit 7 410 ONE Tos TY 3 110 5•1440454011. 3 U.S le C A Ire Embalm 2 VS Cm ismeo Chelkete I 3 IL IC MIT 3 190 Dibei inamory Atilmei D 111 Am atesimem sloe 3 n: to. rook Sank.:.. M, 3 61) E. inaNsial Men'. 3 nµ 0067 Arematles. AN 3 10110014smotlef0.0•0•4.40 .3 il04 A 0000000 Pm Ileedmit.4•• h U.S.0 001Aeeese a Anne, 3 0501:46etambeaty 41 Sim ha Its A6KRTYRICKT1 3 TS COPTAIIIM 1 IM Pewee 7 140 TnIeSiot LAR6R SOCIALSUNTIE 3 161 NIA j(11511) 1 UT ITImIt Ems 60)1 2 I,, DIRCIIIWIll 1054,11 3 144 MID TM XVI ]w) 11111403101 3 710 Telt Labor 44.44mtli Ad 3 130 Lsbeenlam. R4144 es 3 1/0 esloneepais,ptnua A Dleelesme A 0 7 NIORMI•ap LOS Ael 3 MO Mtn Labor Lusatian 1 91 t.pl. R O. In. Setwh, AN T. III coiner- oreeol now* P It. Weeeelme C REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAXIt/ITS 310 L841Ce0000•11.4i 7 :30 44444 .es. S 2)0 R•e• It of A (Stumm :40 Tong et 17.0 U NO Tim Predets 48000. 2. NO All hi., 4 01 Primany 3 441 001/0 3 441 C..boynttai 3 44100.1.• Aseeesmod.004 3 404 wmfast 2 tisptox mesb110.4. , 3 444 Ann • Diutent4. Oiber )6.. usbtr Chia RMS. 3 SIR M olives le Yallot Servos Holmes Corpus 'I 1)00µe4, 7 In 004, Poet. 5 30 mass.,, om, 7 SST CNN 4 On 3 321 Prime (44•441e. 3 111 tams I C.S. Plalms6 w Derinderal S T /I ITS 7101 tiny 24 USC nos I 3 161NemetalmeMee 3 Tel Noses* c.v....Atm. DelMmee 3 A465 mem ffilmblialemil" ' V. ORIGIN IPlece • • X• sa Om Sirs Oslo i t1 OTiEBTOI 3 2 Removed from O 3 Re-I1364- Procoecies Saw Cam (we VI below) RELA TEDatE-FILED CASE(S). $64 litrintlens Otai patik Irma red from Appeal no District O 4 RIIIITSIMSEST O S wow dim*, 3 6 Mukklisukr O 7 Jw/C rITTA Reopared (IFHOY) LitIptIon Mlgktrale )0381111/11 Re.tiled Case O YES ONO blitelsted Cases O YES ONO JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER VI Com the MS.Civil Stature under vthieb you am Mom Ind Wine a Brief Statemeal Game (Do Ratelleiiteledktlentl noInter u In. El OTSITYK Crime fribgedn; t,4* Ref uSC. 57 7) At ANON :r cave to 11 SSW "vial' vita; ee late Cfreeige LENGTH OF TRIAL via 1 days railinated (Ex both sides to try mare too 0 CHECK IF THIS LS A CIASS ACTION DEMANDS CHECK YES only if danowlest in oanolaim. UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 VIII. REQUESTED IN COM PLAINT: ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO NowayRJ ten or RECORD on re lilt BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE FOR OITICE USE ONLY A006111350 a *ECM 0 7,21/O3111 1 110110 JURY DEMAND: O Yes 2 No EFTA00232306

RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALL N,D EFTA00232307

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 011-80736-CrV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2, Petitioners. ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' ore tenus motion seeking the production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). After consideration of the Motion, the arguments of the parties, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED. The USAO shall produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement, including any modifications and addenda thereto, in accordance with the following procedures: (a) The USAO shall produce a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), to the attorneys for Petitioners. (b) Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard. (c) Before counsel for petitioners show the Agreement to their clients or discuss the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to petitioners, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. (d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of EFTA00232308

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 2 Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard (e) Prior to producing the documents to any other individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals, a copy of this Order must be provided to said individuals, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of this Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 21" day of August, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: all counsel of record By signing below, 1 certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by the terms of this Order. Dated: Signed by. Printed Name: 2 EFTA00232309

RECYCLED PAPER 10 REORDER 95.4.%44.939), ) EFTA00232310

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement in its publicly-Sled pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with others involved who have information related to the case. BACKGROUND As the court is aware, this action was brought by two crime victims (hereinafter referred to as "the victims") seeking protection of their rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. At the center of this action is an agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein that (as described in earlier court pleadings publicly filed by the Government) involved 1 EFTA00232311

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a hearing held on August 14, 2008, the court ordered the Government to produce to counsel for the victims the non-prosecution agreement. That production, however, was to be done under protective order in the first instance. The agreement has now been produced. At the earlier hearing, the court recognized that the victims' counsel might at a later date seek to have the sealing lifted. That date has now arrived. ARGUMENT As the court envisioned might well happen, counsel for the victims now believe that sealing of the agreement is no longer appropriate. The non-prosecution agreement should now be unsealed for three reasons. 1. No Good Cause Has Been Shown for Sealing the Agreement. Having now reviewed the agreement, counsel for the victims can find no legitimate basis for the document to be sealed. Because it stands at the center of this litigation (as well as several related civil suits), the burden should fall on those who would keep the document sealed to show cause for doing so. No good cause has yet been shown. Cf. United . States v. Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) (to justify sealing of court records "a court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered"). 2. The Government Has Inaccurately Described the Agreement. In its publicly-filed pleadings in this case the Government has inaccurately 2 EFTA00232312

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 3 of 8 described the non-prosecution agreement, creating the false impression that it is more favorable to the victims than it actually is. Accordingly, the non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed so that the true state of affairs is reflected in the court's file. In its response to the victims' petition, the Government states that the non- prosecution agreement contains the following provision: Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United states CrYIP, Section 2255; will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerate offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. Govt's Resp. to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right at 4. The sworn declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling this matter also recounts the same language. See Declaration of in Support of United States' Response to Victims' Emergency Petition at 3-4. The sworn declaration also states that victims were told about this language in October 2007. See Declaration of at 4 ("In October 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions were discussed"). On July 9, 2008, the victims received notice from the Government that the above-described provision was negotiated on behalf of the victims for their protection and was 3 EFTA00232313

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 4 of 8 thus contained in the non-prosecution agreement 1 Having now reviewed the non-prosecution agreement, the Government's response to the victims' motion and the accompanying sworn declaration are simply untrue. The above- quoted provision simply does not appear in the agreement anywhere. It is true that the non- prosecution agreement contains a provision bearing on the same subject. However, this . provision has a number of qualifying provisos that make it far less favorable to the victims than the above-described provision. (To avoid filing a separate, sealed pleading laying out the differences, counsel for the victims have simply described the differences in general terms. We trust that the Government, in its response, will agree that it has erroneously described the agreement to the court and the victims.) The Government should be required to correct its previously-filed pleadings to accurately recount the non-prosecution agreement that it reached with Epstein. Moreover, the Government should also be required to state forthrightly whether through the last nine months, it gave the victims (like the court) inaccurate information about what the non-prosecution agreement entailed. But most important, because the current sealing of the non-prosecution agreement creates a false and deceptive appearance about the agreement that the Government has actually reached with Epstein, the agreement should be unsealed. Indeed, it should be noted that sealing of materials in this case appears to operate in a rather peculiar fashion. The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where it I The Government has recently provided a new notice to the victims, containing different language. 4 EFTA00232314

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 5 of 8 has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclose. 3. The Non-Prosecution Agreement Should be Unsealed To Facilitate Effective Regresentation of the Victims in this Action and Related Civil Actions. The scaling order bars the victims' counsel from "disclos[ing] the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1. Victims' counsel have scrupulously abided by that restriction. Victims' counsel would, however, now like to discuss the terms of the non-prosecution agreement with third parties in making a determination about how best to proceed in this action, including what remedies to seek for the violations of victims' rights that have occurred. Counsel, therefore, respectfully seek the "further court order" that the sealing order envisions, In particular, victims' counsel would like to discuss the agreement with other victims of Epstein and their attorneys to determine whether they were likewise provided with inaccurate information about the nature of the plea agreement. Victims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhaps require such burdensome non-disclosure obligations as to make the consultation difficult or impractical. Finally, victims' counsel would like to refer to the non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court. See Jane Doe v. Jefrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-CIV- -_8089.3.MARRAJORNSON. To facilitate all-these dim cssions, the agreement 5 EFTA00232315

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 6 of 8 should be unsealed. NOTICE TO EPSTEIN It is possible that Jeffrey Epstein will object to the unsealing of the agreement. Accordingly, the court should provide notice of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRAJOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has not entered an appearance in this matter, as a courtesy to them, counsel for the victims' will provide a copy of this pleading at the address indicated in the related civil suit. CONCLUSION The non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed. DATED this 25th day of $entember 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioners Florida Bar No. 542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail: 6 EFTA00232316