MT. OP FLORIDA v& -52 O1 Taste; n. ON "CA) Zy), Do g IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEEN tnr- PALM BEACH COVNTY CASE No. a V V (I. C., SY/4 • DIVISION 1,) • , . • D Psychiatric (Medic., etc, Report dated From Presenteoce Investigation Report dated fro., tia other NW7 - Prose,. 'oil I4 f1 ar7,77 4-- SEALED IN COURT FILE, NOT.T.P. I1E . OPENED WITHOUT ORDER OF COURT MIS EFTA00232417

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEEN. JUDICIAL-GIRGUIT-OPPLORSDATIN-ATID,- PALM BEACH COUNTY CASE NO. %Cr do 5 9.3"Y 4-)\i STATE OF FLORIDA ON DIVISION Je e(1 g .pSte hp Psychiatric (Medic., etc.) Report dated from pre.ntence Investigation Report dated from ,CAN N.O AUG 10 2098 other lT(/4' A'LvO TD kkov pr SEALED IN COURT FILE, NOT TO BE OPENED WITHOUT ORDER OF COURT EFTA00232418

IN II IE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 1W.D-ROR-PA-EM-BEXCIITTICWITFE5rDA STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2006CF009454AXX DIVISON: "W" JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PNC, R EFVN ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT IN COURT FILE •FHIS MATTER came before the Honorable Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo on June 30, 2008 during a plea conference in the above-referenced case nu ber. The Court being fully apprised in the circumstances, it is hereby: affaCAng ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that thllocument filed by the Defendant on July 2, 2008 be sealectby the Clerk in the court file. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this le day of July, 2008. BOFtAH DALE PUCILLO Circuit Court Judge Copies forwarded to: Jack A. Goldberger. F.sq. Counsel fur the Defendant 250 Australian Avenue South. Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach. Florida...13401 — Lanna Belohlavek. Esq. Assistant State Attorney t interoffice) . . . . . . . . . . s 0 .• . . EFTA00232419

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT C = 1 ====sanaccgam.. 2 . ..........t ..........._ NANDFORr rn ALtl BEACH COUNT ORZDA---------- DIVISION 3 4 6 7 8 9 PLEA CONFERENCE 10 11 PRESIDING: 12 APPEARANCES: STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) vs ) CASE NO. 06 CF9454AMB 111) ) 08 9381CFAM8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ) ) ) ) •••74, ro sn • • 1•1 ;12 (1 7, F:F%74 2C • HONORABLE DEBORAH DALE PUCILtark., 1.-;; 13 ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE 14 State Attorney 401 North Dixie Highway 15 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 By: LANNA BELOHLAIIEK, ESQUIRE 16 Assistant State Attorney 17 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS,P.A. 18 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 19 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 20 21 22 23 24 25 . • . • . . . . ORIGINAL -June 3-0, 2008 Palm Beach Count? Courthouse West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Beginning at 8:40 o'clock, a.m. ........ _ ...... _ PHYLLIS A. DAMES, PORTER EFTA00232420

e ri 1 on that, Your Honor? 2 THE COURT: It is Ding—t.o—las ) 38 3 recorded. 4 MR. GOLDBERGER: That's fine. 5 THE COURT: Defendant needs to 6 approach as well. 7 (Whereupon, there was a conference at 8 the bench.) 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: The reason why I to asked to come sidebar, there is a 11 nonprosecution agreement with the United 12 States Attorney's office that triggers as a 13 result of this plea agreement. In other 14 words, they have signed off and said they 15 will not prosecute Mr. Epstein in the 16 Southern District of Florida for any 17 offense upon his successful taking of this 18 plea today. That is a confidential 19 document that the parties have agreed to. 20 Just in an abundance of caution, I wanted 21 to tell the court. 22 THE COURT: I understand, that would 23 also_be invalidated-shoul-d he-violate- his 24 community control? 25 MR. GOLDBERGER: Absolutely. That PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232421

39 4 • 1 nonprosecution agreement -- 2 MS. BELOHLAVEK: 5 6 7 8 out. THE COURT: Mr. Epstein needs to come closer. Mr. Epstein, your attorney has told me that in addition to everything, we talked about another Inducement, shall we 9 say, to your taking this plea is that the 10 U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 11 the State of Florida, federal prosecutor, 12 has agreed to a nonprosecution agreement 13 with you, meaning that if you successfully 14 complete probation and do everything you're 15 16 17 supposed to, they have, have agreed not to prosecute you federally, did you understand that? 18 THE. DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am. 19 THE COURT: And I would view that as 20 a significant inducement in accepting this 21 plea. 22 MS. BELOHLAVEK: They are actually in 23 court here_today, _also.---------- 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. GOLDBERGER: And the plea PHYLLIS A. DANES, OFPICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232422

„. ) 40 agreement very carefully spelled out if 2 there was a bria.ach—h-at—woutd-71-761ate this 3 agreement, so we are well aware of it. 4 THE COURT: • Okay. I would request 5 that a sealed copy of that -- Mr. Epstein 6 has signed that document? 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, I would like to a seal the copy. 9 THE COURT: I want a sealed copy of 10 that filed in this case. That is the only 11 other condition of the agreement that is 12 influencing this defendant to make this 13 decision? 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: Absolutely. I think 15 16 17 18 19 that's the right idea. (Return to open court.) THE COURT: Mr. Epstein, is there anything else? THE DEFENDANT: No, ma'am. 20 THE COURT: Because I don't take. 21 these pleas unless they are freely and 22 voluntarily made. 23 THE DEFENDANT: _I—understand that 24 THE COURT: I also don't want 25 . somebody or anybody coming PHYLLIS A. DAMES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. EFTA00232423

d2 EFTA00232424

ti • t. . • I in this notbli r q rot thP mired i• • • • se of seeking acqesa to;documents Sri radar seal. ; ThedoCuments relate ilitecily to the Del dant's guilty plea and seSenoe..' Thus, the sealed • • •hi 4 *I. h F6-91-'89 ;15:34 _ a & LOCICB0 8139843878 • T-988 P883/887 F-845 ,, • • I • I • • 1. . :. • .. • IN eilm CIRCUIT COVET OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDIOIIALCIRCHTT i. t. • • *:.; li . • AND pm PAu4 BEAcs COUNTY, PWRiDik I . . IN . ; • CRIMINAL DIVISION • ti :, • i ,;:. : WAT? OP FLORI4, i gril ; I r tr i(l t I • •I . Case Nos.: 2006:-CFO.454-AX)i & . : .. • • . • :2008r93$ICF- : JEFFREY EP FTED1 • ; 1 . . • • 04 • I 1•P•i:i • T'6 MOTIONTO R'YE E .; "IIPPPerl1/2 ON FORA a The Palm Beach Pest (the? ost, moves to i • • • ; , docuttuints go to theheirt of the disposition of this mac. :But In req gestinf that Stri p Pucillo • • • . ; • seafthicse !clocurnenti, ildni‘tio.'sifailt;d to I regoirgmerta fat seafingiudichil • records: • ; with Florida's egto!ligoceduraVand substantive • • .2; :' • h. pointless, because these documents have been discussed repea '.1.: • ' .1 ,.. ; • " of the.; rations, the dequments must be 4sealed. As grounds for ri : .; ! 4 I :1 , : • ji,..' • • .. k ii :41 ' ; ' 11.1. ' : :1.1$11.95 ltia;didly npwsge er that has covered tis. • *%! .sigl • - .: 1• 1 ;! 1:::; !! : I . ! .1. . • • 0 in PI ETINtitOPeinpa Its sea err concerning these • ( 1 P.it . . . II ; I : 1 li : • th!POirl i•;0 7! II IInt I' rds and judicialrecOrdi)? !: . . . . .• • . it !, III i .. I dstk,p, manger of the news Media, the Post has a right to Intervene in criminal .. •Ir • :. ..; ! /.; tallow. eetti!nped seYl s'' giftless, 3ocumems is court records, For all i on, this Post states; related : Post i•elles uPon • • 1.• !: : • • • • • I ; go irti Jhe Site& purpose. of seeking access to proceedinis d records., frSse Herron y, . • • ' Florght hitch:1m NeWspatiers. Inca 531 Sq. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing i • . ! to Oral: erre* RAY cloSure order); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. V. Loveili$4, SI. 2d 1,i, (Fla, 1982) ; ; 1 (news Media rtm aktai glyist an opportunity to be heard on questions, ulp‘), • : . .; , • . • .. ; • , , • F . I. : EFTA00232425

' 06-81-'09 15:34 FliCtl-IIIRSS 8 IXICES3 8139843670 . la ; P024/037 F—815 •••• l e a. : 3 i • r • . . I I • :•t • I ' IL • I •• .1 • : • ' • I • . . . • II. . 1 1 I a . • :14 : I f I • ."'/ II . 1: !PI I : •• • la I 'II • • • . • Tbe:pertiadar.documents er soal in this cave are prosecution agreement • lin •J'fz ' 1 i • '<ticketed . i" • " • • 04 • • • • • r.; . . .. a... • 0 that yi i. . oaiddly 2,2 8., and an Addendum docketed on Augtisi 25, 2008.. Together, pei I. ,11011 eats' iiperentlyie,saict any fec erg prosecution of the Defe jThvdeit Th for offenses related • ••.• .... . I It ?ol i : • . • : ! . ......; • I 3 . % i. 1 • : . . kin ..!; l i to thecetanet to which lie pleaded guilty in this case. Judge ?ticille'isecipied the agreement for — !jag ?• • 7 • i : •• : • .' I •• • • . .1; .. f • :.: • • • ; filing during a bench conference on June 30, 2008. The agreement,4tidge isticillo Found, was "a . id:. i i';' : , I • ' • ; • • I.:I:. ; • '.. I. signitidancinducerhein lit licceptptg !his gilea." Such agreement! and ielated docutkents typically • I . • t • • , I .. . I 1 . • ; t I • i.._ • , .,• .- I ; I • I ,i,.. :.• i are pabluo record. lEhigg'9regdnian Publishing Co. v, United States tifstri4 tonne 920 F.24 1462, ilj ; • ' ; I 14634O; li•96)("e.lea agreements hale typically been op entoirlutilion); united States v., 1.14 i; 1. ..i • i . : ! i..• : 7 - - i .. ..." ...• • : i KOWA, 7.96 tli 100, j390.91 (11th 1th C't . 1986) (documents tel 63 defendant s change of • aigi. is • •,,., • ti , :, •,, plea and sentencing Gould be: lieldeollonly.0 n finding of a cempellini Intefreat that justified • , • it,1 1,'. . : • ' •• 1../ . !I cr. ; I &did 'if public acOekS).• '-;' : ''. I ' ' • ' I ::-, i ; • . ' ; :II I in I: ol g : art I. : tit iiiitrIpride.ecinstituiicin thed judicial britnoli ircliprils genekally mr„tat be ill' • '' • . . .I . • • - ' :4 :1 • : k., • :; •': ifs! . 0.1bile i!?if.triCIIi. 09i:igt; /, f (a), Fla. Cana,. Closure of snit mot-dr is allowed ' Si... . i • '''•i1. ••••.: ;.] . ..;: onlyiunilet narrowolforidottinoos; such as -to "prevent a sedous anti:iiiirnitient : •• . E • .4 ;1 ' • • '' t , impardel Ind cirlerliatiMinistrtitIon of Judea," or to protect a comp.elliroxgovernmental interest. • , • i 1 .; • • : • : • , Sig Milt. Ind. Admin.' 2.412Q(oX9)(A). Additionally, closure IlmittbP . .: • • ; • : • • thanneceseary to acooniphsh dte desired purpose, and is lawflal: . • • g • c • i • mess will acicon‘lisii time pumps,. I ' •• • • 426 .2dat3.: !•I; • , I • I.' 5.' .1 .014(.4siii1/4!bse4tvere 1 ' • :. ' j • I} wititoutaityorlhaneidaitafindinge. Ra ; 1 " sealed • ton :it 3 :014 Thereate., •. ' : 'I; • 1 4 dc*,3afideathd •ro • ,f • • ' is ' I • ihei hi; alid no biped,. less refrictive : • . Fla. R. Jud. Admin. O(o)(9)(8) (C): Lis; •• ; . : • r • 1 1 . 1 on agreement tairOntk-:,thri:eiddes;dnits wegolgeeled • , it appears froni the 646:11 documents 't i "i re represented to.Judg :Nalco that the non-. i eat" Plea Conference Transeiript page 38 2 : :it!: I .o. I " • lc.: • ; EFTA00232426

• i . ; ; ' : t • (June 36, 2004, Such a representation fad well short of demonstraAjitc?mpeling interest,* ... • • I i I ? I ' . . : genuine necessity, =go* tailoring, and that no less restrictive mcastFW will WS • . ii . . • i 1/14 I ....;. N.,! Conseq,!ently, the sealing was improper en ought to be sct a.i.klei .1;::? • • l'fil ' • .1 ' " I 1' 6. • ' in Sint:41,1d this time gun cause exists for unsoaliiiith cements beciuse of • i i 1:. Li: • :. i ' ! i • .., i; . . i lie!! ; • • ; .:: 1 their 'WIC AO , .:. Sinop the Defend t pleaded guilty in 'Ir011in a minor for .. l . iiiii al leas 2 civil lawsuits that r ' • .:, k ges in this case - • girls to e hii home for, sex js." At: leas. . I I • n . . . I • • .t.;.: 1 I ' lavlisuit, ente of the Defendant's acr es has alleged that , :%-; • i t ferliral 'u1oni failed to consult with regarding the dispositieri dpossible charges , a i • i I ,1 , •) agahrsethe Dafendent.2 State prosecutors tilso have been criticizethae Palm Beach Police • . • • '. 05-21-'09 15:34 FROM-THOMAS & LCCICERO 8189848879 . -j88 P285/007 F-845 Yrd • • •.; • • • • ••.' it ../! • I I. • : 114 •!' fr • ••, Ch'divas faulted the Satte Attorney's haling of these cases as uldilliMuursual" and called fbr . • : 10;4 ' • • ' • . ' the State Attorney's ilisquidificationt equently, this case — and, cularly le Defendant's ,• 1 4! Thi li • 11,!! Withkiliti•tirrr404,i le public interst aid cream. I ' • ', ::if .5'4.: '. ; !I; i• . ; - :. ! tt • • • tdra also !las:. • . t . . ••., : 3:4 Defendant's riot)-prose I ; 1.1 to Itififfe;Plic,i!iti; 'As ktcl'i . r, ; .1 •:ie on agreement With. prosecu the Julio 2008 plea akin ' vieni (the. inducement 11. prCear *Plea; • I. ! recollithei a strtnibu, , of acbese to • • with sentencing. $158111Sta Perak} Tribune: Dive . 2.! ! • •11 IM,11‘))6tiv.:Ecititilk Case N . 08-80069 (S.D. Fld. 2008); Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Casc'No. 0840119 (S.D. 'Fla. 2008); ' Case NI: 08-80232 (SD. Fla. 2008); • :, r : Doe 4. v. Epstein 08.80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. p 4, Epstelni Casc No. 08- 1, • 80381 .(S.D. Fla. 2008) v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Einstein, • ) Catio No. 08;80893 (S.D.:Fla. 2008); LbilaSay„112goig, case Nii.:08-81)993 (S.D. Fla: 2008); Doe NO. .5 v, Ensteld, CAS* Ne.08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Poe II is; bistoin, Case No. 09-80469 : V ! (S.D. Fla. 2009); Dasukaaisatlin. Case No. 09-80591 (S.DliFla.!,2009). jibe No. 102 v. . i;! ' Ensteh 2610,9Case 14o. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2069); Pot No, 8 v• Ffesteln,toise No. 09-80802 (S.D. :. t • 1008)41 119,tii 3 I • I • • 1 1\' t / 1 !. 01 1 • • • I 1 • I ... • : • h • i :2 Se{ Af/4024,24541Q• • • I • , •, •• . • I . • • • • •• !.. I .1 I . • • I I I *. I•4. " • ..2.1t I ... I I . C.; .1 rai l • • • . . I EFTA00232427

.1. I • • • 34 •Camila& toczcsti i • • , -81-1 9915. 8 lt139843878 , ,'. ' T-388 P096/807 F-845 I - -- ;': • t! $ i, . 11 • i I i: 3 sl . CP. ; !1. : ' :11•11• ;. ; I.: • ; . . 1. . in i; t • I ". : I ' .• i • . I. 1• • • ...s" .., : .. I of the New York Times O.1,zaloitzendori 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d D.CA 1987) nithIle a . , • I ji, '. ' Judge may impose whatever legal sentencelbe chooses, if such senteiri4e is based op S. tangible • • . . ; , . • • . I • I !, ; I t • proceeding or documprit, it is within the p bile domain unless othes444 'Privileged."). in ilia . • li'l 1 •• • , case, no interest justifies continued sealing of those "significant" &Pinnate that Judge Prmillo . 1. 0.1 , If . • I. . • • • • 1141 L • • :1, :. ii considered' in acceptikt fin plea and son jcing the Defendant. Ilila ' .f any s h ' • , 1 , • . . ' i . , • . it • 1 • • ; : ; compelling Serest —ui well as the parties failure to comply:with . " " r sealing l I • • I i ' c • ' • ; ,a00‘hit4 initially jpr0tkie lied cause the drmum tlfs time' : 4 I. : 1 . it . li - • . . • .: t. I ; .. i r . .. ,, . ..4. .....,,,..., nisnlit,OS4finue[lHeIrme . these documents is pot because malty portions . II . ty, ' • • . , 1 • lit 4 °. , • :i.; r It, 1 id iltini41 irOpdyilimipio made public. l'or examtle;ccityt papers quoti4 • il. Otitis a81e4aint bays ;eat madepublio in related federall;rmeeclings.3 As the Florida !. .J..II / ., •• , . ; i! : ''. • ki• i • Srmsrmie 'corm hat nistad-3, 1hesiket0uM be litliejustificatien for elOsing a pretrial )tearing in -1.--c , it, • ,, . . • . • . i 1I„ . i i.: i order! ii, prevent only the disclosure Of de*: which had already .bettOPubqoized.? Lewis. 426 1 I; • So 2c1I ii Simi . lol l 'into ' to the that information (Sidi gas 1•••••." made 'publics. • I: ril; •• '• I i; 1.1 ..' rt : • ! • ' TP 1 5413' ,I.litat • • cl i 1 I • , ••' :I: 'I : '. .. eoridri3ed Plorme is 'ruses and, therefoce, Onermatitatirmat • . ;14 ' i • redaetionOf VictimP Of ) that t‘peer r.iii • ! 1:" ;;• Pet • Pe PPIthile,neetdeenee the • • t ,..• leaf Tr; ' ...., , hi, l;04.14 4. ni4nig, In .84411[011, roes as the Defendant ?z• SISeitiorney leek confirmed i, : 1 •• F.; • • elosyri, tho Post rivals !lift dple .1110 documents In • .! • . ' : ' 1 • • 1 I ' • , I i .. • • I • • • • i :3 See, e.g.. tcfcndants Jeffrey P.prmin and Eget,.. selego. 0840811-(9-J*Fk-Juir 233-2008)-(filed • in ha ; , einidnu0k desire la peeper l• II:I I ••• u i : 13 •• I I I " • .• I •I i • I I I. I "•• I '. ; • • • • • • . I ; [ • • 4 in °dolt° esseqo • • • • I • 1 it i • .1 I I • .1! i . • : MOduli for Stay,"Ma, •?, 2009). 1:11 I 4 I }! i I • : • 1%4 I 1 EFTA00232428

: p6-Y1-'ø9 15:34 FIltil-TECIMAS 8 LOCICEBO 8139843(378 " • * • T-E88 F8e7/3457 F-845 r.; 11 I i ••• lil. rt 1 i . • •j • • C.1; i i i :• :, ; • !•t• r •• • , 13 I 1 . . . i*DEREPIDS, die P. osiresPeotfuliy requests that this Cour! miind the no -prosecution . , : I • it: . : .ii eidiandaddertdurninntigranfthe Post such other relief aa thtf.Cpurt deems Proper. il . . . . . i ',A !I . • :: i I. ... I • r • • . i • r r I is •• 4 . V ! • J. I''': • • i Nials4IntileTaixt U.S. Mail to; R. Ainstneter Acosta; United StatesAtIhnt&s Oiglet ;•Soulhorn • !I li. :' • i District; SQ0 S.Austttillati Ave., Ste. 400, West Palen Beach, FL 3,1419 . 11.fiutat . • . .. • r : • • * nit • • 1 ' ;':y i i !I i Illeitaa WiteAtiliffe,IEsq,i, and Judith Stevenson Arco, Rs.q? Stat4! ney's Office -*eat • • • ; • J.. •4 r; i i Palm Beach, 401 Noilh Dixie Highway, jest Palm Beach, FL 33 I. - •i ; Jack • :! is .. r • • : Man Goldberger, aq!; Åtbn•bpry . Goldberger, et at, 250 S.:AiiiStrktailliAte., Stei, 1400, West Iii-i ti I., : • ; ; .., : ' 1 • •• $.1 • i ht '. •• Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: =~; and Bradley4 • . and William J. , . • . • y llf 'I' i • . . : Berger; Esq., RothstakfRoeenlbldiAdler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd :111.; 3650, Fon Lauderdale, I li • ' I ' , jr, !. Ir: ' .:ridri Pt 43JN (taxi bath's ist day off:Ina, 2009.! 1.11,1! : : • t.:( : : i• ! st. i ' re+ I • : . ! • ,•:, • il • r )h, i I li • E. 4i' I : I I lk i : i i ii :p ..• i i. . , e : i.i . r • . •.i• 'I I : • I! : • l•• , ' ; • : • • Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, LOCSI`siii.0 fis BRAL OW PL • I • canna K. Sh Florida Be; No.: James B. Låke Florida Bar No.; 101 N.Ç. Third AvinVe, de 100 Fort Lauderdale :13301 ; Telephones. Facsimile: i fi) Wit ;• I •S' • le'l 1 I ; ' I I' i • • • •. . ! pERT1 CATE OF SERVICK • i, • : j•E: : I • 6. • i • • , • .1. •• I. I • Attorneys for 7a Beach 'lost flA : f I ; . I iiBRBB K /WY that a hue and correct copy of the fbriegOiniihas been furnished : F. • 71. • . • : . • • • • • It ? • • • • • • ttomcy 5 • • .1. EFTA00232429

LEGAL RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CAVIL MEM EFTA00232430

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2006CF009454AXX, 2008CF009381A)OC STATE, vs. EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E, Defendant. MOTION TO INTERVENE AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMES NOW, Applicant, ■. and requests this Court, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, for leave to intervene as a party in Mr. Epstein's criminal matter for the following reasons: 1. Applicant's intervention is in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding. 2. Applicant stands to either gain or lose by the court's direct legal operation and effect of judgment in the pending matter. 3. Applicant-is-not-injecting a new issue into-the pending matter. 4. Applicant's motion to intervene is timely. EFTA00232431

5. Defense counsel, Robert Crinon, Jr. in the civil matter, does not object to Applicant's motion, but Plaintiff's counsel has not heard back from Defendant Epstein's criminal counsel, Jack Goldberger as to whether he opposes this motion. MEMORANDUM OF LAW Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.230. "A person seeking leave to intervene must claim an interest of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment." Litvak v. Scylla Properties. LLC 946 So.2d 1165, 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Additionally, "an intervenor my not inject a new issue into the case." Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida. Inc.. v. IMC Phosphates. Inc„ 857 So.2d 207, 211 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003). "An intervention is thus only appropriate where the issue the intervenor raises are related to the case being litigated." Facing Properties. L.P.. v, Baldwin, 885 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). Once the trial court determines that the intervenor's interest is sufficient, it exercises its discretion to determine whether to permit intervention. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1992). "In deciding this question the court should consider a number of factors, including the derivation of the interest, any pertinent contractual language, the size of the interest, the potential for conflicts or new issues, and any other relevant circumstance." W. Finally, an intervention is generally considered timely if it is made before a final decree has been entered. See Technical Chemicals And Products. Inc.. v. Porchester Holdinns. Inc., 748 So.2d 1090, 1091 (Fla 4th DCA 2000). Page of 4 2 EFTA00232432

Applicant's proposed intervention is subordinate and in recognition of the propriety of the main proceeding. Additionally, Applicant will not inject any new issue into Mr. Epstein's criminal case. In fact, Applicant's intervention is for the limited purpose of joining already intervening parties'" and "the Palm Beach Post" in their arguments regarding the sealed Federal non-prosecution agreement in Mr. Epstein's criminal file. Finally, Applicant's interest is of such a direct and immediate character that the Applicant stands to either gain or lose by the court's judgment in the pending matter. The Applicant currently has a civil complaint against Mr. Epstien regarding allegations similar to those in this pending criminal mater. The sealed document may contain discoverable information or may lead to the discovery of new relevant information. ate Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). Additionally, the document may contain valuable impeachment information that the Applicant would intend to use if the Applicant's civil case proceeded to trial. WHEREFORE, Applicant, M., respectfully requests the Court ■'s motion to intervene in the pending criminal matter. Page of 4 3 EFTA00232433

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, thisiL day of.,\641e, , Unti to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. M, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. LE0P0LD-KUV1N, PA. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 Palm ns, FL (561) (561) By: Pige of 4 4 EFTA00232434

EFTA00232435

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2008CF009381A DIVISION W STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO MAKE COURT RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL Comes now the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorney's, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Administrative Orders of this Court , specifically AO 2.303 and moves this Court to treat as confidential the following records. A. A document referred to as "Non-Prosecution Agreement" filed under seal in the court file on July 2, 2008, B. A document referred to as "The Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement" filed under seal in the court file on August 25, 2008. 1. The above referenced documents were Ordered Sealed at a hearing held before the Honorable Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo on June 30, 2008. 2. A Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records was filed by Non-Party EW on or about May 15, 2009. 3. A Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access was filed by Non-party Palm Beach Post on June 1, 2009. 4. This Court granted Non-Party ■. and Palm Beach Post Motion to Intervene on June 10, 2009 but took no immediate action orb Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unsealing Records or on Palm Beach Posts Petition For Access, pending a further hearing. EFTA00232436

6.. The documents should remain confidential for the following reasons: a. To prevent a serious Imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice. b. To protect a compelling government interest. c. To avoid substantial injury to Innocent third parties. d. To avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally Inherent In these specific type of proceedings, sought to be closed. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order keeping the above referenced records confidential, and maintaining them under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion is made in good faith and supported by a sound and factual legal basis. 4 CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 11 day of June, 2009. AZ ) -e---- Notary Public State of d My Commission Expires EFTA00232437

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via o U.S. Mail; K Facsimile; a Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., 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., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Deanna K. Shullman, 400 North Drive, Suite 1100, P.O.Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, Robert D. Critton, BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER, & COLEMAN, 515 N. Flagler Dr. Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. this 11 day of June, 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & 515 N. Flagler Dr. Suite 400 WEISS, PA. ach, Florida 33401 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 ach, Florida 33401 -c 4 - ERT D. C_, RITTON ESQ. CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ orida Bar NoME lorida Bar No. EFTA00232438

I i 14 EFTA00232439

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 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 M'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." EFTA00232440

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 /Orator 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 Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grant Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or deny 2 EFTA00232441

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 El'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 of Service WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Hand Delivery to JEFFREY SLOMAN, 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, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, and DEANNA K. SHIJLLMAN, 3 EFTA00232442

400 North Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, this 25th day of June. 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 each, FL 401 By: Robert D. Cri Florida Bar Michael J. Pike Florida Bart_ Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and on, Jr. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 W Pa a FL 33401-5012 Fax: Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 4 EFTA00232443

EFTA00232444

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2006CF009454AXX, 2008CF009381AXX STATE, vs. EPSTEIN, JE'FFREY INTERVENER'S E O u. 0 T i TAY AND UPPORTIN COMES NOW, Intervener,.. and files s Response endant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has been properly sealed. Furthermore, as Defendant EPSTEIN has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal or describe how he will be harmed by this disclosure, Intervener M. respectfully requests the Court deny their Motion. PursuaM to nirida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(a), a trial court has the discretion to enter a stay pending interlocutory review of a non-final order. The burden to satisfy the EFTA00232445

requirements for a stay rests with the party requesting the stay. A trial court is not obligated, or even encouraged, to enter such a stay as the Appellate Rules specifically provide, "In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review." Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (emphasis added). Defendants ask the Court to stay disclosure of a public document which was never properly sealed. Factors to 'dared by a court when deciding whether to enter a stay "include the moving p s likeli success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm should a stay not be gra 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to this issue is in paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defendant merely ad assertion that there will be "irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA." There is no explanation of who will be harmed or what harm will be caused. How can a public document which redacts the names of the minor victims cause harm? This necessary question is never answered. Defendant's broad and vague assertion is insufficient to grant a stay. Finally, since there has been no showing by Defendant EPSTEIN that the proper procedifie for sealing court documents were ever followed, the NPA is a public record. Page 2of 3 EFTA00232446

Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Stay the Proceedings. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 26 day of June, 2009 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Clifton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suit est Palm Beach, FL 33401. LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 . . . Page 3of 3 ens, FL 33410 (facsimile) T. KUVIN, Esq. ar No.: EFTA00232447

Page 2 of Wdstlaw. 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389.24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Deborah PEREZ, Appellant. v. Jorge M. PEREZ, Appel lee. No. 99-2182. Oct. 27, 1999. Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1999. Following divorce, parties agreed to modification of marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that mother could permanently relocate children to Utah. Father petitioned for modification of custody. The Circuit Court, Dade County, Eu- gene J. Fierro, J.,. split custody of children, and mother appealed. Parties and guardian ad litem filed various motions. Mother moved to prohibit further involvement in appellate proceedings by guardian ad litem and counsel appearing on behalf of guardian. The District Court of Appeal, Gersten, held that: (1) guardian did not have 'authority to submit brief or motions at appellate level of child custody proceeding, and (2) there was no authority permitting guardian ad litem to retain counsel on behalf of herself in appeal. Motion granted. Sorondo, J., filed concurring opinion West Headnotes [11 Appeal and Error 30 0=477 30 Appeal and Error 301X Supersedeas or Stay of Proceedings 30k476 Upon Allowance by Court or Judge 30k477 k. Authority of Court or Judge. Most Cited Cases District Court of Appeal has authority to issue stay for purpose of preserving status quo during appel- late proceeding. West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule Page 1 9.310(0. [2) Appeal and Error 30 C=479(1) 30 Appeal and Error 301X Supersedeas or Stay of Proceedings 30k476 Upon Allowance by Court or Judge 30k479 Grounds for Allowance 30k479( I) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Factors which are considered by District Court of Appeal in deciding whether to grant stay include moving party's likelihood of success on merits, and likelihood of harm should stay not be granted. West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule 9.310(0. (3) Child Custody 76D €:=7905 76D Child Custody 76DXfli Appeal or Judicial Review 76Dk905 k. Transfer of Cause and Proceed- ings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 134k303(3)) Father's failure to return children to mother after summer vacation, as required under parties' post- divorce visitation arrangements, and father's at- tempts to manipulate children's custody preference were sufficient to establish that mother had likeli- hood of success on merits of her appeal of order modifying custody, warranting issuance of stay, for purpose of preserving status quo during appellate proceeding. West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule 9.310(0. (4] Child Custody 76D sE :, 903 76D Child Custody 76DXHI Appeal or Judicial Review 76Dk903 k. Right of Review and Parties. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211kI9.3(6)) Guardian ad litem did not have authority to submit brief or motions at appellate level of child custody proceeding. West's F.S.A. § 61.401; West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule 9.020. 2009 Thomson Reuters/West No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.eom/print/printstream.aspx?prfl=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232448

Page 3 of 11 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) (5] Infants 211 *:=85 211 Infants 211VII Actions 211k76 Guardian Ad Litem or Next Friend 211k85 k. Duties and Liabilities. Most. Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.2(2)) Universally recognized function of guardian ad !item in custody dispute is to protect best interests of children. (6] Infants 2116577 211 Infants 211V11 Actions 211k76 Guardian Ad Litem or Next Friend 211k77 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.3(1)) Guardians ad litem serve important role, under lim- ited circumstances, by acting as representatives of children and promoting society's interest in protect- ing children from traumas commonly associated with divorce and custody disputes. (7] Infants 211 re="85 211 Infants 211 VII Actions 211k76 Guardian Ad Litem or Next Friend 211k85 k. Duties and Liabilities. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 21Ik19.3(1)) Duties and responsibilities of guardian ad litem are not coextensive with those of attorney. West's F.S.A. § 61.403. (8] Child Custody 76D sE:=)900 76D Child Custody 76DXUI Appeal or Judicial Review 76Ok900 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k 19.3(6)) Child Custody 76D 4C=,903 76D Child Custody Page 2 76DX1I1 Appeal or Judicial Review 76Dk903 k. Right of Review and Patties. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.3(6)) Appellate court is not fact-finding court and there is no proper role for guardian ad litem at appellate level. West's F.S.A. § 61.403. (9) Infants 211 4C=.85 211 Infants 211VII Actions 211k76 Guardian Ad Litem or Next Friend 21Ik85 k. Duties and Liabilities. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.2(2)) Guardians ad litem are required to act in the best in- terests of children even if this conflicts with the children's wishes, and must serve as independent fact investigators. West's F.S.A. § 61.403. (10] Child Custody 7613 sC=903 76D Child Custody 76DXJ1.1 Appeal or Judicial Review 76Ok903 k. Right of Review and Parties. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.3(6)) Filing of motions and brief by guardian ad litem in appellate custody proceedings conflicts with guard- ian's proper function of serving as independent fact investigator, and violates statutory prohibition against guardians acting as advocates. West's F.S.A. § 61.403. (11) Child Custody 7613 C=>409 76D Child Custody 76DVIII Proceedings 76DVIII(A) In General 76Dk409 k. Parties., Intervention. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.3(3)) Minor children in custody proceeding are not con- sidered as "necessary parties" to action. (12] Child Custody 7613 e=•903__ it 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLEctifin=NotSet&destinationt... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232449

769 So.2d 389 769 Sold 389,24 Fla. L. Weekly 132439 (Cite as: 769 Sold 389) 76D Child Custody 76DX111 Appeal or Judicial Review 76Dk903 k. Right of Review and Parties. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k19.3(6)) There is no authority permitting guardian ad litem to retain counsel on behalf of herself in appeal, where guardian is not party to proceedings, and where guardian is purportedly appearing on behalf of children who are also not parties in appellate proceedings. •390 Marsha B. Elser. Miami; Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellant. Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin, & Perwin, and Joel S. Perwin, Miami; Bar- ranco, Kircher, Vogelsang & BoIdt, and Kimberly L. Bolds, Miami, for appellee. Before GERSTEN, SHEVIN, and SORONDO, ON APPELLANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO PRO- HIBIT FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN THESE AP- PELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY THE GUARDIAN .LITEM AND/OR COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE GUARDIAN. LITEM GERSTEN, Judge. Appellant, Deborah M. Perez ("the Former Wife"), moves this Court to prohibit further involvement in these appellate proceedings by the Guardian ad Litem ("Guardian") and counsel appearing on be- half of the Guardian. We grant the Former Wife's motion and write further to discuss our serious con- cerns regarding the proceedings in this case, and to clarify that there is no statutory basis for a Guardi- an to file motions and a brief in a child custody ap• peal'*" FNI. Initially, we denied the Former Wife's motion to prohibit further involve- ment by the Guardian ad Litem. However. we cautioned in our ruling that the denial Page 4 of 11 Page 3 was "without prejudice to renew if neces- sary." At this stage of the proceedings, and during a flurry of emergency motions filed by the appellee, the Guardian had filed only two documents; one entitled "Guardian ad Litem's Emergency Motion for Rehearing of Stay' and one entitled "Guardian ad Litem's Emergency Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction." Both were denied. Thereafter, the Guardian advised counsel for the Former Wife that a brief would be filed with this Court. The Former Wife then renewed her motion correctly observing that the Guardian intended to continue her wholly unauthorized and im- proper conduct. Background Facts The Former Wife and appellee Jorge M. Perez, ("the Former Husband") divorced in 1995. The Former Wife became primary residential parent of the parties' three minor children. In November of 1996, the parties agreed to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah. sold the home where she and the children were living in Miami, enrolled the children in a Utah school, and notified the Former Husband that she and the children would be relocating to Utah on June 18, 1998. However, two weeks prior to the scheduled and agreed upon departure date, the Former Husband filed a petition for modification of custody and at- tempted on an emergency basis to enjoin the Former Wife from relocating the children. The trial court denied the emergency motion determining the parties had agreed to the relocation, and the Former Wife and children moved to Utah. Thereafter, pursuant to the parties' visitation agree- O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Ong. US Gov. Works. http://wcb2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prftnIITMLE&ifm—NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232450

Page 5 of II 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389.24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) mein, the children spent the *391 summer of 1999 visiting with the Former Husband. The children having been enrolled in school in Utah, were to be returned to the Former Wife on August 21. 1999. During this agreed summer visitation, the Former Husband's petition for modification proceeded to trial. On July 30, 1999, the trial court entered an or- der modifying custody which is the subject of the main appeal. The order split custody of the children, awarding custody of the two sons to the Former Husband, and custody of the parties' daughter to remain with the Former Wife.' The trial court's basis for splitting custody was the expressed preference of the two sons to live in Miami. FN2. We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian. Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did not base its decision solely on the Guard- ian's testimony and report, because "part of her testimony at trial, as well as part of her conclusions in the Guardian Ad Litem's report ... are based partly on evidence which is clearly hearsay...." On August 9, 1999, the Former Wife filed a Motion for Rehearing and Motion For Stay Pending Appeal which was denied by the trial court on August 20, 1999." On August 23, 1999, the Former Wife filed her notice of appeal, and the next day filed an emergency motion seeking a stay of the trial court order, pending review in this Court. FN3. The children had been enrolled in school in Utah for over a year, and the agreement provided that they were to be returned to the Former Wife on August 21st. In spite of the fact that the trial court's custody modification order had been suspended by the filing of the Former Page 4 Wife's Motion for Rehearing, the Former Husband placed the children in school in Miami on August 18th. The children were not returned to the Former Wife, although the primary residence of the children re- mained with the Former Wife at the time the Former Husband enrolled them in school. Appellate Proceedings: A Barrage of Motions 11112113] On August 24, 1999, the Former Wife filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Re- view and a Motion to Expedite Appeal. The Former Wife's motion for stay alleged a likelihood of suc- cess on the merits, and that the best interests of the children required maintaining the status quo. Pursu- ant to her agreement with the Former Husband, the Former Wife requested that the children resume school in Utah pending a final decision on appeal. This Court granted the Former Wife's motions or- dering a stay pending appeal, and that the appeal be expedited." Fb14. This Court has authority to issue a stay under Rule 9.310(0, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, for the purpose of preserving the status quo during an appel- late proceeding. See Hirsch v. Hirsch, 309 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Once a stay is issued, the stay remains in effect until the appellate court mandate is issued. Rule 9.310(e). Fla. R.App. P. Factors which are considered by this Court in deciding whether to grant a stay include the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm should a stay not be granted. See State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1980). During the course of the trial court pro- ceedings, the children had been spending the summer with the Former Husband pursuant to the parties' visitation ar- rangements. The Former Husband did C 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE8cifm=NotSet8cdestination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232451

769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389,24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) not return the children to the Former Wife, see supra note 3, and the Former Wife's motions contain facts and argu- ments indicating the Former Husband used this summer time as a means to ma- nipulate the children's custody prefer- ence. These facts and others were sufficient to establish the Former Wife had a likeli- hood of success on the merits. Coupled with our additional concerns regarding the children's schooling and their best in- terests, greater harm could result if the status quo were not preserved. See Offer• man v. Offerman, 643 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(granting motion to stay temporary custody order). The facts raised by the Former Wife in support of her motion for a stay are most troubling, and we emphasize that this Court will not tolerate the improper use of visita- tion to manipulate a child's custody pref- erence. *392 This Court's order granting the stay resulted in a flood of motions, including an "Emergency Mo- tion For Rehearing of Stay" filed by the Guardian advocating the Former Husband's position, and a "Notice of Appearance filed by an attorney on be- half the Guardian".m3 Not surprisingly, the Former Husband also filed an emergency motion for review of the order granting the stay. *4 On August 26, 1999, this Court denied both the Former Husband's and the Guardian's motions. FNS. The Notice of Appearance filed by the attorney stated she appeared "on behalf of the Guardian." A Notice of Appearance was also filed by the Guardian "on behalf of the minor children as Guardian Ad Litem." FN6. The Former Husband's motion has the rather lengthy title of 'Emergency Mo- tion For Rehearing and For En Banc Re- Page 6 of 11 Page 5 view of the Court's Ex Parte Order Grant- ing the Wife's Motion to Stay Execution of a Child Custody Order, Without Waiting for the Husband's Response to That Mo- tion." It incorrectly states that this Court's ruling constitutes an "ex parte judicial de- termination ... [which) is simply and flatly a violation of due process." There is no au- thority for an "en banc review" of an order issued by an appellate panel granting a stay pending review. More importantly, this Court has the inherent authority in its dis- cretion to enter a ruling on a motion at any time, with or without a responsive plead- ing. In any event, the Former Husband's Emergency Motion was thoroughly con- sidered at the time it was filed, and was denied by this Court. In accordance with this Court's mandate, the panics' two sons were sent to Utah on August 27, 1999. Three days later, on August 30th, the oldest son traveled to Miami where he was met at the air- port by the Former Husband. This prompted the Guardian and the Former Husband to once again at- tempt to evade the stay order. The Former Husband first filed an emergency mo- tion in the trial court where the trial judge held an emergency hearing by telephone. The Former Hus- band told the trial court that the Guardian had "advised" him not to return the child to the Former Wife in Utah "before (the child sees) a professional counselor who can address his present state of mind." The trial court denied the motion finding that this Court had "effectively taken jurisdiction" over the matter, and ordered the child be returned to Utah to "comply with the law that is now the law of this case; i.e. the stay of these proceedings." Instead of returning the child, however, both the Guardian and the Former Husband then decided to file motions again in this Court The Guardian's emergency motion asked this Court to "relinquish jurisdiction" to the trial court to consider testimony as to possible emotional damage to the parties' eld- O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLEedfm=NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232452

Page 7 of 11 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) est son. The Former Husband filed a similar motion entitled "Father/Appellees Response in Support of Guardian Ad Litem's Emergency Motion to Relin- quish Jurisdiction." Both the Former Husband's and the Guardian's motions were denied. Our denial of these motions was based upon what should be an obvious theorem-that parents and their minor chil- dren must obey court orders. We are extremely concerned over this type of mo- tion practice and caution counsel that "appellate motion practice is not a game of ping-pong in which the last lawyer to serve wins." See Sarasota County v. Lx, 645 So.2d 7 (Fla. 241 DCA 1994). To an even greater extent, we are extremely concerned with the impact of such behavior on children. Chil- dren should not be "played" as if in a game of ping- pong where the parent with the greater resources to serve the greatest number of motions wins. Apparently, the Former Wife was also disturbed by the Guardian's involvement in the appellate pro- ceedings. and moved to prohibit further involve- ment by the Guardian when she filed her response to the Guardian's second emergency motion on September 1, 1999. Although we denied the motion to prohibit at this time, see infra note 1, the denial was "without prejudice to renew if necessary." When the Guardian notified counsel for the Former *393 Wife of her intent to file an appellate brief with this Court, the Former Wife renewed her mo- tion. For the reasons that follow, we grant the mo- tion and prohibit further involvement of the Guardi- an in these appellate proceedings. The Role of a Guardian Ad Litem In Child Cus- tody Appellate Proceedings (4)[5)[6) The universally recognized function of a guardian ad litem in a custody dispute is to protect the best interests of children. Litigation involving custody issues can be particularly acrimonious and, unfortunately, children are particularly vulnerable to the harms commonly associated with hostility and conflict between parents. Guardians ad litem Page 6 serve an important role, under limited circum- stances, by acting as representatives of children and promoting society's interest in protecting children from the traumas commonly associated with di- vorce and custody disputes. See Scorings v. Her. rick, 711 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Repres- enting Children: Standards For Attorneys and Guardians Ad 1.1tem In Custody or Visitation Pro- ceedings (With Commentary), 13 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. I (Summer 1995). [7) Once appointed, the powers and authority of a guardian ad litem include Investigation, discovery matters, requesting necessary examinations of the parties or the child, obtaining impartial examina- tions and making recommendations to the court. See 61.403 Fla. Stat. (1997). However, the duties and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem are not coextensive with those of an attorney. See Roski v. Rosk4 730 So.2d 413 (Fla. al DCA 1999); see also Representing Children: Standards For Attorneys and Guardians Ad Diem In Custody or Visitation Proceedings (With Commentary), 13 S. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 1 (Summer 1995)(a guardian ad litem who is also an attorney should not combine the roles of counsel and guardian; Standard 3.1). In fact, Section 61.401, Florida Statutes (1997) spe- cifically provides that the role of a guardian ad litem is "to act as next friend of the child, investig- ator or evaluator, not as attorney or advocate." See also.* 61.403 Fla. Stat. (1997). And so we come to the crux of our concerns in these proceedings. Section 61.401 states that the guardian shall not act as an advocate and the Guardian's role is defined as limited to the specific litigation in which the Guardian is appointed. See Roski v. Roski, 730 So.2d at 413; Black's Law Dic- tionary 70 (6th ed.1990). Section 61.403 delineates the Guardian's powers and authority in the context of trial court proceedings. Nowhere is there any ref- erence to appellate court proceedings in the statutes pertaining to the responsibilities of guardians ad FIV7. The Former Husband contends that O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&destination-... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232453

769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) Section 61.401 should be interpreted broadly as permitting guardians ad litem to participate in appellate proceedings, be- cause this Section states the guardian "shall be a party to any judicial proceed- ing." We disagree for the reasons dis- cussed throughout this opinion, and based upon our conclusion that the statute's refer- ence to the guardian's status as a party in judicial proceedings, refers to the trial court proceedings in which the guardian was appointed. Our interpretation is con- sistent with the prohibition against guardi- an's acting as advocates contained within this very same section, and with common sense. • (8) An appellate court is not a fact-finding court and there is simply no proper role for a Guardian at the appellate level. The Guardian fulfilled her stat- utorily defined duty when she completed her invest- igation and report to the trial court-the court in which she was appointed.m FNS. We note that the Guardian's report is part of the appellate record and is at the disposal of both the Former Husband and the Former Wife in this proceeding. 19)(10) When attorneys are appointed to serve as guardians ad litem, their roles in the litigation pro- cess are significantly different than the roles they would otherwise assume as lawyers. Guardians ad litem are required to act in the best interests'394 of children even if this conflicts with the children's wishes, and must serve as independent fact invest- igators. The filing of motions and a brief by the Guardian in appellate proceedings conflicts with these functions, and violates the statutory prohibi- tion against Guardians acting as advocates. See§ 61.403 Fla. Stat. (1997); Scaringe v. Herrick. 711 So.2d at 204. Simply, the Guardian does not have a statutory right to appear in these proceedings. See Betz v. Betz, 254 Neb. 341, 575 N.W.2d 406, 410 (1998)." Page 8 of I I Page 7 FN9. Although Betz involved the role of the guardian la litem at the trial court level, we find many of the observations made by the court as to the proper function of the guardian relevant to our analysis. The Betz court noted that the primary func- tion of a guardian is to provide the ap- pointing court with necessary information by way of admissible evidence. The court further cautioned that: "A guardian ad litem may be an attorney, but an attorney who performs the func- tions of a guardian ad litem does not act as an attorney and is not to participate in the trial in an adversarial fashion such as calling or examining witnesses or filing pleadings or briefs." Betz v. Betz. 575 N.W.2d at 409 (emphasis added). For purposes of this decision, we agree with Betz that it is improper for a guardian ad litem to file a brief in an appellate pro- ceeding. Such participation on appeal vi- olates the proscription against a guardian ad litem assuming the role of an advoc- ate, and exceeds the bounds of the guardian's limited duties toward the ap- pointing trial court. The Guardian is further prohibited from appearing in these proceedings because she is not a proper party under Rule 9.020, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is well established that only parties (or their representatives) who have suffered an ad- verse affect in the lower tribunal cause of action are entitled to participate in an appeal. See Sias v. Posada, 760 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Or- ange County, Fla. v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 397 So.2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Florida Civil Practice Guide, Vol. 6, § 143.03 (Lexis Publishing 1998). [II) Rule 9.020 defines the "parties" to an appeal as the "appellant" and the "appellee." Neither the Former Husband nor the Former Wife sought relief against the children. Further, minor children in a C 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE8cifm=NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232454

769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) custody proceeding are not considered as "necessary parties" to the action. See Shienvold v. liable. 622 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). There- fore, it is manifestly obvious that the minor chil- dren in this case are not "parties" to this proceed- ing, and thus the Guardian cannot appear on their behalf. (121 We arc also disturbed by the Guardian's reten- tion of an attorney to represent the Guardian in the appellate proceedings. As noted earlier, on the same day the Guardian filed her notice of appearance "on behalf of the children," an attorney filed a notice of appearance "on behalf of the Guardian." However, this attorney had never been appointed by any court to serve in any capacity in this case. There is no au- thority permitting a Guardian to retain counsel on behalf of herself in an appeal, where the Guardian is not a party to the proceedings, and where the Guardian is purportedly appearing on behalf of children who are also not parties in the appellate proceedings. See generally Betz v. Betz. 254 Neb. 341, 575 N.W.2d 406, 410 (1998Xa guardian who feels the need to retain an attorney should apply to the appointing court for permission). In conclusion, there is no authority for a Guardian. or an attorney purportedly representing a Guardian, to submit motions or a brief in a child custody ap- peal.noo Guardianss395 render an important ser- vice to the courts of this state, and we recognize that the lines separating the functions of an attorney as Guardian and an attorney as advocate, can be- come easily blurred. We hope the line has now be- come more distinct FNIO. Nothing in this opinion shall be construed as affecting the role of a Guardi- an In other types of cases, or in the obvious situation where a child is the real party in- terest. See generally, S.A.P. v. State. Derr of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 704 So.2d 583, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(minor may not bring action on her own behalf, and can only sue by and through a guardi- an ad litem, next friend or other duly ap- Page 9 of 11 Page 8 pointed representative); Kingsley v. Kings- ley, 623 So.2d 780, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(guardian ad fitern or next friend is required to represent a minor in a termina- tion of parental rights case), review denied, 634 So.2d 625 (Fla.1994);Fla. R. Civ. R, Rule 1.210(6) (minors do not have legal capacity to initiate legal proceedings in their own names). The Former Wife's motion is granted. The motions filed by the Guardian are stricken, and the Guardi- an, as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Guardian, are prohibited from filing an appellate brief as a party in these proceedings."'" FN11. The Guardian's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9370 is granted. The Guardian is permitted to file an amicus curiae brief only. Motion to prohibit granted. SHEVIN, Judge, concurs.SORONDO. J. (specially concurring). I agree with the majority that the guardian ad litem does not have standing to file a brief in this case. I write separately because I arrive at the same con- clusion through a somewhat different analysis. Deborah Perez (the mother), argues that the stat- ute's mandate that the guardian "act as next friend of the child, investigator or evaluator, not as attor- ney or advocate," in section 61.401, Florida Stat- utes (1991), precludes the guardian from taking a position in this appeal because the guardian's argu- ments will place her in the role of advocate.'"" The mother further argues that the appointment of the guardian by the lower court does not authorize her to file pleadings in this Court. FN12. Needless to say, the guardian's posi- tion in this case is contrary to that of the mother. Jorge M. Perez (the father), responds that the stat- tit) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printslream.aspx?prft=HTMLEetifm=NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232455

Page 10 of 11 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389.24 Ha. L. Weekly D2439 (ate as: 769 So.2d 389) ute is ambiguous because although it sets forth the language cited above, the statute also makes the guardian a "party." This elevates the guardian to the same level as the other. parties in the case, the father and the mother. As such the guardian has the right to file pleadings with this Court in furtherance of the best interest of the children. When first passed by the Florida Legislature, sec- tion 61.401 Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), as pertin- ent here, read as follows: Appointment of guardian ad litem.-In an action for dissolution of marriage, modification, parental re- sponsibility, custody, or visitation, if the court finds it is in the best interest of the child, the court may appoint a guardian ad !item to represent the child. As relevant to the issues before us, section 61.403, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), stated: Guardians ad !item; powers and authority.-A guard- ian ad litem when appointed shall act as a repres- entative of the child and shall act in the child's best interest. In 1994, the Legislature amended both statutes. Section 61.401 was amended to read: Appointment of guardian ad litem.-In an action for dissolution of marriage, modification, parental re- sponsibility, custody, or visitation, if the court finds it is in the best interest of the child, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to act as next friend of the child, investigator or evaluator, not as attorney or advocate. The court in its discretion may also appoint legal counsel for the child to act as attor- ney or advocate; however, the guardian and the legal counsel shall not be the same person. ...The guardian ad litem shall be a party to any Judicial proceeding from the date of the appointment until the date of discharge. Ch. 94-204, § 3, Laws of Ha. (amending § 61.401, Ha. Slat. (1993))(emphasis added).*396 Section 61.403, as pertinent here, was also amended: Guardians ad litem; powers and authority. A guard- ian ad [item when appointed shall act as next friend Page 9 of the child, investigator or evaluator, not as attor- ney or advocate but shall act in the child's best in- terest. Ch. 94-204, § 5, Laws of Fla. (amending § 61.401, Ha. Stat. (1993)) (emphasis added). In 1994, the legislature excised all language con- cerning the "representation" of the child, and in- cluded language specifically stating that the guardi- an was not to act as "attorney or advocate." The amended statute went on to provide that the trial court could appoint counsel for the child to serve that function. The legislature clearly intended that the function of the guardian be one of "next friend" to the child. This role includes the power to invest- igate and evaluate the case, and to make recom- mendations to the trial judge which are consistent with the best interest of the child. See§ 61.403(5), (8), Fla. Stat. (1997). In short, the guardian's role is to discover, analyze and communicate facts to the judge which will assist the trial court in the per- formance of its duty to determine the best interest of children in divorce proceedings. The role of ad- vocate for the child, the legislature reserved for counsel, which the court can appoint if it considers appropriate and necessary. The trial judge in this case did not appoint counsel. The father's argument that the guardian's elevation to the status of "party" gives her the right to file pleadings in this Court is unpersuasive. First, it is clear that the guardian is not a party to this action in the strict and acknowledged sense of the word. In defining the word, Black's Law Dictionary 1122 (6th ed.1990) states: "Party" is a technical word having a precise mean- ing in the legal parlance; it refers to those by or against whom a legal suit is brought, whether in law or equity, the party plaintiff or defendant, whether composed of one or more individuals and whether natural or legal persons; all others who may be affected by the suit, indirectly or con- sequently, are persons interested but not parties. O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft..HTMLE&ifm—NotSet&destination=... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232456

Page 11 of 11 769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) See also59 Am.Jur.2d Parties 7 (1987)(The word party or parties "designates the opposing litigants in a judicial proceeding-the persons seeking to estab- lish a right and those upon whom it is sought to im- pose a corresponding duty or liability ..."). Under this definition the guardian in this case is not a party. Accordingly, the guardian is a "party" in this judicial proceeding only because the legislature has made her such. Because this status is created by statute it can be defined by statute, and the statutes in question do just that. The legislature first chose to limit the guardian's role as a "party" by forbid- ding her from acting in a certain way, i.e. as an ad- vocate for the child. Next, in section 61.403(2), (3), and (6), the legislature required the guardian to pe- tition the court and file pleadings only through counsel-a "true" party could do so pro se. Finally, the guardian does not become a party at the incep- tion of the litigation or because she has a personal interest, she attains that status by judicial appoint- ment and retains her identity as such only until dis- charged by the judge. Thus, although the legislature has created this special class of "party," it has also defined its limitations. As I read the statute, the guardian does not have a party's right to file plead- ings in this Court because this will, mandatorily, re- quire her to become an advocate. The majority correctly observes that there is no role for the guardian to play in this Court because all factual issues and determinations have been filly developed below. This Court is in a position to read the record of the lower court, which contains all of the guardian's contributions to this lawsuit. A brief review of that record indicates that the guardian's position is the same as that of the father in this case and has been repeatedly and zealously expressed in both the lower court and this *397 Court. Indeed, the father relies heavily on the recommendations of the guardian. The guardian's presence in this appel- late proceeding is therefore superfluous. I do acknowledge that in certain cases the guardian may serve a valuable role on appeal. Usually, the guardian's recommendations will bolster the legal Page 10 position of one of the parents. There are extraordin- ary cases, however, where the guardian's conclu- sions could be detrimental to both parents. I refer specifically to cases which contain issues concern- ing the parents' mental and emotional stability and cases involving domestic violence and/or child ab- use. In such cases, a guardian could recommend that neither parent be awarded custody or that cus- tody should be predicated upon a particular parent's participation in some type of psychological coun- seling. These cases may call for a guardian to file a brief in an appeal and this Court has the authority. which the majority has chosen to exercise in this case, to allow the guardian to appear as amicus curiae pursuant to rule 9.370 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. "r I do not believe that this appeal calls for the guardian's participation. F1413. Even under these circumstances the guardian must seek leave of court to hire counsel. I join the majority in its conclu- sion that the guardian's sua sponse decision to hire counsel in this case, presumably at the expense of the parties, was highly im- ProPer- Fla.App. 3 Dist..1999. Perez v. Perez 769 So.2d 389,24 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 END OF DOCUMENT Q 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?pr11-HTMLE8cifm=NotSettcdestination--... 6/25/2009 EFTA00232457

16 ' a t Irt il EFTA00232458

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF0093811=MB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on the following: a) Non-party M.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and Petition for Access M.'s Motions to Intervene and for an Order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential A hearing was conducted on these matters on June 25, 2009. The Court notes that Mr. Goldberger, Esq. and Mr. Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of M., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of Assistant State-Attorney Barbara Burns-was present on behalf-of-the State-of Florida. No appearance was filed on behalf of the United States. After giving an opportunity for all parties to be heard, the Court finds as follows: EFTA00232459

Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381100018/502006CF009454AXXMB 1. The State of Florida charged the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, with Felony Solicitation of Prostitution. 2. The State of Florida and Mr. Epstein came to a negotiated resolution of the charges. Part of that resolution included an agreement entered into between Mr. Epstein and the United States. At the plea conference in State court Mr. Epstein plead guilty to the State charges. At the plea conference the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States were made part of this Court's record. The agreement was sealed in two separate filings. At the time the State court took these matters under seal, the proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been followed. The June 25th hearing was to give Mr. Epstein, the State, and/or the United States an opportunity to comply with the well-defined and narrow parameters for sealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions taseal thetourt records are denied. 3) The Motions to intervene are granted. 4) The Motion to unseal the documents is granted. EFTA00232460

day of June, 2009. 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 1. Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Robert D. Critton, Esq. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Page Three Case No. 502008CF009381AXXM8/502006CF009454AXXMB 5) The originals will not be disdosed, however the undersigned will do an in- camera inspection and redact the names of the underage victims, if any, so their identity will be indicated by their initials. 6) This Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders. 7) The disdosure of the sealed documents shall be stayed at least until June 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the Court will hear "Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review". DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Bea 40 ounty, Florida this EFTA00232461

Page Four Case No. S02008CF009381AXXMB/502006CF0094S4AXXMB 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 EFTA00232462

LE GAL RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALF EFTA00232463

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AVMB 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 4t" 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 day of lune, 20O9. SIG ECTOVKTED JUN 2 6 2009 JEFFREY J. CO EvIEHEFFR EY J. COL8ATH Circuit Court Judge --------, EFTA00232464

Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381AXXMB/502006CF009454A10(MB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disclosure Agreement Copies furnished: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney's Office - Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Sulte 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, Lauer & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Sulte 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. 0. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 EFTA00232465

..,:s•• RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALL 954446-9399 I- 1 CO EFTA00232466

1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 ) vs. ) CASE No. 2008CF009381AXX 5 ) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ) 6 ) CERTIFIED COPY Defendant. ) 7 ) 8 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 9 PRESIDING: HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 10 APPEARANCES: 11 ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 12 BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE State Attorney 13 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 14 By: BARBARA BURNS, ESQUIRE Assistant State Attorney 15 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 16 JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 250 S Australian Ave Ste 1400 17 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 And 18 ROBERT CRITTON, ESQUIRE 515 N Flagler Dr Ste 400 19 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 20 ON BEHALF OF THE PALM BEACH POST: DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE 21 LoCicero & Bralow 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue - Ste 1500 22 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 23 ON BEHALF OF EW, THE INTERVENER: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE 24 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 225 NE Mizner Blvd Ste 675 25 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232467

2 1 ON BEHALF OF EB, MOTION INTERVENER'S PLEADING: 2 SPENCER KUVIN, ESQUIRE 2925 PGA Blvd Ste 200 3 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 June 25, 2009 24 Palm Beach County Courthouse West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 25 Beginning at 1:50 o'clock, p.m. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232468

3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that the following 2 proceedings were had in the above-entitled cause 3 before the HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH, one of the 4 judges of the aforesaid court, at the Palm Beach 5 County Courthouse, located in the City of West 6 Palm Beach, State of Florida on June 25, 2009 7 beginning at 1:50 o'clock, p.m. with appearances 8 as hereinbefore noted, to wit: 9 THEREUPON: 10 THE COURT: Let me call up the case 11 of the state of Florida versus Jeffrey 12 Epstein. Let me have counsel announce 13 their appearances for the record. 14 MS. SHULLMAN: Deanna Shullman of 15 LoCicero & Bralow on behalf of the 16 Palm Beach Post. 17 THE COURT: Ms. Shullman, nice to see 18 you again, good morning. 19 MS. SHULLMAN: You too. 20 MR. GERBER: William J. Berger for 21 EW, the intervener. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards also on 23 behalf of the EW. 24 MR. KUVIN: Spencer Kuvin on behalf 25 of EB, motion intervener's pleading. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232469

4 1 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good afternoon, 2 Judge, Jack Goldberger and Robert Critton 3 on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. 4 THE COURT: And I'm guessing that, 5 Mr. Kuvin, if I grant the motion to unseal 6 that which has been sealed, your motion to 7 intervene will be moot. 8 MR. KUVIN: Will be. 9 THE COURT: I thought so. This is 10 what I'm thinking and -- oh, we've got 11 more. 12 MS. BURNS: One more appearance, 13 excuse me, Judge, Barbara Burns on behalf 14 of the state of Florida, the state 15 attorney's office of the 15th Judicial 16 Circuit. 17 THE COURT: All right. Procedurally, 18 I think the way that this came to us is 19 that at the conclusion or at some point 20 during a plea conference between the state 21 of Florida and Mr. Epstein, the state and 22 the defense hand an agreed order to 23 Judge Puccillo. 24 MS. BURNS: Puccillo. 25 THE COURT: And asked her to sign an SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232470

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement to seal some portion of some documents, which she signed off on and now it is the intervener's and the Post's motion to unseal those documents; is that kind of procedurally where we are? MR. GOLDBERGER: Procedurally not exactly correct, I don't know if you want me to clarify that. THE COURT: Please do. MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, this started during the course of a plea colloquy in Mr. Epstein's state proceeding before Judge Puccillo, who is a retired senior judge who was filling in for Judge McSorley on that day, who was the judge assigned to this division. It was a plea agreement with the state attorney's office and it is normal and consistent with any plea colloquy Judge Puccillo asked the defense whether there were any other promises or inducements for Mr. Epstein to enter into his plea agreement other than what was contained in the state standard plea agreement that we had. I felt obligated under the circumstances to alert SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232471

6 1 to the Court that there was a confidential 2 agreement between Mr. Epstein's 3 Mr. Epstein's attorneys and the United 4 States attorney's office for the Southern 5 District of Florida which would have been 6 triggered upon the successful taking of the 7 plea by Judge Puccillo. 8 In other words, if the plea was 9 accepted by Judge Puccillo, there's a 10 confidential agreement between U.S. 11 attorney's office and the defense that 12 would be triggered and they would agree not 13 to take some actions against Mr. Epstein. 14 I advised Judge Puccillo of that, and at 15 that time she said she would like to see 16 the matter sealed in the court file. I 17 said fine, and then we later -- I then 18 filed that document, and the clerk's office 19 notified me and said we need an order 20 sealing this, and we submitted an order to 21 seal the document. 22 THE COURT: All right. Is there 23 anybody here from the U.S. attorney's 24 office? Has anybody notified them, or is 25 there a dog in this fight or do they care? SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232472

7 1 If they're a party to this confidential 2 thing, wouldn't you think that they might 3 be. 4 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, they 5 have been noticed. They have taken a 6 position in parallel proceedings that this 7 matter should remain confidential, and they 8 have done that in federal court, and I 9 believe that is their position still. 10 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I have been 11 in communication with the U.S. attorney's 12 office, and they are not taking a position 13 on this issue, which is why they're not in 14 court right now. 15 THE COURT: What's going on in 16 federal court? 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: There are a number 18 of civil cases that are pending right now. 19 THE COURT: And they're talking about 20 the same documents that are under seal here 21 in our court? 22 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, your Honor, and 24 I will address that at the appropriate time 25 what's going on here. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232473

8 1 THE COURT: All right. So thank you, 2 Mr. Goldberger for getting that 3 straightened out. 4 MR. GERBER: Judge, just to clarify 5 one other point. 6 THE COURT: Sure. 7 MR. GERBER: I think actually there's 8 an additional step because Mr. Goldberger 9 on behalf of Mr. Epstein or Mr. Critton I 10 believe filed motion, and I think that that 11 will tell us who goes first today and who 12 has the burden today. 13 THE COURT: This is -- and I'm 14 thinking outloud that my take on that is 15 that my review of the file shows that the 16 appropriate steps to seal these documents 17 wasn't followed initially. I'm looking at 18 it as it would be whoever's moving to have 19 them sealed, it's their burden to prove the 20 steps that you have to prove to get things 21 sealed by the Court, and so that's -- I 22 hinted last meeting that we all had 23 together but that's where I'd go, so I'd 24 shift the burden over to the federal 25 government and to Mr. Epstein, that's what SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232474

9 1 I'm thinking. Let me ask first go over to 2 the Post, Ms. Shullman, what are your 3 thoughts on that procedure? 4 MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, I think 5 that's the correct procedure here. I think 6 Mr. Epstein's motion to make court records 7 confidential tacitly admits what we 8 suspected last time, which was that the 9 initial closure of the documents was not 10 done pursuant to the acceptable procedures. 11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Berger, 12 Mr. Edwards, that's all right with you? 13 MR. EDWARDS: We agree. 14 MR. GERBER: That's what my point 15 was, yes, your Honor, thank you. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger, what do 17 you think? 18 MR. GOLDBERGER: That's fine, your 19 Honor, with the -- I'll wait until after 20 the proceeding. 21 THE COURT: All right. You may 22 proceed. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge, as I said to 24 clarify the record, this matter started 25 during the course of Mr. Epstein's plea SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232475

10 1 colloquy in state court and just so that 2 the record was clear that all inducements 3 for Mr. Epstein's plea was on the record 4 when Judge Puccillo asked me if there had 5 been any promises made to Mr. Epstein, I 6 think properly and ethically we told the 7 Court that there was an agreed -- 8 confidential agreement with the federal 9 government that was in place that basically 10 said we will not prosecute Mr. Epstein for 11 federal offenses if the state plea 12 agreement is accepted by the Court and 13 Mr. Epstein's sentence is imposed. 14 The state proceeding was over at the 15 time that I advised Judge Puccillo that, in 16 other words, we had gone through the plea 17 colloquy and I simply was advising her of 18 this other agreement. It was 19 Judge Puccillo who then asked us to 20 approach, and the Court has a copy of that 21 transcript, I believe. It was 22 Judge Puccillo that said I'd like to have 23 that document sealed in the court file, and 24 I acquiesced to that, I said that's fine. 25 So, first, as a preliminary matter, SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232476

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 11 it wasn't like we were coming into court on that day and asking to seal something, so it would have been presumptuous of me to file something to request to have something sealed when it came up during the course of the proceeding, and, in fact, the committee notes on the rule of judicial administration talk about that and say matters come up all the time during the 10 course of hearings and the fact that 11 something is not filed in advance does not 12 necessarily taint the entire process, so we 13 . agreed to come forward and file our motion 14 to seal after the fact, because we didn't 15 know this matter would be coming up. 16 But having said that, Judge, this 17 confidential agreement was not part of any 18 state plea agreement, it's not part of the 19 proceedings, it was ancillary to the state 20 proceedings and it had nothing to do with 21 the state proceedings. As an accommodation 22 to Judge Puccillo, we filed it in the court 23 file. Quite frankly, it's unnecessary, it 24 doesn't need to be there, and the simplest 25 approach would be to simply remove it from SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232477

12 1 the court file at this point. We didn't 2 have for it to be there. It's not part of 3 the plea, it's not part of the state 4 resolution of the case, and that would be 5 the simple logical approach to that. 6 If the Court is inclined not do that 7 or if the parties object to that, then I 8 think we move onto some other very, very 9 important issues in this case and for both 10 the intervenors in this case as well as the 11 Palm Beach Post motion for access to this 12 proceeding for really two very, very 13 significant reasons, they are in the wrong 14 place and they're attempting to march up 15 the wrong hill here, your Honor. 16 This matter needs to -- has to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matter. Now, at our last 20 abbreviated hearing two weeks ago, I told 21 you for the first time that there have been 22 two hearings in front of Judge Marra on 23 this very issue, whether this 24 nonprosecution agreement and that's the 25 matter that is sealed in your court file, SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232478

13 1 whether this nonprosecution agreement 2 should be released to the plaintiffs for 3 their use. 4 Judge Marra heard two hearings on 5 this matter and the court has those orders. 6 And in the first hearing Judge Marra very, 7 very, carefully balanced the 8 confidentiality issues of the 9 nonprosecution agreement, the intent of the 10 parties as well of the rules of criminal 11 procedure that I will talk about in a 12 moment, with the plaintiff's right to know 13 what's going on and to have access to this 14 agreement. And Judge Marra crafted an 15 order and in the nature of a protective 16 order and said, plaintiffs, you can have 17 this nonprosecution agreement, you can use 18 it, you can review it, you cannot give it 19 to anyone else other than your clients, and 20 if you want to use it or you want to give 21 it to your clients, you need to tell them 22 about this order that is not to be 23 disclosed to anybody else. And these 24 plaintiffs that are sitting here will tell 25 you that from day one they have had this SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232479

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nonprosecution agreement, they have it for their use, they know every clause that's in that nonprosecution agreement, and I suggest to the Court as to their motions why are we here; they have an agreement already. They went back to Judge Marra sometime thereafter expand their use of agreement, and they and asked the Court to the nonprosecution said, Judge Marra, we have the nonprosecution agreement but we would like to be able to disclose that agreement to other sides, and Judge Marra in another carefully crafted order said, nuh-uh, no, you have not satisfied your burden, you cannot disseminate this to anyone else, and the order that I have entered remains in place, but most significantly he said, you know what, this is without prejudice. If you have some basis, you have some need that you have not briefed, you have not litigated with me yet concerning dissemination of nonprosecution agreement, come back to me and I'll review it for you. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232480

15 1 And they have every right to do so, and 2 they have not done so, and it is this 3 motion to intervene that they filed in this 4 court is simply an effort to skirt and to S avoid and to go behind the order of 6 Judge Marra that dealt with this issue 7 already. 8 And I think just for the purpose of 9 our hearing, we need to have the two orders 10 of Judge Marra entered into the record of 11 this proceeding. I know I gave copies to 12 the Court, but I have additional copies. 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, I 14 believe there is no objection from either 15 of the parties. 16 THE COURT: Thank you so much. Let's 17 go ahead and mark these as Defendant's 18 Exhibits No. 1 and 2 for identification 19 purposes. Anybody object to me taking 20 judicial notice of Judge Marra's order? By 21 hearing no objection, I'll go ahead and 22 take judicial notice of it. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: So, your Honor, 24 Judge Marra has dealt with this issue 25 squarely, there's a procedure in place and SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232481

16 1 these matters should be litigated in front 2 of the district court judge that has 3 already heard these matters. 4 THE COURT: Well, let's say that may 5 be true as it relates to these individual 6 plaintiffs in the federal litigation, what 7 about the Post's and the press's -- the 8 media's right to take a look at these 9 things? 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, and this 11 is the second reason why not only the 12 plaintiffs but the Post appear to be 13 marching up the wrong hill here. The Palm 14 Beach Post has filed a motion for access to 15 these documents and they certainly do have 16 first amendment rights and no one would 17 dispute that they have first amendment 18 rights to access to public records, 19 however, most significantly in this case is 20 that the nonprosecution agreement which we 21 gave the court permission to review two 22 weeks ago and presumably the Court has had 23 an opportunity to take a look at it, the 24 nonprosecution agreement talks about and 25 relates to a grand jury matter that is SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232482

17 1 absolutely 100 percent protected from 2 disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal 3 Procedure Six. I have a copy of that rule 4 for the Court. 5 THE COURT: Let me take a look of 6 that, please. 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: Give us one moment, 8 your Honor, we have it here somewhere. 9 MR. KUVIN: Your Honor, just briefly 10 while they're looking on behalf of the 11 plaintiff EB, I just wanted to point out on 12 my client motion to intervene, we are not 13 party to the federal action. She only has 14 a state court claim. She's not bound by 15 any federal court order, she is not with 16 the federal court on their claim, so as to 17 that issue, my client stands here 18 synonymous with the Post. 19 THE COURT: Thank you for pointing 20 that out to me. 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: We'll have it for 22 you in one moment, your Honor. 23 Your Honor, Federal Rule of Criminal 24 Procedure Six is a rule that deals with 25 grand jury proceedings, and it confers in SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232483

18 1 the federal system secrecy of all grand 2 jury matters and it's pretty clear in this 3 case that the nonprosecution agreement 4 specifically talks about a grand jury 5 investigation of Mr. Epstein, there's 6 specific reference to a grand jury 7 investigation in the nonprosecution 8 agreement. 9 The rule does not prevent us from 10 telling the Court that there was a grand 11 jury investigation of Mr. Epstein, but what 12 it prevents us from doing, what it prevents 13 this Court from doing, I believe, is 14 disclosing the content of the grand jury 15 investigation, and the agreement itself is 16 very specific as to the grand jury 17 investigation of Mr. Epstein. 18 However, all is not lost for the Palm 19 Beach Post and the intervenors, for that 20 matter. The rule has a specific procedure 21 that allows you to go to the district court 22 where the grand jury is convened, in this 23 case it would be in the Southern District 24 of Florida before Judge Marra and that is 25 under Rule 6E, your Honor, I think it's 6E SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232484

19 1 3E actually. It says: In limited 2 circumstances the Court may authorize 3 disclosure of grand jury matters under 4 request made in connection with the 5 judicial proceeding, so -- and the rule 6 goes onto clearly say, that request must be 7 filed in the district where the grand jury 8 is proceeding. 9 So the first -- you know the Palm 10 Beach Post may have first amendment rights 11 to access but those first amendment rights 12 cannot circumvent the federally protected 13 secrecy of grand jury proceedings and 14 that's what the Post is doing by making 15 this request before this Court. 16 This matter has been sealed for 17 almost a year now, 11 months and some days 18 and the Palm Beach Post has not filed 19 anything in this matter until most 20 recently, and their remedy is to go into 21 the federal court and invoke the process of 22 Rule Six and asked Judge Marra to make a 23 limited disclosure of the nonprosecution 24 agreement and the grand jury matters that 25 are contained therein. Who knows whether SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232485

1 he will do it, but that's wh_ ere thi 2 need to be fought. 3 As a matter of comity, your t2 c=w- n 4 this Court should defer to j udge Ma sr a 5 because, A, he has already ruled on t.k - 6 disclosure of the nonpros ag reement. 7 even more importantly, the s -upremac 8 requires you to defer to the f ede re. fl r_ 1. 9 of criminal procedure that say thee e 10 matters should be protected and sho Zo 11 be disclosed unless the dists -ict 12 so. 13 If the Court is going to 9O Il=='" 14 wants to go to the issues that wo u 1 or - 15 contained if it were not dealing " 170. 16 grand jury proceeding, obviously th e 17 test that the Court must then use u s. a aLe 18 Rules of Judicial Administration ana. 19 says matters can be sealed but they s h 20 be sealed if there's a compel Ling 21 government interest or if the g 22 important to the administration of u s 23 There's a couple other criteria. but= 24 ones obviously that would app 1 Y in C._ Th. j. 25 case are the compelling government SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT R IDORTEI ..._ EFTA00232486

20 1 he will do it, but that's where this battle 2 need to be fought. 3 As a matter of comity, your Honor, 4 this Court should defer to Judge Marra 5 because, A, he has already ruled on the 6 disclosure of the nonpros agreement, but 7 even more importantly, the supremacy clause 8 requires you to defer to the federal laws 9 of criminal procedure that say these 10 matters should be protected and should not 11 be disclosed unless the district court says 12 so. 13 If the Court is going to go on and 14 wants to go to the issues that would be 15 contained if it were not dealing with a 16 grand jury proceeding, obviously there's a 17 test that the Court must then use under the 18 Rules of Judicial Administration and it 19 says matters can be sealed but they should 20 be sealed if there's a compelling 21 government interest or if the sealing is 22 important to the administration of justice. 23 There's a couple other criteria, but the 24 ones obviously that would apply in this 25 case are the compelling government SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232487

21 1 interest, and the importance to the 2 administration of justice. 3 Again, we are dealing with a secret 4 grand jury matter. We cannot circumvent 5 that secrecy by asking the Court to invoke 6 its unsealing power. 7 THE COURT: Thank you. 8 MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, your 9 Honor. 10 THE COURT: Let me go over to the 11 other parties and we'll get back to 12 Mr. Goldberger and his client. Post, who 13 wants to go first? 14 MS. SHULLMAN: Mr. Edwards. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Edwards. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, inasmuch as 17 Mr. Epstein is relying on Judge Marra's 18 order to support the argument that the 19 nonprosecution agreement needs to remain 20 sealed, I'd like to address that if you are 21 inclined to be persuaded by that argument 22 at all. 23 The orders that have now been moved 24 into evidence are in case No. 80736, and 25 just to put that order in context in SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232488

22 1 actuality, the order says -- specifically 2 puts it back on this Court and confers 3 authority on this Court over this 4 particular document, when in the second 5 page of the February 12th, 2009 order, it's 6 misdated 2009 but it's a 2009 order, and 7 the last two sentences read: If and when 8 petitioners have a specific tangible need 9 to be relieved of the restrictions, they 10 should file an appropriate motion, which we 11 believe we have done in this case, if a 12 specific tangle need arises in the civil 13 cases, which are in circuit court in Palm 14 Beach County, then relief should be sought 15 there and notice to all parties, so to give 16 the Court context for that order, there was 17 a state court plea taken June 30th, 2008, 18 where Mr. Epstein pled guilty to the state 19 court cases as it related to two victims. 20 Now, parallel to that, there was an 21 investigation in federal court where the 22 United States attorney's office and the FBI 23 had more than 30 victims of sex abuse of 24 Mr. Epstein's and they were working with 25 these girls and their cases. Now, several SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232489

23 1 of those girls came to me and said, hey, 2 we're worried that there's a secret deal 3 going on between Epstein and the U.S. 4 attorney's office, so I filed an emergency 5 petition against the U.S. attorney's office 6 asking the federal court to intervene and 7 get in the middle of this and not let this 8 deal go forward without meaningfully 9 conferring with these girls because I was 10 alleging it violated the Crimes Victim's 11 Rights Act; these girls have a right to be 12 heard. That emergency motion was filed 13 July 7th, 2008, and I have that for the 14 Court, and I'd like to enter that into 15 evidence as well. 16 THE COURT: We'll mark that as ■'s 17 Exhibit No. 1. 18 MR. EDWARDS: And an emergency 19 hearing was held four days later in front 20 of Judge Marra, who was randomly assigned 21 to this case at the time the plea was taken 22 and the prosecution agreement was sealed. 23 Judge Marra had nothing to do with the 24 agreement, with Epstein, he didn't know 25 anything about it. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232490

24 1 So four days later now we're in front 2 of him and the United States attorney's 3 office says for the first time, sorry, 4 girls, you are too late, the deal has 5 already been done as to all of your federal 6 cases and it resulted in the nonprosecution 7 agreement that is attached in the state 8 court case. Judge Marra turned to us and 9 said, what is your remedy. 10 At that point in time I said we don't 11 know because we don't know what protections 12 are inside that agreement, so we want you 13 to unseal it, that's where the motion for 14 protective order came about where he gave 15 us the agreement so we can look at it and 16 determine what remedy, if any, was 17 available. Once we had that agreement 18 under the caveat that we were not able to 19 disseminate to third parties and reviewed 20 it and saw there is very little protection 21 for the girls, we asked to unseal it 22 completely, so that we can talk to third 23 parties, to victim's rights groups and get 24 some insight as to what our possible remedy 25 would be. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232491

25 1 And so our reason for wanting him to 2 unseal it at that time was we want to be 3 able to talk to other people, and that's 4 where this order from February 12th, 2009, 5 came in, and he denied that motion to 6 unseal it for three reasons. 7 First and foremost, this 8 nonprosecution agreement was not sealed in 9 my Court, you are talking to the wrong 10 judge, you need to go back, so we're 11 getting the back and forth here and it's 12 not in my court, I can't mess with some 13 other judge's order. Obviously, there was 14 a hearing held and that document was sealed 15 for a reason, I'm not privy for those 16 reasons, so I'm not going to override 17 whatever that judge was thinking when they 18 sealed that document. 19 Second, your reason is you just want 20 to talk to other people about them, and if 21 I'm going to override some other judge's 22 order, I need to have a more compelling 23 reason than you just want to talk to people 24 about. 25 Third, if and when a specific need SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232492

26 1 arises in any of the civil cases, which by 2 the time this order was coming about they 3 were stacking up in state and federal court 4 against Mr. Epstein, petition that court, 5 petition the appropriate court, and he 6 implies that appropriate court is this 7 court where it was initially sealed, which 8 we've done in this case. 9 This court has none of the problems 10 that Judge Marra had in that it was sealed 11 in this courtroom. We have noticed 12 Mr. Epstein to be heard at this hearing, 13 which is one of the requirements that 14 Judge Marra placed on us, and a specific 15 need has arisen. It has been sealed for 16 over a year now, correct, Mr. Goldberger is 17 correct, but the specific need is arising 18 because we are in the middle of discovery. 19 And this document is, as Mr. Goldberger 20 said, a great inducement to Mr. Epstein 21 pleaing guilty to sex crimes in state 22 court, and to ultimately being labeled a 23 sex offender, and the only document that 24 pertains to my clients, my client as a 25 victim of Mr. Epstein's sex crime, so at SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232493

27 1 the very least, we should be allowed to ask 2 people in deposition and do discovery about 3 how this document came about. There is a 4 need here. 5 THE COURT: I don't quite get -- I 6 don't think it's relevant to what my task 7 is here, but I don't get how it's relevant 8 in the civil cases what the federal 9 government did or didn't do with regard to 10 prosecuting Mr. Epstein. I don't get that, 11 but I don't know that I need to. 12 MR. EDWARDS: The standard for 13 discovery is just reasonably calculated to 14 lead to discovery of admissible evidence 15 and without going in depth we do have 16 intention -- 17 MR. GERBER: Your Honor, can i 18 MR. EDWARDS: And with respect to the 19 grand jury argument, you've seen the 20 document, it's only page five and six that 21 it's even referred to. 22 THE COURT: All right. Let me turn 23 it over to -- does the Post want to speak? 24 MS. SHULLMAN: I do, but I think he 25 wants to go first so whenever. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232494

28 1 THE COURT: I haven't considered your 2 motion to intervene yet. 3 MR. KUVIN: I don't believe it was an 4 objection. When it was filed, there was no 5 objection by Mr. Goldberger or Mr. Critton. 6 THE COURT: Are you going to advocate 7 by motion to intervene or are you going to 8 be jumping into the merits of the sealing? 9 MR. KUVIN: I'll jump right into the 10 merits, I'm not going to duplicate anything 11 that was just raised or anything that the 12 press is going to raise, I have an 13 individual interest. 14 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead 15 Mr. Kuvin. 16 MR. KUVIN: Very briefly, your Honor. 17 I represent II who has filed only a state 18 court action, she is not under the federal 19 jurisdiction of Judge Marra, she does not 20 subject herself to the federal jurisdiction 21 of Judge Marra, she was never provided an 22 opportunity to brief any issues before 23 Judge Marra with respect to that order that 24 was entered by Judge Marra or either order. 25 In addition, what's also very important is SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232495

29 1 she has never seen this document, so she 2 does not know what is in the contents of 3 the order, so the issue is raised by 4 Mr. Goldberger about the girls are able to 5 see the document and evaluate how they 6 might need to evaluate this document does 7 not apply to my client because she has 8 never seen it and, frankly, without 9 subjecting herself voluntarily to the ,10 jurisdiction of Judge Marra, which she 11 chooses not to do, then she cannot get this 12 document, otherwise she would have to go to 13 federal court, submit herself to the 14 jurisdiction of the federal court to then 15 see a state court document, which does not 16 make any sense because if it is a state 17 court document in state court, as 18 previously stated under Judge Marra's 19 order, it is within your purview and your 20 jurisdiction to rule on a state court 21 document. 22 Finally, with respect to why the 23 document may be relevant, the contents of 24 that document speak to the issues of 25 whether or not Mr. Epstein can or cannot SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232496

30 1 assert his fifth amendment right against 2 self incrimination, and we believe on a 3 good faith believe that on the contents of 4 that document speak to the issues of 5 whether or not he can or cannot deny the 6 claims that have been brought against him 7 both in state and federal court. In other 8 words, whether or not he must, in fact, 9 admit that he molested these 14 year old 10 girls, so, therefore, the content of that 11 document is paramount as to the issues in 12 the civil proceedings that are currently 13 pending in state court which is why we 14 would like that document. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank 16 you so very much. Ms. Shullman from the 17 Post. 18 MS. SHULLMAN: Thank you, your Honor. 19 I feel a little bit like I have stepped 20 into the twilight zone here, so I'd like to 21 address a couple of the things we've 22 addressed and get us to what we are really 23 here to do today. 24 THE COURT: I don't know if you are 25 referring specifically to the courtroom or SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232497

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 —23 24 25 the convoluted situation that brings us to the courtroom. MS. SHULLMAN: Just this whole federal state situation. There is no hill for the public and the press to march up in Judge Marra's court as Mr. Edwards pointed out, Judge Marra has specifically held the agreement was not filed in this case under seal or otherwise, so were I to march into Judge Marra's courtroom and do my whole public access spiel, he would say take it to you, your Honor, because it's not a record in my court. It is a record here, and in the state court as we talked about the last time, presumption of Mr. Epstein to While he filed we were here, there's a openness. The burden is on overcome that presumption. a very brief memorandum after our last hearing, which identified for interest, he has by no means met the test of either establishing those interest or establishing the remainder of that test whiff would be that closures no broader than necessary ineffective no other reasonable alternatives, so if I could, I'd SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232498

32 1 like to sort of focus us back to the 2 inquiry we're here to make today in this 3 court, and that is whether your Honor is 4 going to provide public access to two 5 records that are, I think, indisputably in 6 your Honor's court file in this court's 7 file. 8 It's a plea agreement and an 9 addendum; those are historically and 10 typically open records. 11 Mr. Goldberger mentioned that the 12 plea agreement was sort of incidentally 13 filed in this court file, and that it was 14 sort of an afterthought that happened. He 15 never came into court intending that it 16 even be part of the court file, but 17 Judge Pucillo specifically said, this is a 18 significant inducement to accepting the 19 plea in my court. This agreement that you 20 have with federal prosecutors is 21 significantly the reason why you're 22 entering this plea before me. And she took 23 those records into the court file 24 presumably because they are significant to 25 this litigation. Even if there was an SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232499

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 incidental filing, which cannot possibly be the case here, there is no mechanism in Florida law to call a Mulligan and to pull it out of the court file. As you know, the Floridians have a constitutional right of access, there's no mechanism in that law to just say, oopsy, let's take it out of the file, so they have to meet their burden and they have to show under Rule 2.420 that one of those interests is satisfied. They have identified four here. I have not heard them discuss them at any great length. But I will go through them quickly. The imminent threat to the fair, impartial orderly administration of justice, or to protect a compelling government interest. As your Honor is aware, the federal government is not here today. I have spoken with the state attorney's office who has indicated that their only interest is in protecting to the extent necessary because I've not seen these documents the identity of the victims of these crimes. The Post in its motion to intervene SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232500

34 1 has already set forth that we have no 2 objection to redacting the victim's names 3 if, in fact, that is required because we 4 haven't seen the agreement. To avoid 5 substantial injury to innocent third 6 parties, again, absolutely no showing on 7 that test. I have no burden at this point, 8 but I will simply state that the law in 9 Florida is clear that Mr. Epstein doesn't 10 have standing to assert that interest. 11 And, finally, something else I heard 12 nothing about to avoid substantial injury 13 to a party which, I guess, presumably would 14 be Mr. Epstein by disclosure of matters 15 protected by a privacy right not generally 16 inherent in this specific type of 17 proceedings. Again, I have not heard any 18 attempt to meet the burden on that issue, 19 however, Florida law is equally clear that 20 participants in crimes lose their privacy 21 interest in the matters and facts and 22 circumstances of the commission of those 23 crimes, so Mr. Epstein surely cannot 24 establish that there is a separate privacy 25 interest not inherent in a criminal SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232501

35 1 prosecution regarding the molestation of 2 young girls. 3 The circumstances under which closure 4 is allowed in Florida are exceedingly 5 narrow. We first -- and before we do 6 anything else -- have to find that one of 7 those interests is met here, that it exists 8 and that the movant has met its burden in 9 demonstrating that it's significant enough 10 to require the court to consider closure. 11 That's not the end of inquiry. And, of 12 course, I have not yet heard anything else 13 about that second half of the test which 14 talks about the idea that closure is no 15 broader than necessary to protect that 16 interest and that it would be effective and 17 that there are no other alternatives. 18 In speaking of the federal litigation 19 there are instances when both Mr. Epstein's 20 lawyers and the federal prosecutors have 21 placed portions of the agreement into the 22 public court file. There are -- thus 23 attempts to seal those records in the 24 federal litigation have been unsuccessful, 25 so part of this agreement the cat is SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232502

36 1 already out of the bag. But there is also 2 an enormous public interest in what's going 3 on here, apart from the idea that this man 4 is accused of having many, many victims who 5 were all young children which, of course, 6 in itself creates a lot of public concern, 7 the chief of police at the time sent a 8 letter to the state prosecutors and said, 9 what are you guys doing, how are you 10 handling this, this is highly unusual; I 11 don't like what I'm seeing here. And even 12 went so far as to say, state attorney's 13 office, should you all step away from this 14 case. 15 So we have public interest from the 16 perspective of the police chief questioning 17 the state attorney's office about whether 18 it's doing its job. We have public 19 interest that's spurned by the idea that 20 some of the victims in the federal 21 prosecution -- in the federal court claimed 22 they weren't aware of it, we just heard 23 Mr. Edwards talk about the fact that his 24 clients weren't aware of the agreement 25 unless it all went down, so we have a SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232503

37 1 significant public interest about how 2 everybody in this litigation is doing their 3 job. There is nothing more fundamentally 4 important than the ability of the public 5 and the press to observe how its 6 government, all branches of its government, 7 do its job. 8 There are multiple, as Mr. Edwards 9 also mentioned, multiple civil lawsuits 10 that have spurned as a result of 11 Mr. Epstein's conduct, and, again, the 12 public has an interest in what's going on 13 in civil litigation matters. 14 In short, this matter involves a 15 major public interest from a lot of 16 different levels. There is no basis for 17 closure that has been asserted here. It's 18 a heavy burden to meet. We start with the 19 idea that openness is the right thing to do 20 but there is essentially no purpose served 21 at this point by keeping these agreements 22 sealed in this case. 23 Unless your Honor has any questions, 24 I think that's it. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you so very SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232504

38 1 much. Ms. Burns, on behalf of the state of 2 Florida, anything you'd like to add or 3 advocate? 4 MS. BURNS: If I may, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Sure. 6 MS. BURNS: Good afternoon, your 7 Honor. 8 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 9 MS. BURNS: Your Honor, the State is 10 not here to take a position on whether or 11 not this court should seal -- continue to 12 seal the records or unseal the records. We 13 are here merely to uphold the state laws 14 which require all of us as members of the 15 judicial system to protect the rights of 16 the confidentiality of the victims. I do 17 see two issues here, your Honor. 18 One is if you decide to unseal the 19 records based upon the arguments that have 20 been presented to you, then the State would 21 ask that the court first do an incamera 22 viewing, not just merely open up that 23 portion of the file for viewing by all 24 interested parties, first, that the Court 25 do an incamera viewing to make two SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232505

39 1 evaluations. 2 Number one, does the document, in 3 fact, have a relationship to the criminal 4 case in the state matter. And, number two, 5 evaluate the right of public access versus 6 the victim's right to confidentiality. If 7 this Court does decide to unseal those 8 records, then the State would ask that this 9 Court before making the document public 10 access, then make certain that in place is 11 that the victim's identities are amended to 12 initials if their names are used. 13 The State does have a concern 14 regarding the argument of the Federal Rule 15 Six in that is this Court bound by a 16 federal rule which perhaps has been made 17 unenforcible by virtue of making it a part 18 of the state file, so I think the Court 19 also would need to address that issue 20 before making its ruling. 21 THE COURT: All right, great. Thank 22 you so much. 23 MS. BURNS: Thank you, Judge. 24 THE COURT: One last chance for the 25 federal government, they're not here and SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232506

40 1 I'll let rebuttal of any other 2 presentation, Mr. Goldberger, or, 3 Mr. Critton, you'd like to make. 4 MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, your 5 Honor. As to the last argument made by 6 Ms. Burns as to the applicability of 7 Federal Rule 6 of the Rules of Federal 8 Criminal Procedure it's something that we 9 learned in the law school that the 10 supremacy clause controls and to the extent 11 there's a conflict between the federal 12 doctrine and the state doctrine, the 13 supremacy clause requires the federal rule 14 of law to apply and to control. And 15 certainly in this case you cannot use a 16 state procedure to circumvent a federal 17 rule of criminal procedure that confers 18 secrecy to a grand jury proceeding. 19 And the Palm Beach Post response to 20 the argument never made note of the grand 21 jury rule, they simply avoided that issue 22 and that in our mind is equally important 23 as the fact in the interest of comity this 24 Court should defer to the rulings of 25 Judge Marra already. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232507

41 1 As to Mr. Kuvin's argument that he 2 has a client that is in state court and is 3 not in federal court and therefore he 4 doesn't have a remedy in federal court. 5 With all due respect to Mr. Kuvin, that's 6 similarly wrong. Judge Marra's order 7 spebifically dealt with a class of 8 individuals who were identified as victims 9 of Mr. Epstein's conduct, and Judge Marra's 10 order says that anyone who's been 11 identified by the United States attorney's 12 office as a victim has right to the 13 nonprosecution agreement under the same 14 rules. 15 Just so the Court understands, I know 16 we are talking like the Court understands 17 everything about this case. There was a 18 list of victims that was created at the 19 time that the nonprosecution agreement was 20 entered into and Mr. Kuvin's client is on 21 that list. That list was created by the 22 U.S. attorney's office. He has the same 23 rights to the nonprosecution agreement as 24 if he filed this case in federal court and 25 he knows that we've told him that he has SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232508

42 1 that access. 2 As to the fact that the 3 nonprosecution agreement is presumably not 4 filed in the federal case in our last 5 hearing in front of Judge Marra on June 5th 6 -- I'm sorry, June 12th, Mr. Edwards 7 advised Judge Marra that he had, in fact, 8 filed a nonprosecution agreement to no 9 one's surprise under seal in the federal 10 file, so the nonprosecution agreement 11 according to Mr. Edwards' declaration at 12 that hearing is contained in the federal 13 court system. 14 For all of those reasons, your Honor, 15 and the reasons that I previously indicated 16 to the Court, we would ask the Court to 17 defer to the federal court in this matter. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very 19 much. Here is what I'm planning on doing, 20 so you know where I'm going on this. I'll 21 make an oral announcement and I'll follow 22 it up with a written order so that you all 23 can have something to take to wherever you 24 want to take it. 25 I find that the appropriate procedure SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232509

43 1 to seal or close these documents has not 2 been met, so I'll deny the motion to seal 3 the documents. I'll grant the motion to 4 unseal them. I will take a look at the 5 documents. I will redact out of them 6 the -- what I'll do is, I'll leave the 7 originals intact sealed in the court file 8 to protect the names of any underage 9 victims. 10 I will make copies of those. I'll 11 redact out the names leaving -- expose the 12 initials of any of the individuals. I'll 13 get that done -- I'll get my written order 14 out granting and denying the respective 15 motions hopefully by the end of today. If 16 not today, tomorrow. I plan on releasing 17 the redacted versions probably Monday, so 18 that those will be available for public 19 consumption on Monday. 20 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, thank 21 you. Thank you for the oral pronouncement. 22 Your Honor, based on the Court's ruling, we 23 do have a motion to stay disclosure of the 24 nonprosecution agreement. The rules of 25 appellate procedure require us to file that SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232510

44 1 before, your Honor. 2 Your Honor, we do intend to take 3 certiorari on this to the Fourth District 4 Court. 5 THE COURT: That's why I figure 6 between the written rule and the disclosure 7 give you a chance to catch your breath and 8 do that. I guess you might want that. Is 9 Monday 5 p.m. enough time for you to get 10 over to the DCA? 11 MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, your 12 Honor, the Rule of Appellate Procedure 13 maintains jurisdiction with you on this 14 matter to entertain the motion to stay. 15 THE COURT: So I need to handle the 16 motion to stay? 17 MR. GOLDBERGER: Correct, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Do you want to argue that 19 now? Do you want to take a look at that, 20 catch your breath, come back and see me 21 Monday sometime; what's your pleasure? 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: We're ready to do it 23 now, your Honor. We're ready to do it now. 24 THE COURT: All right. Interveners, 25 your thoughts. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232511

45 1 MR. KUVIN: Matter of procedure 2 point, I just want to make sure that the 3 motion to intervene is, in fact, granted. 4 THE COURT: You're BB's motion to 5 intervene is granted. Do you have a 6 written order for me to sign off on there? 7 MR. KUVIN: I can submit that. 8 THE COURT: Why don't you catch your 9 breath and come back tomorrow and I'll hear 10 argument. It will give me a chance to read 11 the motion, check out the rules, take a 12 look, got to get myself gassed up. Anybody 13 want to drop anything off for me to read 14 before the hearing, please do that. Why 15 don't we do that tomorrow morning, and why 16 don't we reconvene here tomorrow at 1:30 on 17 the motion to stay. 18 MR. GOLDBERGER: That's fine. 19 THE COURT: How does your schedule 20 look? 21 MR. GERBER: Your Honor, is it 22 possible to have it a little later, perhaps 23 24 25 an hour later tomorrow? THE COURT: 2:30. MR. GERBER: If possible. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232512

46 1 THE COURT: How about a little later 2 than that still, let me take a look at our 3 official calendaring system here. 4 MR. CRITTON: Judge Colbath, I'm gone 5 tomorrow, I'm going to Gainesville at one 6 or 12:30-ish. I told my wife I would be 7 home at one. My daughter's birthday, 21, 8 she's having a party, I plan to be there. 9 Can we do it tomorrow morning any time, it 10 would be great. 11 THE COURT: Tomorrow morning is ugly. 12 This isn't going to take long. 13 MS. BURNS: This is a five-minute 14 motion. 15 THE COURT: Why don't we do this, 16 meet at 8:15? 17 MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, I'm not 18 going to be able to get my kids to school 19 if I have to be here at 8:15. My husband 20 is in California right now. 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: I don't mean to jump 22 in. I wonder if we can do some of this 23— telephonically. 24 MS. SHULLMAN: Yes, I can appear by 25 phone or I can have one of my partners. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232513

47 1 THE COURT: In the morning what would 2 be a good start time for you? 3 MS. SHULLMAN: Nine would be getter. 4 I can't drop them off before eight. 5 THE COURT: It's going to be brief 6 argument, let's do it 9:00 tomorrow 7 morning; 9:00 work for you? 8 MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. Thank you. 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just very briefly, 10 the Court is going to look at the 11 nonprosecution agreement and do some 12 redacting, I believe. I just need to 13 advise the court in addition to Mr. Epstein 14 and perhaps victims mention the 15 nonprosecution agreement, there are third 16 parties who the Court needs to look about 17 redacting their names also, and that's 18 contained in the nonprosecution agreement. 19 In other words, there are other 20 people beside Mr. Epstein and Mr. Victims 21 whose names are mentioned in the 22 nonprosecution agreement, and I would ask 23 the Court to look at those names also for 24 the purpose of redacting. 25 THE COURT: I'll like a look. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232514

48 1 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, those are 2 not names of victims, those are 3 co-conspirators as listed in the agreement 4 and we would object to any redaction of 5 those names. I don't think there's any 6 standing to ask for that. 7 THE COURT: I'll take a look. All 8 right. See you all tomorrow morning at 9 nine. If you want to send anything to me 10 later this afternoon or tomorrow morning 11 before we take the bench, I'm happy to 12 receive it. Have a good afternoon. 13 (Proceedings concluded.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232515

49 1 2 CERTIFICATE 3 4 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 5 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. 6 I, SUSAN S. WIGGINS, R.P.R. Official 7 Court Reporter for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, 8 Criminal Division, in and for Palm Beach County, 9 Florida; do hereby certify that I was authorized 10 to and did report the foregoing proceedings before 11 the Court at the time and place aforesaid; and 12 that the preceding pages numbered from 1 to 48, 13 inclusive, represent a true and accurate 14 transcription of my steno notes taken at said 15 proceedings. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 17 affixed my official signature this 29th day of 18 June, 2009. 19 20 21 22 _ _ 23 — 24 25 C2644424 (.143ttli 4 SUSAN S. WIGGINS, P.R. .P SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232516