Recipient Read (USAFLS) Siornan, Jeff (USAFLS) (USAFLS) Read: 8/15/2008 11:17 AM 6 EFTA00183550

bc,c-f-04au-- 6,4,01,11AL Yhti!d (..!(-1-e• ca-e. —vviore- vidirv) -k-of -tc) prei,c4-0-"tt hafyNA.- a.01. -u-AArto Y-44 - lckagevy (cabal: - vv Ic pka- iraRctkr -4- C66 iftks -Sef(zsi: av" :••*_Q Matz-4'6-- j 71. b-cr;uL/A tt) oto 7b 17,77)-e_. 104 y ”x7C, 1_, "et reap cA-ka_ f t -)_!.10)9_1241,17 _ frad ir) //exid EpatiA,6 e44co 1We c.ktirict 0K arirocutailaua ao6e- ta& odvarly, /(/u, akve (Ans-criiLdis c v,,,n;ryis -2e, *tia( fQI;e7 i4y6(Axi nsci4417 -s oteLi cA 41) rai/ Op -;7 \I:L*7 ci() 6 _ t a ,c71W (Lin 17))c• c1 21 4 4:en,RA, ck di Ekrer,igruL • ekzei wi 11 if EFTA00183551

Y\ NtiVc? '\(, p >g) ankkAn CO - C I5WAACIAA ,y0ft3": Ask -I-kJ yak -ey401 an .cre_\ 4C.Inv.4 61(.711dY7 (i'vvu:tivv). C e k w a h < 1 1 2 1 . A . E O N - 1 ij LO'e, °My‘tiraditet.TcuAz /.v- 2 E. &yip cc kstkA v-t cti — L.A0-- ci)no, fl \vN CinVid , ) Ickcs \t. cite_ --tilca II S h a insms 1 1Ar. C k eaJNY-ro-Yrko IL* - 113 McsyYU .t\J) ItAr. rein R .! Eck fyil v-1 "4\1 civil Soj t-h O,9Ct CgrAtcjr2_ ; 4-S Otha t% _ cA aLeic t#0401, Oilix-014 EFTA00183552

08/18/2008 17:40 FAX et 002/003 Jay P. lalkowat, P.C. To Cell Wnlor nlrodlr kakowdetekaklafkl.COnl VIA FACSIMILE KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AP41 AH1114110 IltRIKINVIIM Ciligrorra Cnntcr 153 Eata Ord Stencil Now York, Now York 10022-4011 (22) 44a-4i100 wwwkalotarkt corn August I R, 2008 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Marie: Fauzintikt: I write in response to your letter dated August 15. 2008 regarding the civil restitution portion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). Thank you for confirming our position that the December modification proposal is not part of the Agreement. As expressed by U.S. Attorney Acosta in his December IV. 2007 letter, the unorthodox use of a civil restitution statute in a federal plea agreement, which resulted in state charges against Mr. Epstein. has caused several miscommunications with respect to the implementation of the terms of that Agreement. In order to avoid any further miscommunications and to ensure that the IS U.S.C. *2255 aspects of the Agreement are carried out in a proper manner, it would he useful to come to an agreement as to the implementation of the civil restitution portion of the Agreement. As we have previously stated. Mr. Epstein filly intends to abide by the terms of the Agreement, and we hope you appreciate that our ellbrts to resolve any misunderstandings between Mr. Epstein and the government about the tones or the Agreement arc intended only to ensure that it is carried out fully and fairly. In an effort to avoid having either party unintentionally breach the Agreement. we suggest that steps be taken to clarify the meaning of paragraphs 7-10. It would he extremely helpful to both sides to have an independent third party consider the Agreement and offer the final word on how certain c a uses should be interpreted and satisfied. Because the government has already enlisted Judge to select the attorney representative under the Agreement. we would be amenable to his serving in this role. In order to come to an agreement on the exact procedure by which the identified individuals will obtain restitution. I am providing you with our thoughts on three issues below. Chicano Hong Kong London Los Angolos Munich San rrancioco Washitigton.1).C. EFTA00183553

08/18/2008 17:40 FAX 8 003/003 KIRKLAND & ELLIS RP August I S. 2008 Page 2 Once we come to an agreement on the following and you provide a complete and final list of identified individuals. it will be appropriate to notify them. First. I am concerned by your suggestion that you might want to increase the number of individuals on the government's list. I had expected the number to have become smaller, because when we spoke prior to signing the agreement, you told me that the government already had a list, and we were informed thematicr that the September 24, 2007 list had been narrowed. Certainly. anyone who was not on the list prior to September 24. 2007 cannot permissibly be added to the list. Second. we will cooperate with the government to reach to an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of individuals. Based on the Agreement. the information contained in the notification should he limited to (I) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact intbrmation of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. (Epstein, the terms of the Agreement other than paragraphs 7.10. and the identity of other identified Third. as you arc aware. the Addendum requires that "the panics will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her customary hourly rote for representing such victims subject to the provisions of Paragraph C. infra.- We will certainly cooperate with the government to drat) such a joint submission and would he pleased to submit draft language to you for such a joint submission. I look forward to working with you to resolve these matters. I believe we have a mutual interest in moving past all of these issues so that the civil restitution aspects of the Agreement can be fulfilled. Sincerely. 441 i.elkiawtt% cc: Northern Division EFTA00183554

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AM. Alla WOO lACIF311‘111•1. Jay P. tolkow4i. P.C. To C-0lWolor Directly- lolkowdzkauldand.cOm Cdigf0110 CA11101 153 5:1111 5310 31.1101 Now York. Now York 10022.4611 (212) 446-4(M0 wwW.lorklond Corn August I II, 2008 % 1s.. Wilkal United S • ey's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: slept)! Epsicin Dear Marie: Factamile: I write in response to your letter dated August 15. 2008 regarding the civil restitution _Minion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Ago.tilnenr). Thank you for confirming Aturpesit ion that the Deceitifier. Modification proposal is not part of the Agreement. As expressed by U.S. Attorney Acosta in his December 19.3007 letter. the unorthodox use of a civil restitution 'statute in a federal plea agreeMent. which resulted in state charges. against 'Mr. Epstein. .has caused several miscommunications with respect to the implementation of the terms of that Agreement. In order to avoid any further miscommunications and to ensure that the IS U.S.C. 2255 aspects of the Agreement are carried out in a proper manner. it would be useful to come to an agreement as to 09 implementation of At: civil restitution portion of:* Agreement, As we.have previously stared. Mr. Epstein fully intends TO abide by the terms of the Agreement, and we hope Yeti aPPreciale that our 0rIbilS.10. resolve any mistmdersumdings between Mr. Epstein and the government about the terms of the Agreement are intended only to ensure that it is carried out fully and fairly. In an effort to avoid having either party unintentionally breach the Agreement. we suggest that steps be taken to clarify the meaning of paragraphs 7-10. It would he extremely helpful to both sides to have an independent third party consider the Agn.tncnt and offer the final word on how certain clauses should be interpreted and satisfied. BeCause the government has already enlisted Judge to select the attorney representative under the Agreement. We would be amenable to his serving in this role. In order to come to an agreement on the exact procedure by whiclt the identilied individuals will obtain restitution: I am providing you with our thoughts on three issues below. GloCoon Hong Kong London Los Angolos Munkti Son Francisca Washingtim, EFTA00183555

qgd •••••••I •••••) KIRKLAND & ELLIS Lit August 1 S. 2008 Page 2 Once we come to an agreement on the following and you provide a complete and final list of identified individuals. it will be appropriate to notify them. First. I. am concerned by your suggestion that you might want to increase the number of individuals on the government's list. I had expected the:number to have become smaller, because when we spoke prior to signing the agreement you told me that the government already had a list. and we were informed thereafter that the September 24. 2007 list had been narrowed. Certainly. anyone who was not on the list prior to September 24. 2007 cannot permissibly he added to the list. Second. we will cooperate with the government to reach to an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of individuals. Based on the Agreement. the information contained in the notification should be limited to (I) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact hannation of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the 'Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10. and the identity of other identified individuals. Third, as you are aware. the Addendum requires that "the parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party ft:flitting 'tile role of the 'attletie.Y. representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her customary hourly rate for representing-such victims subject to the provisions of Paragraph C. infra?' We will certainly cooperate with the government to draft such a joint submission and would he pleased to subinit draft language to you for such a joint submission. I look forward to working with you to resolve these matters. 1 believe we have a mutual • .interest in moving past all of these issues so. that the civil restitution aspects of the Agreement cas:be • Sincerely. I.elkowttz . cc: Chia. Nonhern Division EFTA00183556

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, N -4611 Phone: Fax: ( 446-4900 Pleas* notify us immediately if any pages arc not rocoivod. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NO - • IATELY AT: To: levillafana - CC: IIMMEI Company: United States Attorney's Mee Company: United States Attorney's Mice Fax #: =I Fax It: Direct #: Direct #: From: Jay P. Letkowilz Date: . Pagesttaxwee: Angialt I 8. 200g 3 Fax IS Direct #: Message: EFTA00183557

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AM? MIN inttea rmorosewurc Jay P. Lk!Koval& P.C. To Cal elly. lotkovirkla awn VIA FACSIMILE CdrioWO Conon 163 East 53rd StrOOr Now York. Now York 10022-4611 FUGNIII/IIIE (217) 446-4AA0 M1214164900 www.lorkland corn August 1R, 200R Villafano United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 .Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Marie: I write in response to your letter dated August 15. 2008 regarding the civil restitution portion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"). 'Thank you for confirming our position that the December modification proposal is not part of the Agreement. As expressed by U.S. Attorney Acosta in his December 19. 2007 letter, the unorthodox use of a civil restitution 'statute in a federal plea agreement. which resulted in state charges against Mr. Epstein. has caused several miscommunications with respect to the implementation of the terms of that Agreement. In order to avoid any further miscommunications and to ensure that the IS U.S.C. § 2255 aspects of the Agreement are carried out in a proper manner. it would he useful to come to an agreement as to the implementation of the civil restitution portion of the Agreement. As we have previously stated. Mr. Epstein fully intends to abide by the terms of the Agreement, and we hope you appreciate that our efforts to resolve any misunderstandings between Mr. Epstein and the government about the terms of the Agreement arc intended only to ensure that it is carried out filly and fairly. In an effort to avoid having either party unintentionally breach the Agreement. we suggest that steps be taken to clarify the meaning of paragraphs 7-10. It would he extremely - helpful to both sides to have an independent third party consider the Agreement and offer the final word on how certain clauses should be interpreted and satisfied. Because the government has already enlisted Judge to select the attorney representative under the Agreement. we would be amenable to his serving in this role. In order to come to an agreement on the exact procedure by which the identified individuals will obtain restitution. I am providing you with our thoughts on three issues below. Chap Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco WO-40*M U.C. EFTA00183558

.vu KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP August 18. 2008 Page 2 Once we come to an agreement on the following and you provide a complete and final list of identified individuals. it will be appropriate to notify them. First. I am concerned by your suggestion that you might want to increase the number of individuals on the government's list. I had expected the number to have become smaller, because when we spoke prior to signing the agreement you told me that the government already had a list, and we were informed thereafter that the September 24. 2007 list had been narrowed. Certainly. anyone who was not on the list prior to September 24. 2007 cannot permissibly he added to the list. Second. we will cooperate with the government to reach to an agreement as to substance of the notification to be sent to the government's list of individuals. Bases) on the Agreement. - the information contained in the notification should he limited to (I) the language provided in the Agreement dealing with civil restitution (paragraphs 7-10) and (2) the contact information of the selected attorney representative. We object to the inclusion of additional information about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, the terms of the Agreement other than paragraphs 7-10. and the identity of other identified individuals. Third, as you are aware. the Addendum requires that "the parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to pay such attorney representative his or her customary hourly rate for representing such victims subject to the provisions of Paragraph C. infra." We will certainly cooperate with the government to draft such a joint submission and would he pleased to submit draft language to you for such a joint submission. I look forward to working with you to resolve these matters. I believe we have a mutual interest in moving past all ()I' these issues so that the civil restitution aspects of the Agreement can be fulfilled. Sincerely. cc: Chief; Northern Division EFTA00183559

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Cingroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, Phon Fax 4611 Please notify us immediately if any pages arc not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOlia DIATELY AT: To: Company: Fax #: Direct #: United States Attorney's Office Company: Fax 0: Direct #: United States Attorney's Office From: Date: Pageswbover Jay P. Lelkowily. August 18. 2008 Fax #: Direct #: Message: EFTA00183560

t!8/o% Wietpite, Cirtmucv EFTA00183561

sty IA Pcvelu-r to Lek' k..r adc EFTA00183562

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)8204711 Facsimile: August 21, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Letkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your response to my earlier letter. The U.S. Attorney's Office shares in your desire to implement all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. As you are aware, the jointly-approved Special Master, Judge , has already selected an attorney representative, Robert Josefsberg, who was accepted by both parties. The Office has conferred with Mr. Josefsberg, who has agreed to continue in that role. In October 2007, Mr. Josefsberg expended time, effort, and funds in preparing to serve as the attorney representative, and he will need a written confirmation from you that his future fees and expenses will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Please provide me with a copy of that correspondence for my file. With that matter settled, I believe that the requirement for a joint written submission to the Special Master has been extinguished. Nonetheless, I have no objection to attempting to create a joint statement to assist Mr. Josefsberg in serving his duties. Regarding your suggestion that we ask Judge to "offer the final word on how certain clauses should be interpreted and satisfied," I believe that the Agreement speaks for itself. EFTA00183563

JAY P. LEFKOWFTZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. Aucus-r 21, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, following Mr. Epstein's sentencing, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided Mr. Epstein's counsel with a list of the individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and none of those names will be deleted. By his agreement, Mr. Epstein sought to resolve liability for all criminal activity known to the United States as of the time of his plea and sentencing, and he is responsible for damages to all victims of that criminal activity. Copies of the victim notifications will continue to be provided to counsel for Mr. Epstein. Please let me know whether I should continue to list Mr. Goldberger as the point of contact for the civil litigation. Regarding your suggestion on the content of the notification letters, I intend to use the same format that was used in the letters previously approved by Messrs. Goldberger and Tein, except that I will include the language from the September and October agreements. I have enclosed a draft herewith. Because I previously provided the victims with incorrect information—albeit with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel—it is imperative that I correct the error promptly. Accordingly, if you have any substantive objections to the letter, please advise me by tomorrow afternoon. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By Assistant United United States Attorney cc: Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183564

U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile: August 22, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Michael E. Dutko, Esq. Bogenschutz & Dutko 600 S. Andrews Ave, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2802 DRAFT Re: Jeffrey Epstein, AMENDED NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Dutko: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following amended notice to your client, Some of the information contained in the July 20, 2008 letter to Ms. was inaccurate, so please advise her of the following changes. As you were previously advised, on June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors to engage in prostitution), in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case Nos. 2006-cf- 009454A3OOCMB and 2008-cf-009381AXXXMB) and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment to be followed by an additional six months' imprisonment, followed by twelve months of Community Control 1, with conditions of community confinement imposed by the Court. In light of the entry of the guilty plea and sentence, the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions, including the following: 1. An independent Special Master was assigned the task of selecting an attorney representative to represent the victims in connection with civil EFTA00183565

MICHAEL E. Duna), ESQ. AMENDED NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM AUGUST 22, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 3 DR AElf litigation between the victims and Mr. Epstein. The Special Master selected Robert Josefsberg, Esq. of the firm Podhurst Orseck, P.A., a highly-respected and experienced attorney. Ms. is not obligated to use Mr. Josefsberg as her civil attorney, but, as explained in greater detail below, Mr. Joscfsberg's services will be provided at no cost to Ms. because Mr. Epstein is obligated to pay the costs and fees of the attorney-representative. Also, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys can only contact Ms. via Mr. Josefsberg, assuming that she would like Mr. Josefsberg to serve as her attorney. 2. If Ms. elects to file suit against Mr. Epstein pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, Mr. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Mr. Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his ri t to contest damages up to an amount as a ed to between Ms. and Mr. Epstein, so long as Ms. elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and she waives any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, Epstein's agreement with the United States, his waivers and failure to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 3. As stated above, Mr. Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed a ainst him. Thus, if after consideration of potential settlements, Ms. and Mr. Josefsberg elect to file a contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 or she elects to pursue any other contested remedy, the obligation to pay the costs of the attorney representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in Section 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney representative, shall cease. Mr. Josefsberg will be contactins=vithin the next week to explain these terms and to determine if he may contact Ms. directly. If you would like to contact Mr. EFTA00183566

MICHAEL E. DUTKO, ESQ. AMENDED NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM AUGUST 22, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 3 Josefsberg directly, he can be reached at 305 358-2800. If Ms. has selected other counsel to represent her, or if she does so in the future, and she decides to pursue a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that he be contacted at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorne reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If Ms. would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature. As I stated in my earlier notification, please understand that neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation can take part in or otherwise assist in civil litigation, but we again thank you and your client for all of her assistance during the course of this investigation. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DRAFT By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY cc: Robert Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Goldberger, Esq. EFTA00183567

`1 2-2-(°1 LakissaZ (4-rli AMCV EFTA00183568

08/22/2008 17:09 FAX la 002/003 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP MD Al MIMED 1•AMINERSI Mrs Cillgroup Conlor 153 E0615ano Shiest Now York. Now York 10022.4411 Jay P I olkowk:, P C TO Call Writer Ofrealy 440-4910 polkowilt.p..kurklowl cum VIA FACSIMILE United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein I /car (M) 44G-4800 wow k Aland con August 21, 200R Facsimile I vtrite this letter to correct certain misstatements made in your letter dated August 21. 2008. and the accompanying draft notification. First. you state that "Mr. Josefsberg expended time. effort and funds in preparing to serve as attorney representative in October of 2007.- Neither I. nor any other attorney on Mr. Epstein's defense team. was notified of this work by Mr. Joselsberg. • Second. in the victim notification letter, no judge "has ordered that the United States" make available a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Section (d) of the Order to Compel Production and Protective Order provides that if any of the alleged •"victims" and/or their attorneys - request the opportunity to review the Agreement.- the USA° shall comply with the request so long as those individuals agree not to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement. There is no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged "victims•" with notice Thal the Non-Prosecution Agreement is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the Agreement. Given that the individuals on the list will have an attorney representative who is fully aware of the 1C1'1115 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. this conflicting paragraph of your notice is unma %miry in any event and should he excised. Third. misstatements in your prior notification were not made "with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel." Fourth. we are concerned with your open-ended description of Mr. lipstcin's responsibilities regarding civil restitution. 'the resolution of liability pursuant to IR U.S.C. EFTA00183569

08/22/2008 17:09 FAX al 003/003 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP August 2s, stoat Page 2 2235 is as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and the Addendum to the Agreement. no more, no less. Filth. while you state, in your letter. that the USA() (foes not intend to delete any of the names on the list provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel, you do not confirm that the prior list is final and complete. There can be no expansion of the list of individuals that you informed us had been memorialized as of September 24. 2007 and disclosed to Mr. I ipstein on June 30. 2008 (the date ()I' sentence pursuant to the Agreement's disclosure requirements). Please confirm the exact name and number of individuals the government plans on notifying as provided for under the Agreement. Sixth. based on express language in prior communications from your Office. we arc in agreement that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement are in need of clarification and implementation. We will work with the attorney representative in attempting to reach a fair resolution of the outstanding civil matters in a manner that is in accordance with the Agreement. Seventh, we have previously conimunieated our objections to the propriety of the attorney representative engaging in contested litigation. We again dispute the assertion that Mr. JoM'sberg's duties include filing contested litigation. In any case, that issue is not ripe thr resolution at this point, but again, given his agreement to be the attorney representative. we will address these match directly with Mr. Jnscfsbcrg. • Sin er ly. tiy P. I.elkowitz cc: Chief. Northern Division EFTA00183570

08/22/2008 17:09 FAX eoot/003 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street Now York. N •r 1 r r. -4611 Phone: Fax: Please notify us immediately it any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY S IMMEDIATELY AT: To: U CC: Company: United States Attorney's Office Company: United States Attorney's Office Fax #: Fax it: Direct #: Direct it: From: Date: Ipagsw/cover: Fax It: Direct #: Jay 1'. Lefisowitz Aueust 22.200R 3 Message: EFTA00183571

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP mounusim PARINLOSI ties Creamer) COMM 153 East 53ra Street . New York. Now York 10027-401 I Jay P I ofkowitz, P C To Call Wrkor Directly Fars...not IMI-410-4910 viww kilkizind corn :212) 446 4900 ilorkoyntzfloorkiond coin August 22,2008 VIA FACSIMII.F. (561) R20-8777 •'s Mice Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dcar Marie: I write this letter to correct certain misstatements made in your letter dated August 21. 2008. and the accompanying draft notification. First. you state that "Mr. Josefsberg expended time. effort and funds in preparing to serve as attorney representative in October of 2007." Neither I. nor any other attorney cm Mr. F.pstein's defense team. was notified of this work by Mr. Josef-shag. Second. in the victim notification letter, no judge "has ordered that the United States" make available a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Section (d) of the Order to Compel Production and Protective Order provides that if any of the alleged "victims" and/or their attorneys "request the opponunity to review the Agreement." the USAO shall comply with the request so long as those individuals agree not to disclose the Non-Proseeution Agreement. There is no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged "victims" with notice that the Non-Prosecution Agreement is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the Agreement. Given that the individuals on the list will have an attorney representative who is fully aware of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. this conflicting paragraph of your notice is tmnt.t.t.m.ary in any event and should be excised. Third. misstatements in your prior notification were not made "with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel." Fourth, we are concerned with your open-ended description of Mr. Epstein's responsibilities regarding civil restitution. The resolution of liability pursuant to 13U.S.C. EFTA00183572

ptUU4/vua KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP August 22. 2008 Page 2 * 2255 is as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and the Addendum to the Agreement. no more. uo less. Piffles while you state, in your letter, that the USAO does not intend to delete any of the names on the list provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel, you do not confirm that the prior list is final and complete. There can be no expansion of the list of individuals that you informed us had been memorialized as of September 24. 2007 and disclosed to Mr. Epstein on June 30. 2008 (the date of sentence pursuant to the Agreement's disclosure requirements). Please confirm the exact name and number of individuals the government plans on notifyinµ as provided for tinder the Agreement. Sixth. based on express language in prior communications from your Office. we are in agreement that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement are in need of clarification and implementation. We will work with the attorney representative in attempting to reach a 1:iir resolution of the outstanding civil matters itt a manner that is in accordance with the Agreement. Seventh, we have previously communicated our objections to the propriety of the attorney representative engaging in contested litigation. We again dispute the assertion that Mr. Josekherg's duties include filing contested litigation. In any ease, that issue is not ripe for resolution at this point. hut again, given his agreement to be the attorney representative. we will address these matters directly with Mr. Josefsberg. Sin 104. • P. Iselkowitz cc: Chief. Northern Division EFTA00183573

Val WV 41VVO KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 1 -4611 Phone: Fax: Please notify us immediately if any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AT: To: CC: Company: linked States Attorney's Office Company: llnited States Attorney's Office Fax II: Direct #: Fax #: Direct #: From: • Date: Pagostiotover: Fax #: Direct It: Jay P. Leficowity. August 22, 200R 3 Message: EFTA00183574

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP N40 Amumm PARTNERS' MS CrIletoup Center 153 East 53w Strout . New York. New York 100224611 Jay P I olkowitz. P To Call Wilier Mealy ParsonOe M-eltia1970 wow kektmnO coin (214 446.4900 lierkowtz@koklosei cum August 22, 20011 VIA FACSIMILE (561) R20-8777 d's Office Southern District of Florida • 300 South Australian Avenue. Suite 400 West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear I write this Icier to correct certain misstatements made in your lever dated August 71. 2008. and the accompanying draft notification. . • First, you state that "Mr. Josefsberg expended time. effort and funds in preparing to serve as attorney representative in October of 2007." Neither 1. nor :my other attorney on Mr. Epstein's defense team. was notified of this work by Mr. Josefsberg. Second. in the victim notification letter, no judge "has ordered that the United States" make available a copy of the Non-Prosecution. Agreement. Section (d) of the Order to Compel Production and Protective Order provides that if any of the • alleged "victims" - and/or their attorneys "request the opportunity to review the Agreement." the DWI shall comply with the request soiling as those individuals agree not to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 'there is nit court order requiring the government to provide the alleged - victims" with notice that the Non-Prosecution Agreement is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the Agreement. Given that the individuals on the list will have an attorney representative who is fully aware of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. - this conflicting paragraph ol'your notice. is unnecessary in any event and should be excised. Third. misstatements in your prior notification were not made "with the approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel." Fourth, we arc .concerned with your openrended description of Mr. lipstein's responsibilities regarding civil restitution. resolution of liability pursuant to 18 EFTA00183575

uunuu4 KIRKLAND & ELLIS I.I.P August 22. 200X Page 2 § 2233 is as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and the Addendum to the Agreement. no more. no less. Fifth. while 'you state, in your letter, that the USA() does not intend to delete any of the names on the list provided to Mi..Epstein's counsel, you do not confirm that the prior list is final and complete. There can he no expansion of the list of individuals that you informed us had been memorialized as of September14. 2007 and disclosed to Mr. Epstein on June 30. 2008 (the date of sentence pursuant to the Agreement's disclosure requirements). Please conlinn the exact name and number of individuals the government plans on notifying as provided kne under the Agreement. Sixth: based on express language in prior communications from your Ofilee, we are in agreement that paragraphs 7 and R of the Agreement are in need of clarification and implementation. We will work with the attorney representative in attempting to reach a fair resolution of the outstanding civil matters in a manner that is in accordance with the Agreement. Seventh, we (sive previously communicated our objections to the propriety of the attorney representative engaging in contested litigation. We again dispute the assertion that Mr. Niselkberg's duties include filing contested litigation. In any ease, that issue is not ripe for resolution at this point, but again, given his agreement to be the attorney representative. we will address these matters directly with Mr. Josefsberg. cc: Chief. Northern Division Sin • • P. Letkowitz. / EFTA00183576

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street a l ip New York. N 1 -4611 Phone: Fax: Please notify us immediately if any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED, MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY S IMMEDIATELY AT: To: Company: Fax #: Direct #: linked Stales Attorney's Office CC: Company: Fax #: Direct #: t Inited States Attorney's Office From: Date: PageswIcover. Fax #: Direct #: Jay P. Leitowitz August 22, 2008 3 Message: EFTA00183577

"PM91-11,111 04 Ari A-)riv %oloril5 EFTA00183578

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, Ft 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile: August 26, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay and Roy: Thank you for your letter of August 22nd. I write to follow up on some of the points that you raised. The list of thirty-two victims that was provided to Mr. Goldberger via certified mail on July 10, 2008 is the final list. As I mentioned, copies of the notification letters to each victim will be carbon-copied to an attorney for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Josefsberg. I asked you to advise me whether Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as the contact person for the civil litigation in the amended victim notification letters and whether he should receive the carbon copies of those letters as they are sent. I also asked you to provide me with written confirmation of your agreement to pay Mr. Josefsberg's fees. Please provide that confirmation to Mr. Josefsberg so that he can begin his representation, and provide me with a copy for my file. I have conferred with the lead AUSA in the case of Jane Doe 1 and 21 United States, EFTA00183579

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. AUGUST 26, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 and he agrees that, based upon the discussion with Judge Marra during the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion, a notification of the judge's ruling is required. I will, however, change the language slightly to direct the victims to discuss the matter with Mr. Josefsberg. With regard to your concerns with my "open-ended description of Mr. Epstein's responsibilities regarding civil restitution," I agree that the resolution of civil damages claims is as stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Agreement and Addendum. That is why the language in the notification is taken verbatim from paragraphs 7, 8, and 7C of the Agreement and Addendum, except that the victim's name is used in place of "identified individual." As I mentioned in my earlier letter, if you have any proposed substantive changes, please provide them to me. Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein explicitly approved the language in my earlier victim notification letter, even though they apparently were taking the position that the December 19, 2007 letter was not part of the Agreement, so that misinformation was provided to the victims with the approval of Mr. Epstein's attorneys. With regard to your sixth and seventh points, I reiterate that it is the Office's position that the Agreement and Addendum speak for themselves. Let me also reiterate that, while the Office does not intend to involve itself in any civil negotiations or litigation, if it comes to our attention that Mr. Epstein has breached the terms of the Agreement, the Office intends to enforce its right pursuant to the Agreement. I would appreciate a prompt response to the question regarding which of Mr. Epstein's attorneys should be named in and receive copies of the notification letters, as well as documentation of your commitment to paying Mr. Josefsberg's fees so that I may begin distributing the revised victim notifications on Wednesday morning. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta Unftell States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: , Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183580

qt240% bzitots‘n UrID AfAcv EFTA00183581

se' •••••.- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AMO A fffff Mtn raterrosetr. Jay F. Lolkowez. F.C. To Call Willer Ditec corn VIA FACSIMIIS CiligreeO Comnr 153 Easi raw Street New York. Now York 10022.4611 (a 440.41100 www.lorhlood.com September 2. 2008 linked Stares Attorney's Office . Southern District of Florida 500 South AustellHan Avenue: Suite 400 . West Palm Beach. Florida 35401 Re: deity Epsrein Dear Marie: Facsimile: (212) 446.4600 In response to your letter dated August 26. 200$. I ant confirming Thai Mr. Goldberger should continue to be listed as thecontact person in the amended tiietim notification letters and should receive the carbon copies of thOse letters as they are sent. Also. wo plan on speaking to Mr. Josefsberg This week to discuss a procedure Ibr paying his fees. We intend to comply fay with the agreement and Mr. Epstein hill pay Mr. Josfsberg's usual and customary hourly rates f r his work pursuant to the agreement Melia:Mug settlements under 2255. cc: Chid Noithcrn Division Jack Goldberger Roy Black • Sincerely, 1 4 1. 1:( tit Jae I.. lkocvi (xi Owego Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich San Francisco Warf.tanglon, D.C. EFTA00183582

ti'd it " 4 4 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Fax Transmittal Citigroup Center 153 East 53rD Street New York. New York 1 .41611 Phone: Fax: Please notify us Immediately if any pages are not received. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. MAY . BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE. DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOT FY IMM IATELY AT: Jack Goldberger Roy Black From: Jay P. Lelkowim Company: United States Attorney's Office Company: • United States Attorney's Office Atterbury. Goldberger & Weiss Black, Srehnick, Komspan & Snimpf Fax #: Fax Direct #: Direct Date: September 2. 2008 Pageswkovec 2 Fax #: Message: Please see attached. EFTA00183583

9 /17/0S, AAV Or-11) Lc-W.:won-a , B,Ac icvDt-DFF-11c9e;e-- RE PIWAILy met& EFTA00183584

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Facsimile: September 17, 2008 DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022-4675 Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay, Roy, and Jack: On today's date, our Office received an inquiry from State Attorney Barry Krischer related to the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In accordance with the terms of that Agreement, I am notifying you of this development. State Attorney Krischer has been contacted by counsel for the Palm Beach Daily News asking why the Non-Prosecution Agreement is under seal in order to determine whether to file suit asking that it be unsealed. I have informed State Attorney Krischer that the Agreement contains a confidentiality clause requiring us to provide Mr. Epstein's counsel with notice prior to making any disclosure (compulsory or otherwise). Since Mr. Epstein is a party to that criminal case, he has standing to contest any EFTA00183585

JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQ. SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 unsealing, while we do not. Accordingly, I ask that you confer with Mr. Krischer regarding how you would like to proceed with the matter. I also want to reiterate the concern I raised in my letter of August 15, 2008, that the complete Non-Prosecution Agreement, which includes the October Addendum, has not been filed with the Court in accordance with the Judge's order. Please advise that this issue has been resolved. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Ba Krischer State Attorney Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183586

EFTA00183587

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Roy: 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile November 24, 2008 On Thursday I learned that Mr. Epstein applied for and was admitted to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's work release program and that he has been on work release for the past few weeks. For the following reasons, the Office believes that Mr. Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program is a material breach of the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Accordingly, the United States demands that Mr. Epstein withdraw his application to participate in the program and complete his eighteen-month term of imprisonment in accordance with the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement provides that Epstein "shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment." I have more than a dozen e-mails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz discussing the U.S. Attorney's insistence on eighteen months of incarceration. You will recall that at one meeting you and Ms. Sanchez raised the idea of Mr. Epstein hiring Sheriff's Deputies to guard him as equivalent to imprisonment. Mr. Acosta specifically rejected that suggestion. It is our understanding from the Sheriffs Office that Mr. Epstein is paying off-duty Sheriffs Deputies to guard him while he "works" at Mr. EFTA00183588

ROY BLACK, EsQ. Novsmass. 24, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 4 Goldberger's office building each day. As you remember, shortly before Mr. Epstein's change of plea, Mr. Goldberger sent me a copy of the proposed plea agreement with the state. On June 27, 2008, I sent a letter containing the following language to you and Mr. Goldberger: The U.S. Attorney's Office hereby provides Notice that the proposed sentencing provision does not comply with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The second sentencing paragraph of the proposed plea agreement reads: On 08CF009381AMB, the Defendant is sentenced to 18 months Community Control 1 fonel. As a special condition of this Community Control the Defendant must serve the first 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility . The Non-Prosecution Agreement specifically provides: Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, ... without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment. Thus, the proposed plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office does not comply with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. To comply with the Agreement, Mr. Epstein must make a binding recommendation ofeighteen months imprisonment, which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail, and the judge must accept that recommendation. Community control must follow that term of incarceration. (Emphasis in original.) As I specified in that letter, the Non-Prosecution Agreement calls for "confinement twenty-four hours a day." In response to that letter, Mr. Goldberger agreed that he would revise the state plea agreement to include the word "imprisonment" to make clear that Mr. Epstein would be incarcerated for the full eighteen months and would change the language of the state agreement to match the language of the federal agreement. Mr. Goldberger and I also discussed the situation and he made clear that Mr. Epstein would not be asking for or receiving work release and would remain in jail "around the clock." In early August, and I raised the same issue with you when we heard EFTA00183589

ROY BLACK, ESQ. NOVEMBER 24,2008 PAGE 3 OF 4 that Mr. Epstein was considering applying for work release. On August 6, 2008, Ms. Atkinson and I had a conference call with you wherein you again stated that Mr.. Epstein would not apply for or receive work release and would spend his eighteen months incarcerated twenty-four hours a day at the Palm Beach County Stockade. In preparation for this letter, I obtained a certified copy of Mr. Epstein's state court file. On June 30, 2008, on the procurement of minors charge, Judge Pucillo entered the following sentence: The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida for a term of 6 mos. It is further ordered that the Defendant shall be allowed a total of 1 days [sic] as credit for time incarcerated prior to imposition of this sentence. It is further ordered that the composite term of all sentences imposed for the counts specified in the order shall run consecutive to the following: Specific sentences: 2006CF9454AXX. . the following provisions apply to the sentence imposed:. .. Followed by a period of 12 mos on community control 1 under the supervision of the Department of Corrections . . . . As I learned on Friday when I received the state court file, you neglected to inform our Office that, on July 21, 2008, Judge McSorley modified the judgment nunc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I." This same language was the basis for the objection in my letter of June 26, 2008 and directly contradicts the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. I also note that, on the state plea agreement, Mr. Goldberger did not insert the word "imprisonment" as agreed prior to the change of plea, instead the words "jail sentence" are included. The Office's Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e., confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month EFTA00183590

Roy BLACK, ESQ. NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 4 term of imprisonment. The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the Non-Prosecution Agreement unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this Agreement. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183591

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA1LM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., ., AND B.B., Respondents. SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POST'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shullman James B. Lake 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00183592

Document Tab Transcript of June 10, 2009 hearing Administrative Order No. 2.303-9/08 Of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 2 Administrative Order no. 2.032-10/06 Of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 3 John Doe Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Case No. 92-32567, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) 4 Government's Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 5 Declaration of In Support of United State's Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 6 Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Motion for Stay ' 7 Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.'. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir.), 8 Order Releasing Public Records dated September 20, 1991 2 EFTA00183593

EFTA00183594

oq-R-3-7 g I I I I 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION CASE NOE.: 1006-CF9454 AXX and 2008-CF9301 AXX STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEFFREY J. COLBATH JUNE 10, 2009 11:08 A.M. - 11:25 A.M. PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA • Reported by Louanne Rawls Notary Public, State of Florida Went Palo Beach Office (100578 EFTA00183595

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings June 10, 2009 2 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Defendant JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE Atterbury, Goldberger, et al. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On behalf of the Defendant ROBERT CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE Burman, Critton, et al. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Ste. 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4349 On behalf of Third Party I'll. WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 On behalf of Third Party, The Post DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE Thomas, LoCiero & Bralow, PL 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1181 EFTA00183596

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 3 PROCEEDINGS BE IT REMEMBERED that the following Proceeding* were had and testimony adduced before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, at the Pala Beach County Courthouse, West Palm Beach, PlOrida beginning at the hour of 11:08 a.m. On June 10, 2009, with appearances as herein noted to-wit: THE COURT: State vs. Epstein. Let me have for the record, announce everybody's appearance. William J. Berger and HR. SEHOEfti Your Honor, Bradley Edwards for non-party NV. SHULLNANI Your Honor, Deanna Ehullman of Thomas, LoCiero 4 Bralow for non-party The Palm Beach Post. TNB COURT: Let me slow down a little bit. On behalf of The Post is? MS. SHULLNAN: Deanna Shullnan THE COURT: S-H-U-L -- KS. SHULLMAN: S-H-U-L-L-X-A-N THE COURT: Me. Shullman, good morning. Hr. Berger, good morning. And Mr. Borger, your client is E -- NR. BERGER: ., yes. THE COURT: Anybody else here? Nit. EDWARDS: Bred Edwards on behalf of as well, Judge. Thanks, EFTA00183597

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 4 THE COURT: Last name is spelled? MR, EDWARDS: Edwards. E-D-W -A-R-D-E. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDBERGER: For the other side, Your Honor, Jack Goldberger along with Robert Critton on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. THE COURT: It is the POst's and fl Motion to Intervene for the purpose of unsealing records? MR. BERGER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Here's what I think I know, and I toll you this so that you can till in the gape of what you know that I don't know and suggest what you think I ought to do. It appears to me that there was some agreement -- an agreement that was peeled and then an addendum or amendment to the agreement that was sealed as to documents in the court's tiles under seal and it appears as though the punitive interveners want to unseal those and take a peak at them. I don't see where any of the proper procedures to seal the documents was ever followed to begin with. I don't know but it's not jumping out at me when I reviewed the file. so, I'm thinking that it might be appropriate and the burden might be on the moving party, being the state and Mr. Epstein, to give them the opportunity to jump through the bur -- hoops to seal the documents it they are entitled to have them sealed, then EFTA00183598

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings June 10, 2009 5 1,11 grant that request. It they're not entitled to seal then I'll order it as documents unsealed. But that's kind of procedurally where I think the case La. I will allow Mr. Berger and Ms. Shullman to argue if they wish to, otherwise I will go over to Mr. Goldberger and Hr. Critton to perhaps talk about what they think about my suggestion. Hr. Berger? MR. BERGER: I like to hear what they say. THE COURT: Ma. Shullman? MS. SHULTMAN: Agreed. THE COURT: Hr. Goldberger? MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor THE COURT: I mean, it looks like they just handed up an Agreed Order to sign. HR. GOLDBERGER, well, if the Court -- I know the Court is trying to short circuit here and the idea in theory is not horrible, it's not terrible, it's actually not so bad. But let so alert the Court to a couple of issues. First of all, this is not something that came up ahead of time where we were moving to close a hearing or file documents under seal and the Rules of Judicial Administration makes' an important distinction between things that are done in advance and things that come up during a hearing and the tact that maybe it goes to the Rule -- talk about situations that arise during the course EFTA00183599

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 6 of a hearing. that the Rules would not apply to that. Secondly, NV. is Motion to Intervene is brought under a Rule that does not apply because she brought it under a Rule that applies to non-criminal cases. Having said that I know the Court's desire to get to the issues here end I just need to alert the Court to one other matter because Z think it's really important. The Plaintiff's. has this agreement already. They have this agreement. Counsel will tell you they have this agreement. There have been two hearings in front of Judge Marrs who has the Federal cases here, They moved to unaeal the non -prosecution agreement in front of Judge Marra. He entered an initial Order, a very, very well reasoned Order which I have a copy for the Court. TRH COURT: Oh. thanks. MR. OOLOSHRORR, He entered a very, very well reasoned Order weighing the interest of the Plaintiffs to have access to the non-prosecution agreement with the confidentiality that the parties intended to be part of thin agreement. And what he did, he said they can have this agreement. They can review it all they want. If they want to review it with somebody sloe, they need to give them a copy of thls Order that it is not to be disclosed to anyone else. Subsequent to that -- so that's the Rule that's in place right now. Subsequent to that the EFTA00183600

I 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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 7 Plaintiffs went back and said we want to disseminate this order. WO went to disseminate this agreement to other parties and Judge Marra entered a Second Order denying that request and said, no. Hy Order is in place but if you have soma compelling reason why you want this agreement to be disseminated to others, file a motion and come back to THE COURT: This is as a result of some civil litigation p►nding in the Federal courthouse? MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes. THE COURT+ As opposed to any criminal prosecution going on? MR. GOLDBERGER, It is civil proceedings that are going on in Federal Court. But in the interest of comedy. Your Honor, the Court hes ruled on the confidentiality agreement and has pUt a we21 reasoned procedure into place. If the parties want that agreement unsealed where they need to go is go back to Federal Court and Judge Marra invited them to do so. THE covert That may bo as it pertains to ION, but what about The Poet? MR. GOLDBERGER; I think -- and I think I know where the Court is going on this. It The tost's position is the public has right to act -- access to this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct EFTA00183601

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 S Proceedings June 10, 2009 8 a hearing and do the balancing test where you look at whether there is some compelling government interest and that's going to require an evidentiary hearing. 80 i have no great objection to filing the Request for Closure and then have a hearing in front of the Court. THE COURT, Well, let's do -- I'm thinking out loud. I'm not ruling. I will give you all a chance to argue further, but this is what I'm thinking I vIll do, grant the Motion to Intervene. It gives standing to MI. It gives standing to The Post to contest the fact that these were sealed. And then I will shift the burden back on the State end Defendant, Mr. Epstein, to petition the Court to seal these documents. Until such time that I rule on that I will leave them under seal because they might have been correctly sealed but the procedure wasn't followed. There's got to be notice. You've got to comply with the Administrative order 2.103. You've got to comply with the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.4201d). I think even though that's a civil -- it address.. a civil matter this le, you know, in the nature of • civil procedure. So, do that. And thank you for those Orders. So, where do we go from here? I'm thinking out loud, not ruling. Mr. Berger? MR. DEADER; Judge, with all due respect I completely disagree with counsel's characterisation of EFTA00183602

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 9 those two Orders. I don't know it he handed up both to you? THE COURT: I do. MR. BERBER, They simply do not say what he tells you they say. THE COURT: read them MR. BERBER: All right. THE COURT: -- and 2.11 allow you to make that argument -- MR. BERBER: And -- and THE COURT, -- at the time of the Renewed Motion to Seal. MR. BRROER: All right. And, also, I don't think the Court -- I think the Court needs to deal with this immediately, expeditiously. This i■ a matter that the Supreme Court has placed incredible scrutiny over. And the Rule that we are traveling under -- we're not only traveling under a Rule of Judicial Administration that applies to criminal and civil cases, we're applying to an Administrative Order of this Court that was in place when the sealing was done and that superseded the sealing. THE COURT; I -- MR. DEBORA: just saYlng, I respectfully request that the Court not delay chLs ono minute. THE COURT You've Got the agreements. EFTA00183603

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings June 10, 2009 10 MR. BEROER: Pardon net THE COURT, You've got the agreements anyway. You've got what's under seal. MR. BEROER: Judge, we cannot do anything with them. THE COURT: Take that up with Judge Marra. MR. BERGER: No, sir. That is not what the Order says. May I quote Judge Mom. *If a specific tangible need arises in a C11/12 case the relief should be sought in that case.' In other words, the civil cases which are in front of Judge Hefei* is one forum that Judge Marra said go to it. Judge Kerr. did not say that this Court does not have Jurisdiction to unseal its own sealed record, or to vacate its own Order sealing. And any characterisation is -- is false. THE COURT; I'll take a look at it and I'll drew from it what it says -- what I think it says. I appreciate your zealous representation of your client. Please, it appears as though you're yelling at me. MB. SHULLMAM: Your Honor? THE COURT' Na. shullmant MR. BRACER, Judge, this happens to be a very serious matter and every day of delay delays our discovery. THE COURT: Me. Shellnan? SHOLLMAN: Your Honor, if I may be heard on the EFTA00183604

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings June 10, 2009 11 Issue as well. As a representative of the public's right of access THE COURT' Right. MS. SHULLMAN: -- here essentially, I would agree with Mr. Berger that we need an immediate hearing on this issue. That's what we're here to do today. I think I heard Your Honor say that he's not clear that the procedures were applied. My review of the record does not reveal that the procedures were complied with. My review is similar to Your Honor's. It looks like sort of everybody approached the bench and Judge Pucillo said let's take it under seal, If Mr. Epstein's counsel le not prepared to go forward today end meet his burden, then I would ask that this Court sat a hearing as noon as practical because the right solution hero should be to unseal the records and then, YOU know -- THE COURT, I've gotcha. MS. SRULLMANt -- and they have to make a motion. IRE COURT, Well, what house Is on first I mean, what is the -- I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notice pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what prejudice is there'? What house is burning down if I say okay. State end defense, go ahead and expeditiously move through the EFTA00183605

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 12 process and let's get this back on my docket as quickly as possible and give them until Friday to file their notice and ten days after that we have an evidentiary hearing. I go through the process then. What bad thing is going to happen by waiting these extra twelve to fifteen days? MS. SHULLMAN: The bad thing that's going to happen, Your Honor, is that the status quo in Florida is that the constitutional right of access is openness. THE COURT, Right. MS. SMULLMANI You know, certainly if Your Honor is inclined to postpone this hearing I would ask that it be done expeditiously es you suggest. THE COURT: Yeah. MS. SMULLMAN: You know, Friday and then ton days thereafter, it yust delay; access for another two weeks and it infringes on our rights. THE COURT, I agree. Mr. Berger, I will let you answer that same question. MR. SEROER: I don't think -- THE COURT, Anything specific rather than -- KR. BERGMR: Yes. THE COURT, You know, anything closed that the people aro allowed to look at is a transgression and any transgression is bad, but anything unique beyond that? MR. BERGER; Your Honor -- Your Honor, I do not EFTA00183606

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 13 believe that this Court has the jurisdiction to revisit the propriety of the sealing of these records and give the Defendant or the State, for that natter, a second bite at the apple. If the record■ are sealed improperly, which the Court has said on its face that appears to have occurred, I do not believe that this Court ha■ jurisdiction to allow them a second bite at the apple to go through with the notice requirements. They should have done that in front of Judge Pucillo a year ago and they did not do it. The Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 simply does not give this Court the right to reactivate the procedure that you outlined. THE COURT% Okay. MR. BERGER: Thank you. THE COURT; Anything further, Mr. Goldberger or Mr. critton7 MR. GOLDBERGER% Just note. 'four Honor, as far as the timing of this and we want to do this expeditiously. of course, this sealing occurred not last week, not two weeks ago, not tour months ago but eleven and one halt months ago. The Post reported this last July. So, Z understand the right for the pubic to have access and wo want to do this as quickly as possible but there ie no tire here. There is no house burning. THE COURT: Then I'll go ahead and enter en Order ae EFTA00183607

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 14 I've indicated, that is that I'll grant the Intervener ,* Notion to Intervene. You have standing. I will order that the State and/or the defense by noon Friday file a Notice of -- comply with the Administrative Order 2.)03 and the Judicial Rule -- the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, paragraph d, that outlines the procedures to seal files in these types of cases and then we'll get a hearing scheduled for argument on whether or not they will be sealed. Until that time they will remain sealed because Judge ➢ucillo signed oft on the Order end I'm not inclined to disturb that until I find more about the merits of the movent's position. NA. GOLDBERGER, Thank you. THE COURT, Anybody want to reduce any of that mess to a written Order? MR. EDWARDS, I'd like to Your Honor. I'd like to know if you're going to give us a hearing date today- TH8 COURT, I'll deal with that. yeah. Let me give you some time. How much time do you think it's going to take? I don't think I'm going to have any surprises. How much time do you think we need? A halt hour? MR. EDWARDS, Not more. I'd say an hour et the longest. THE COURT, I'm not taking evidence or anything like that. In the meantime, do you agree it would be prudent EFTA00183608

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 15 for me to take a look and see what the content of these things are so I can be articulate on what -- choir know about/ I didn't do that for today's hearing? MR. GOLDBERGER( The defense -- NE. EDWARDS: The non-prosecution agreement? THE COURT, Right. Whatever is under seal, Whatever it is that's under seal take a look et it so that I can at least have a feel for aDperently what you all know and I don't. HR. GOLDBERGER, The defence has no objection. THE COURT: Okay. I.11 go ahead and road those two coaled documents end I'll see you back here, assuming that. Kr. Goldberger and Mr. Critton get that done between now and Friday. Ten days from this Friday is the 22nd. How about we do this on the 25th at 1:30? MR, GOLDBERGER: One moment, Your Honor. That's tine with me. MR. BERGER, Thank you THE COURT( All right. Great. Thank you so much. MR. GOLDSRR0RR: Thank you. Judge. (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED) EFTA00183609

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 Proceedings June 10, 2009 16 CERTIFICATE I, LOUANNE RAWLS, certify that I wee authorized to end did digitally report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my notes. Dated this 10th day of June, 2009. EFTA00183610

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 alert 5:18 6:6 allow 5:3 9:8 13:6 allowed 12:23 amendment 4:15 and/or 14:3 announce arises 10:8 articulate 15:2 assuming 15:12 Atterbury 2:3 Australian 2:3 authorized 4:9 5:4,7,6 8:23,24 9:4 9:7,10,13 9:23 10:1,4 10:6,21 11:5 12:17 12:19,21,25 13:14 15:18 beyond 12:24 bit character... 8:25 10:13 circuit 1:1,1 5:16 civil 7:8,13 8:19 8:19,20 9:19 10:8,9 clear 11:7 client A acc 7:24 access 6:18 7:24 11:2 12:8 12:15 13:22 addendum 4:14 addresses 8:19 adduced 3:9 16:4 3:15 3:21 10:17 3:4. answer Ave bite close Adler 12:18 2:3 13:3,7 5:20 2:12 Anybody Avenue Blvd closed Administr... 5:22 8:18 3:23 14:14 anyway 2:19 An 2:13 Brad 12:22 closure 9:18 11:22 10:2 1:4,4 3:24 8:4 13:10 14:5 apparently a.m Bradley Colbath Administr... 15:8 1:19,19 3:6 2:11 3:11 1:17 3:4 8:17 9:20 appearance Stelae come B 11:22 14:4 3:9 2:18 3:13 5:23 7:6 back advance appearances brought comedy 5:23 2:1 3:7 7:1,6,18 6:2,3 7:14 ago appears 8:11 12:1 burden compelling 13:9,20,20 4:13,16 15:12 4:22 8:11 7:5 8:2 13:21 10:18 13:5 bad 11:13 complete agree apple 5:18 12:4,6 Burman 16:6 11:4 12:17 13:4,7 12:24 2:6 completely 14:25 applied balancing burning 8:25 Agreed 11:8 8:1 11:24 13:24 complied 5:10,14 applies Beach 11:9 agreement 6:4 9:19 1:2,20,21,25 comply C 4:13,14,15 Apply 2:4,7 3:5,5 8:16,17 14:4 6:8,8,9,12 6:1,3 3:13 3:1 16:1,1 CONCLUDED 6:18,20,21 applying beginning C880 15:21 7:2,5,16,17 9:19 3:6 1:4 5:3 10:8 conduct 15:5 appreciate behalf 10:9 7:25 agreements 10:16 2:2,5,9,16 cases confident... 9:25 10:2 approached 3:15,24 4:5 6:4,11 9:19 6:19 7:15 ahead 11:10 believe 10:9 14:7 constitut... 5:20 11:25 appropriate 13:1,6 certainly 12:8 13:25 15:11 4:22 bench 12:10 content al argue 11:11 certify 15:1 2:3,6 5:4 8:7 Berger 16:4 contest ALAN argument 2:10 3:10,10 chance 8:10 2:2 9:9 14:8 3:20,21,22 8:7 copy EFTA00183611

Proceedings June 10, 2009 2 6:14,23 correctly 8:15 counsel 6:8 11:12 counsel's 8:25 County 1:2,20 3:5 couple 5:18 course 5:25 13:19 Court 1:1 3:8,15 3:18,20,23 4:1,3,7,10 5:9,11,13 5:15,16,18 6:6,14.15 7:8,11,14 7:15,18,20 7:23,25 8:5 8:6,12 9:3 9:6,8,11,14 9:14,16,20 9:22,24,25 10:2,5,11 10:15,20,24 11:3,14,17 11:19 12:9 12:13,17,20 12:22 13:1 13:5,6,11 13:13,15,25 14:14,18,24 15:6,11,19 Courthouse 1:20 3:5 7:9 Court's 4:16 6:5 criminal 1:3 7:11 9:19 Critton 2:6,6 4:5 5:5 13:16 15:13 D d 3:1 14:6 date 14:17 Dated 16:8 day 10:22 16:8 days 11:21 12:3,5 12:14 15:14 deal 9:14 14:18 DOW1A6 2:17 3:12,17 Defendant 1:13 2:2,5 8:12 13:3 defense 11:25 14:3 15:4,10 delay 9:24 10:22 delays 10:22 12:15 denying 7:3 desire 6:5 digitally 16:5 disagree 8:25 disclosed 6:23 discovery 10:23 disseminate 7:1,2 disseminated 7:6 distinction 5:22 disturb 14:11 DIVISION 1:3 docket 12:1 documents 4:15,19,25 5:2,21 8:13 15:12 draw 10:15 Drive 2:7 due 8:24 2:13 3:1,1 3:21 16:1,1 Edwards 2:11 3:11,24 3:24 4:2,2 14:16,22 15:5 eleven 13:20 enter 13:25 entered 6:12,16 7:3 entitled 4:25 5:1 Epstein 1:11 3:8 4:6 4:23 8:12 Epstein's 11:12 ESQUIRE 2:2,6,10,11 2:17 essentially 11:4 et 2:3,6 everybody 11:10 everybody's 3:9 evidence 14:24 evidentiary 8:3 12:3 expeditio... 9:15 11:25 12:12 13:18 extra 12:5 E-D-W-A-R... 4:2 2:9 3:11,22 3:24 4:7 6:2,7 7:20 8:9 F F 16:1 face 13:5 fact 5:24 8:10 false 10:14 far 13:17 Federal 6:10 7:9,14 7:18 feel 15:8 fifteen 12:5 FIFTEENTH 1:1 file 4:21 5:21 7:6 12:2 14:3 files 4:16 14:7 filing 8:4 fill 4:11 find 14:11 fine 15:16 fire 11:19 13:24 First 5:19 FL 2:4,7,14,21 Flagler 2:7 Florida 1:2,6,21,24 3:5 12:7 followed 4.19 8:15 following 3:3 foregoing 16:5 Fort 2:14,21 forum 10:10 forward 11:12 four 13:20 Friday 12:2,14 14:3 15:14,14 front 6:10,12 8:5 10:10 13:8 further 8:8 13:15 O 3:1 gaps 4:11 give 4:23 6:22 8:7 11:21 12:2 13:2 EFTA00183612

Proceedings June 10, 2009 3 5:22 6:7 10:10,11,21 13:10 14:17 hear 14:18 gives 8:9,10 go 5:8 heard 10:25 11:6 hearing improperly 13:4 inclined 12:11 14:10 11:11 13:9 14:10 15:20 Judicial 1:1 5:21 Lociero 2:18 3:13 longest 14:23 look 5:5 7:18,18 5:20,24 6:1 incredible 8:18 9:18 8:1 10:15 8:22 10:11 8:1,3,5 9:16 . 11:22 13:10 12:23 15:1 11:12,23,25 11:5,14 indicated 14:5,5 15:7 12:4 13:7 12:3,11 14:1 July looks 13:25 15:11 14:7,17 infringes 13:21 5:13 11:10 goes 15:3 12:16 jump Louanne 5:24 hearings initial 4:24 1:23.16:4,11 going 6:10 6:12 jumping loud 7:12,14,23 HELD intended 4:20 8:6,22 8:3 12:4,6 1:16 6:19 June 14:17,19,20 Honor interest 1:18 3:6 14 Goldberger 3:10,12 4:4 6:17 7:14 16:8 Marra 2:2,3 4:4,5 5:12 7:15 8:2 jurisdiction 6:10,12 7:3 5:5,11,12 10:19,25 Intervene 10:12 13:1,6 7:19 10:5,7 5:15 6:16 11:7 12:7 4:8 6:2 8:9 10:10,11 7:10,13,22 12:10,25,25 14:2 matter kind 13:15,17 13:17 14:16 interveners 6:6 8:19 14:13 15:4 15:16 4:17 5:2 9:15 10:22 15:10,13,16 Honorable Intervener's know 13:3 15:20 1:17 3:4 14:1 4:10,11,12 mean good Honor's invited 4:20 5:15 5:13 11:19 3:20,21 11:10 7:19 6:5 7:22 meet gotcha hoops issue 8:20 9:1 11:13 11:17 4:24 11:1,6 11:16 12:10 merits government horrible issues 12:14,22 14:11 8:2 5:17 5:19 6:5 14:17 15:2 TAM grant hour 15:8 14:14 5:1 8:8 14:1 3:6 14:21,22 .7 minute L great house 9.24 Las 8:4 15:19 11:19,24 1:17 2:10,11 moment 13:24 hur 3:10 Jack 2:13 Lauderdale 15:16 months H Hefei° 4:24 2:2 4:5 2:14,21 13:20,21 10:10 Jeffrey leave morning I half 1.11,17 3:4 8:14 3:20,21 idea 13:20 14:21 4:6 let's motion handed 5:16 JR 8:6 11:11 4:7 6:2 7:6 5:13 9:1 immediate 2:6 12:1 8:9 9:11 happen 11:5 Judge litigation 11:18 14:2 12:5,6 ' immediately 3:25 6:10,12 7:9 movant's happens 9:15 7:3,18 8:24 little 14:12 10:21 important 10:4,5,7,10 3:15 move EFTA00183613

Proceedings June 10, 2009 4 11:25 moved 6:11 moving 4:22 5:20 objection 8:4 15:10 occurred 13:5,19 Office 1.25 Oh 6:15 okay 4:3 11:24 13:13 15:11 Olas 2:13 openness 12:8 opportunity 4:24 opposed 7:11 order 5:2,14 6:13 6:13,17,23 7:2,3,4 8:17 9:20 10:6,13 11:22 13:25 14:2,4,10 14:15 Orders 8:21 9:1 ought 4:12 outlined 13:12 outlines 14:6 10:1 part 6:19 parties 6:19 7:3,17 party 2:9,16 4:23 peak 4:18 pending 7:9 people 12:23 pertains 7:20 petition 8:12 PL 2:18 place 6:25 7:4,17 7:25 9:20 placed 9:16 Plaintiff 1:8 Plaintiffs 6:17 7:1 Plaintiff's 6:7 Please 10:17 position 7:23 14:12 possible 12:2 13:23 Post 2.16 3:14,16 7:21 8:10 13:21 postpone 11:23 prepared 11:12 procedurally 5:3 procedure 7:16,25 8:15 8:20 13:11 procedures 4:19 11:7,9 14:6 proceedings 1:16 3:3 7:13 15:21 16:5 process 11:23 12:1,4 proper 4:18 propriety 13:2 prosecution 7:11 prudent 14:25 pubic 13:22 public 1:24 7:24 public's 11:1 Pucillo 11:11 13:9 14:10 punitive 4:17 purpose 4:8 pursuant 11:21 put 12:1 13:23 quo 12:7 quote 10:7 N N 2:7 3:1 Sae 4:1 nature 8:20 need 6:6,22 7:18 10:8 11:5 14:21 needs 9:14 non-criminal 6:4 non-party 3:11,13 non-prose... 6:11,18 15:5 noon 14:3 NOS 1:4 Notary 1:24 Note 13:17 noted 3:7 notes 16:6 notice 8:16 11:21 22:2 13:8 14:3 R 3:1 16:1 Rawls 1:23 16:4,11 reactivate 13:11 read 9:6 15:11 really 6:7 reason 7:5 reasoned 6:13,17 7:16 record 3:9 11:8 16:6 records 4:8 10:12 11:15 13:2 13:4 reduce 14:14 relief 10:8 remain 14:9 REMEMBERED 3:3 Renewed 9:11 report 16:5 reported P P 3:1 Palm N.E 1:2,20,21,25 12:11 7:16 1:23 13:21 2:19 2:4,7 3:5,5 Post's represent... 3:13 4:7 7:23 10:17 0 question paragraph practical represent... O 14:6 11:14 12:18 11:1 3:1 Pardon prejudice quickly request EFTA00183614

Proceedings June 10, 2009 5 5:1 7:4 8:4 9:23 require 8:3 requirements 13:8 respect 8:24 respectfully 9:23 result 7:8 reveal 11:8 review 6:21,22 11:8 11:9 reviewed 4:21 revisit 13:1 right 6:25 7:24 9:7,13 11:1 11:3,14 12:8,9 13:11,22 15:6,19 rights 12:16 Robert 2:6 4:5 Rosenfeldt 2:12 Rothstein 2:12 rule 5:25 6:3,4 6:24 8:13 8:18 9:17 9:18 11:21 13:10 14:5 14:5 ruled 7:15 Rules 5:21 6:1 11:22 ruling 8:7,22 8 3:1 4:7 6:2 saying 9:23 says 10:7,16,16 scheduled 14:8 scrutiny 9:16 seal 4:16,19,24 5:1,21 6:13 8:14 9:12 10:3 11:11 14:6 15:6,7 sealed 4:14,15,25 8:11,15 10:12 13:4 14:9,9 15:12 sealing 9:21,21 10:13 13:2 13:19 second 7:3 13:3,7 Secondly 6:2 See 4:18 15:1,12 serious 10:22 set 11:14 shift 8:11 short 5:16 shullman 2:17 3:12,12 3:17,17,19 3:20 5:4,9 5:10 10:19 10:20,24,25 11:4,18 12:6,10,14 side 4:4 sign 5:14 signed 14:10 similar 11:9 simply 9:4 13:10 sir 4:9 10:6 situations 5:25 slow 3:15 solution 11:15 somebody 6:22 soon 11:14 sort 11:10 sought 10:8 South 2:3 specific 10:7 12:20 spelled 4:1 standing 8:9,10 14:2 state 1:6,24 3:8 4:23 8:12 11:24 13:3 14:3 status 12:7 Ste 2:7 Subsequent 6:24,25 suggest 4:12 12:12 suggestion 5:6 Suite 2:3,13,20 superseded 9:21 Supreme 9:16 surprises 14:20 3:18 8-R-U-L-L... 3:19 T 16:1,1 take 4:17 10:5,15 11:11 14:20 15:1,7 talk 5:6,25 tangible 10:7 tell 4:10 6:9 tells 9:4 ten 11:21 12:3 12:14 15:14 terrible 5:17 test 8:1 testimony 3:4 thank 8:21 13:14 14:13 15:18 15:19,20 thanks 3:25 6:15 theory 5:17 thing 12:4,6 things 5:23,23 15:2 think 4:10,12 5:3 5:6 6:7 7:22,22 8:18 9:13 9:14 10:16 11:6,20 12:19 14:19 14:20,21 thinking 4:21 8:6,8 8:22 Third 2:9,16 Thomas 2:18 3:13 time 5:20 8:13 9:11 14:9 14:19,19,21 timing 13:18 today 11:6,13 14:17 today's 15:3 to-wit 3:7 transcript 16:6 trausgres... 12:23,24 traveling 9:17,18 true 16:6 EFTA00183615

Proceedings June 10, 2009 6 trying 5:16 twelve 12:5 two 6:10 9:1 12:15 13:19 15:11 types 14:7 6:17 went 7:1 West 1:21,25 2:4 2:7 3:5 we'll 14:7 we're 9:17,19 11:6 William 2:10 3:10 wish 5:4 words 10:9 written 14:15 1:19 1400 2:3 1500 2:20 1650 2:13 5 515 2:7 2 2.303 8:17 14:4 2.420 13:10 14:6 2.420(d) 8:18 2006-CF9454 1:4 2008-CY9381 1.4 2009 1:18 3:6 16:8 22nd 15:14 25th 15:15 250 2.3 II ultimately 7:25 understand 13:22 unique 12:24 unseal 4:17 6:11 10:12 11:15 unsealed 5:2 7:17 unsealing 4:8 Yeah 12:13 14:18 year 13:9 yelling 10:18 1 vacate z 10:13 zealous vs 10:17 3 1:9 3:8 3rd 2.19 W #100578 33301-1181 waiting 1:25 16:11 2:21 12:5 33394 want 1 2.14 1:30 4:17 6:21,22 33401 7:1,2,5,17 15:15 2:4 13:18,23 10 33401-4349 14:14 1:18 3:6 2:7 wasn't 10th 8:15 16:8 4 week 101 400 13:19 2:19 2:7 weeks 11:08 401 12:15 13:20 1:19 3:6 2:13 weighing 11:25 EFTA00183616

DI VIZ CIRCUIT COURT OF TES FUTUNTII JWICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND TOR PAW ISEACA COUNTY, nano.* CRDCOAL STATE or FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. JE/OVEY Eft:EYE, Defendant. rrocuormos NEW BEFORE Tat SONWASLE JEMMY J. C.OLBA2i1 EWE 10, 2009 11:0B A.N. - 11:25 A.D. PAW BMW O00NPY COURIIIOUSt NEST PAW BEACH, noun.. Reported by Whams Notary Public. State of Florida Nest Pale Beach Office $100579 EFTA00183617

Proceedings June 10, 2009 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Defendant JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE Atterbury, Goldberger, et al. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On behalf of the Defendant ROBERT CRITT0N, JR., ESQUIRE Burman, Critton, et al. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Ste. 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4349 On behalf of Third Partylill. WILLIAM J. BERGER, 1 1 1 ESQUIRE BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 1 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 14 15 1 On behalf of Third Party, The Post DEANNA 17 SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE Thomas, LoCiero & 18 Bralow, PL 101 N.S. 3rd Avenue 19 20 Suite 1500 21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1181 22 23 2 2 EFTA00183618

Proceedings June 10, 2009 PROCWIMOS at IT RtIMPSZTIV that the following proceedings were had and testiamny adduced before the Honorable Jeffrey Cblbath, at the Palm Reach County Cburthouse, West Wm Beach, rlorlde beginning at the hour of 11,00 a.m. on June 10, 2009, with appearances as herein noted to-wit: MIR MAT: State vs, Epstein. Let me have for the record, announce everybody's appearance. MR. IHIRCHOt: Your Honor, William J. Berger and Bradley Edwards for non- party lig MR. SHULMAN. Your HOMO!, °tonna Shattnan OC Inman, to I. tweicw for non-party the Paln coach Post. THE COURT: LOG MO slaw down a little bit. On behalf of the Poet is? MS. SRUL1MAH: Demme Shullmasr. THE COURT: S-H-U- - MS. SHULLMAN: THE CXMART: Me. shullean, good morning. Mr. dloopoo, good morning. And Mr. Borger. your client is 8 - KR. IMAOCRI DX MUM anybody Give horn/ MR. VIMARDS: Bred Edwards on behalf of IS as well, Judge, Thanks. EFTA00183619

Proceedings June 10, 2009 THE COURT: Last nom is spelled? ei. ELMARDS: Edwards. E-D- M-A-R-D-S. THE COURT: Okay. HR. GOLDBERGER: For the other side, Your Honor, Jack Goldberger along with Robert Critton en behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. THE COURT: It is the poet's andllik.'s Motion to Intervene for the purpose of unsealing records? we. mum, was, air. THE COURT: Here's what f think I know, and I tell you this so that you can fill in the gape of what you know that I don't know and suggest what you think I ought to do. It appears to se that there was sone agreement -- an agreement that was sealed and then an addendum or amendment to the agreement that was sealed as to documents in the Court'o files under seal and it appears as though the punitive interveners want to unseal theme and take a peak at them. I don ,t see where any of the proper procedures to seal the documents was ever followed to begin with. I don't know but it's not }tiepins out at se when I reviewed the file, So, I'm thinking that it might be appropriate and the burden might be on the moving party, being the Stara and mt. Epetellu, to gin then the opportunity to jump through the her - hoops to seal the documents it they ere entitled to have them sealed, then EFTA00183620

Proceedings June 10, 2009 I'll grant that rennet. If they're not entitled to seal then I'll order it as dcGunanta unsealed. but that's kind of procedurally where I think the case So. I will allow Nz. Borger and 14. Skuilmen to argue if they wish to, otherwise I will go over to Mx. Goldberger and Mi. Critt911 to perhaps talk about whet they think about my suggestion. Mx. Berger? MR. B01GER: I -- like to hear whet they say. The COlMT, Ms. nullman W. AnUANANt Agreed. In COURT: Mx. Goldberger? MR. COLDEERGER: Your honor - IRE comet I moan, It look, like they /ust handed up an Agreed Order to sign. MR. GOLOSIRCEA: Mosll, if the Court I know the Court is trying to short circuit here and the idea in theory is not horrible, it's not terrible, it's actually not so bad. But let me alert the Court to a couple of issue.. 'fret of all, thin is not swathing that one up ahead of time where we were mowing to close a hearing or file documents under end and the Rules of Judionl Aninietration make, an Important diatinotion between things that are done in advance and things that one up during • hearing and the foot that maybe it goes to the Rule -- talk about situations that arise during the course EFTA00183621

Proceedings June 10, 2009 of a hearing, that the Rule. would not apply to that. Secondly,IIII.'s Motion to Intervene is brought under a Rule that does not apple because She brought it under a Rule that applies to non-criminal cases. Having said that I know the Court's desire to get to the feasts hero and I just need to alert the Court to one other setter because I think its really important. The Plaintiff's, R.M., Me this agreement already. they have this agreement. Counsel will toll you they have this agreement. There have been two hearings in front of Judge Marra who has the Federal caste here. They moved to unseal the non- prosecution agreement in front of Judge Marra. He entered an initial Order, a very, very well reasoned order which I have a copy for the court. THR COURT, Oh, thanks. MR. oCRIMIERGER, Ne entered a very, very well reasoned order weighing the interest of the Plaintiffs to have accesa to the non-prosecution agreement with the confidentiality that the parties intended to be part of this agreement. And what he did, he Said they can have this agreement. They can review it all they want. It they want to review it with somebody else, they need. to give thee a copy of this Order that it is not to be disclosed to anyone else. Subsequent to that -- so that's the Rule that's in place right now. Subsequent to that the EFTA00183622

Proceedings June 10, 2009 Plaintiffs went beck and said we want to disseminate this Order. We went to disseminate this agreement to other parties and Judge Marra entered a second Order denying that request and said, no. My Order is in place but if you have some compelling reason why you went this agreement to be disseminated to others, file a motion and come back to SHE Olterr: This is as a result of some civil litigation pending in the Federal Courthouse? M. 00LolUERGER: Yea. THE COURT: as opposed to any criminal prosecution going on? sit. GOLDBERGER: It is civil proceedings that are going on in Federal Court. But in the interest of comedy. Your Honor, the Court has ruled on the confidentiality agreement and has put a well reasoned procedure into place. If the parties want that agreement unsealed where they need to go is go back Co Federal Court and Judge Marra Invited them to do so. THE CCORT: That may be as it pertains ton.. but what about The Poet? MR. COLCORRORRt I think -- and I think I know where the Court is going on this. If The ftet.a position is the public has right to sec -- access to this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct EFTA00183623

Proceedings June 10, 2009 a hearing and do the balancing test where you look at whether there is soma compelling government interest and that's going to require an evidentiary hearing. So I have no great objection to filing the Request for Closure and then have a hearing in front of the Court. 11(8 COURT: Well, let's do -- I'm thinking out loud. I'm not ruling. I will give you all a chance to argue further, but this is what I'm thinking I will do. grant the Motion to Intervene. It gives standing to S. It gives standing to The Post to contest the fact that these were sealed. And than I will shift the burden back on the State and Defendant, Mr. Epstein, to petition the COurt to seal these documents. Until such time that I rule on that I will leave them under seal because they might have been correctly sealed but the procedure wasn't followed, There's got to be notice. You've got to comply with the Administrative order 2.301. You've got to comply with the Rule of Judicial administration 2.420(d). I think even though that's a civil -- it addresses a civil matter this is. you know, in the nature of a civil procedure. So, I'll do that. And thank you for these Orders. So, where do we go from here/ I'm thinking out loud, not ruling. Mr. Berger? MR. SEROER, Judge, with all due respect I completely disagree with counsel's characterisation of EFTA00183624

Proceedings June 10, 2009 those two Orders. I don't know if he handed up both to yowl Tlit COURT: I do. MR. VILR0MR, They 'imply do not say what he tells you they say. TIM COURT, I'll read them -MR. StRGIR: All right. Ile COURT: -- and allow you to make that anrament - KR- RIAMMR, And -- sad - TIM COURT, -- at the tine of the Renewed Motion to Seal. MR. BRRORR: All right. And, also, I don't think the Court -- I think the Court needs to deal with this immliately, expeditiously. VAS is a matter that the Suprema Court hes placed incredible scrutiny over. And the Rule that we are traveling under -- we're not only traveling under a Rule of Judicial administration that applies to criminal and civil oases, we're applying to en Administrative Order of this Court that was In place when the sealing was dome and that superseded the sealing. THE COURT: I - MR. BEIMMR: I'm just saying, I respectfully request that the Court not delay this ono minute. Itlit COURT: You've got the agreements. EFTA00183625

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 MR. BURGER, Pardon me? THE COURT: roirve got the agreement* anyway. You've got what's under seal. HR. SOW: Judge, we cannot do anything with them. THE COURT: Take that up with Judge Marra. MR. BERGER: No, sir. That is not what the Order says. May I quote Judge Marra. •It a specific tangible need arises in a civil case the relief Should be sought in that case.• In other words, the civil cases Mach are in front of Judge Karate is one forum that Judge Marra said go to it. Judge Marra did not say that this Court does not have jurisdicticn to unseal its own sealed records or to vacate its own Order sealing. And any characterization is -- is false. THE COURT' I'Il take a look at it and I.11 draw from it what it says -- what I think it says. I appreciate your zealous representation of your client. Please, it appear. as though you're yelling at me. MS. SKULUOM: Your Honor? THE COURT' Ms. Shullsan? MR. EIMER' JUdge, this happens to be a vet,/ serious matter and every day of delay delays our discovery. THE COURT: Ile. Shullmeni M9. SHULLMANt Your Honor, if 1 may be heard on the EFTA00183626

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 Segue as well. As a rpreesntative of the public's right of access - TRW COORP: Right. MS. SNULOWN: -- here essentially, I would agree with Mr. Borger that we need an immediate hearing on this issue. That's: what we're here to do today. I think I heard Your Honor say that he's not clear that the procedure, were applied. by review of the record does not reveal that the procedures were a:applied with. My review le similar to Your Norror'e. It looks like sort of everybody approached the bench and Judge Puoillo said let's take it under seal. If Mr. Apsteinte counsel is not prepared to go forward today and mmet his burden, then I would ask that Chia Court mat a hearing as soon as practical because the right solution here should be to unseal the records and then, you know - THE COMM: I've gotcha. MH. MMI1194 -• and they have to makes/motion. MM COURT: Well, what house is on floe? I mean, what ie the I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notioe pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what pre)udicm is there? What house Is burning doom if I say okay. State end defense, go ahead and expeditiously move through the EFTA00183627

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 2 process and let's get this book on my docket ae quickly as possible and give then until Friday to file their notice and ten days after that we have an evidentiary hearing. I go through the process than. What bad thing is going to happen by waiting this extra twelve to fifteen day.? MS. SMAAMIN: The bad thing that's going to happen, Your Honor, is that the status quo An Florida is that the constitutional right of access in openness. ?NE COURT: Right, W. sWLuwI, You know, oortolnly if Your manor Is Inollood to yostpono this hearing / amid see that It be dorm orpodltiously ace yea eugunot. /WC Matt Yeah. I . BRULLMAN: You know, Friday and then ton days thereafter, it Rust dolays access Coe another two weeks and it infringes on our rights. TIM COURT: I agree. Mr. Berger, I will let you answer that as question. Mit. URGER: I don't think - THE COURT: Anything specific rather than -NA. HARGRA: Yes. Tab COURT: TOO know, anything closed that the people are allowed to look at is • ttanssion and any transgression is bad, bat anything unique beyond that? 10. IMPALA; Your nonce -- Your 'loner, I do not EFTA00183628

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 believe that this Court Ms the jurisdiction to revisit the propriety of the Reeling of these records and give the Defendant or the State, for that natter, a second bite at the apple. If the records are sealed improperly, which the Court has said on its face that appears to have occurred, I do not believe that this Mere has jurisdiction to allow them a second bite at the apple to go through with the notice requirements. They should have done that in front of Judge Pucillo a year ago and they did not do it. The Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 simply does not give this Court tho right to reactivate the procedure that you outlined. THR COURT: Okay. mi. soon, thank you. TIM COURT: Anything further. Mr. Goldberger or Mx. Crittant MR. GOTDOBROBR, JUst note, Your donor, ma tar ae the timing of this and we want to do this expeditiously, of course, this sealing occurred not last week, not two seeks ago, not four months ago but eleven and one half sonths ago. The Post reported this last July. So, I understand the right for the pubic to have access and we want to do this as quickly as possible but there is no fire here. There is no house burning. /MR COURT: Then I'll go ahead and enter an Order as EFTA00183629

Proceedings June 10, 2009 3. I've indicated, that le that I'll grant the Intervener's Notion to Interveme. You have standing, I will order that the State and/or the defense by noon PrIday file a Codes of -- comply with the Administrative Order 2.303 and the Judicial Rule -- the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, paragraph d, that outlines the procedures to seal files in these types of oases end then we'll get a hearing scheduled for cagueent on whether or not they will be pooled. Until that time they wilt remain sealed because Judge Puoillo signed off on the order and I'm not inolined to disturb that until I find wore about the merits of the movant's position. If. 00UMMIUMM, That you. THE COURT: Anybody want to reduce any of that mono to a written Order? NR. EDWARDS: I'd like to Your Honor. I'd like to know if you're going to give us a hearing date today. In COORS' deal with that. Yeah. tot me give you acme time. Sow much time do you think it's going to take? I don't think I'm going to have any surprises. Now much time do you think we need? A half hour? HR. ZOWARDS: Not wore. I'd 'my an hour at the longest. TNN COURT: I'm not taking evidence or anything like that. In the meantime, do you agree it would DO prudent EFTA00183630

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 for se to take a look and soo what the content of them) things are so I can to articulate on what -- their know about? 2 didn't do that fOr today's hearing? 22. GOLDBERGER: The defense - MR. EDWARDS: The non-prosecution agrammanti THE COURT: Right. Whatever in under seal. Whatever it ift that's undo: seal take a look at it so that I can at least have a feel for apparently what you all know and I don't. MR. GOLDBERGER: The defense has no objection. Thlt COURT: Okay. 2.11 go ahead and read those two sealed documents and I'll see you back here. assuming that Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Critter get that done between row and Friday. Ten days from this PriGay is the 22nd. How about we dO this on the 25th at 1:30? NA GOLDBERGER: One novant. Your Honor. That's fine with ms. W. IMAGER. Thank you. INS COURT, all right. great. Than YOU do such. R. 00U,OtROSA, Thank you. Judge. IrsoarsoltiCS conetasso) EFTA00183631

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 srtflrLCATC X, LoVANNE MMES, certify that I was authorised to and did digitally report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true sod cooplete record of wy notes. Dated this 10th day of June, 2009. EFTA00183632

Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 A ace 7:24 access 6:18 7:24 11:2 12:8 12:15 13:22 addendum 4:14 addresses 8:19 adduced Adler 2:12 Administr... 5:22 8:18 9:18 11:22 13:10 14:5 Administr... 8:17 9:20 11:22 14:4 advance 5:23 ago 13:9,20,20 13:21 agree 11:4 12:17 14:25 Agreed 5:10 14 agreement alert 5:18 6:6 allow 5:3 9:8 13:6 allowed 12:23 amendment 4:15 and/or 14:3 announce 3:9 answer 12:18 Anybody 3:23 14:14 anyway 10:2 apparently 15:8 appearance 3:9 appearances 2:1 3:7 appears 4:13,16 10:18 13:5 apple 13:4,7 applied 11:8 11 4:13,14 15 12 6:8 9 4 9 19 6 6:1,3 app es arises 10:8 articulate 15:2 assuming 15:12 Atterbury 2:3 Australian 2:3 authorized 16:4 Ave 2:3 Avenue 2:19 Axx 1:4,4 a.■ 1:19,19 3:6 B back 7:1,6,18 8: 11 12: 1 15: 12 bad 5: 1812:4, 6 12 :24 balancing 8: 1 Beach Apply 3:13 1:2 20 21 25 4:9 5:4,7,8 8:23,24 9:4 9:7,10,13 9:23 10:1,4 10:6,21 11:5 12:17 12:19,21,25 13:14 15:18 beyond 12:24 bit 3:15 bite 13:3,7 Blvd 2:13 Brad 3:24 Bradley 2:11 3:11 Bralow 2:18 3:13 brought 6:2,3 burden 4:22 8:11 11:13 Burman 2:6 burning 11:24 13:24 C 2:4,7 3:5,5 character... 8:25 10:13 circuit 1:1,1 5:16 civil 7:8,13 8:19 8:19,20 9:19 10:8,9 clear 11:7 client 3:21 10:17 close 5:20 closed 12:22 Closure 8:4 Colbath 1:17 3:4 come 5:23 7:6 comedy 7:14 compelling 7:5 8:2 complete 16:6 completely 8:25 complied 11 9 1 p co y C 8:16,17 14:4 3:1 16:1,1 CONCLUDED EFTA00183633

Proceedings June 10, 2009 2 6:14,23 correctly 8:15 counsel 6:8 11:12 counsel's 8:25 County .1:2,20 3:5 couple 5:18 course 5:25 13:19 Court IS 1:1 3:8 20 3:18 23 4:1 3 7 10 11 13 5:9 S:15,16,18 6:6,14,15 7:8,11,14 7:15,18,20 7:23,25 8:5 B:6.12 9:3 9:6,8,11,14 9:14,16,20 9:22,24,25 10:2,5,11 10:15,20,24 11:3,14,17 1:3 evidence find d docket 14 : 24 14:11 3: 1 14: 6 12:1 evidentiary fine date documents 8:3 12:3 15:16 14:17 4:15,19,25 expeditio... fire Dated 5:2,21 8:13 9:15 11:25 11:19 13:24 16: 8 15:12 12:12 13:18 First day draw extra 5:19 10:2216:8 10:15 12:5 FL days Driv4 2:4,7,14,21 11:21 12:3,5 2:7 4:2 Flagler 12:14 15: 14 due 2:7 deal 8:24 2:9 3:11,22 Florida 9: 14 14: 18 3:24 4:7 1:2,6,21,24 E 6:2,7 7:20 3:5 12:7 Deanna 8:9 followed 2:17 3:12 17 Defendant 1:13 2:2 S 8:12 13:3 defense 11:25 14:3 15:4 10 delay 9:24 10:22 delays 10:22 12:15 denying 7 : 3 desire 2:13 3:1 4:19 8:15 1 3:21 16:1 1 following Edwards ■ 3:3 2:11 3:11,24 16:1 foregoing 3:24 4:2,2 face 16:5 14:16,22 13:5 Fort 15:5 fact 2:14,21 eleven 13:20 enter 13:25 entered 6:12,16 7:3 entitled 5:24 8:10 false 10:14 far 13:17 Federal forum 10:10 forward 11:12 four 13 20 6:10 7:9 14 Frida EFTA00183634

Proceedings June 10, 2009 13:10 14:17 14:18 gives 8:9, 10 go hear 5:8 heard 10:25 11:6 hearing 5:22 6:7 improperly 13:4 inclined 12:11 14:10 10:10,11,21 11:11 13:9 14:10 15:20 Judicial 1:1 5:21 LoCiero 2:18 3:13 longest 14:23 look 5:5 7:18,18 5:20,24 6:1 incredible 8:18 9:18 8:1 10:15 8:22 10:11 8:1,3,5 9:16 , 11:22 13:10 12:23 15:1 11:12,23,25 11:5, 14 indicated 14:5,5 15:7 12:4 13:7 12:3,11 14:1 July looks 13:25 15:11 14:7, 17 infringes 13:21 5:13 11:10 Was 15:3 12:16 Louanne 5:24 hearings initial 4:24 1:23 16:4,11 going 6:10 6:12 jumping loud 7:12,14,23 HELD intended 4:20 8:6,22 8:3 12:4,6 1:16 6:19 June 14:17,19,20 Honor interest 1:18 3:6 Goldberger 3:10,12 4:4 6:17 7:14 16:8 Marts 2:2,3 4:4,5 5:12 7:15 8:2 jurisdiction 6:10,12 7:3 5:5,11,12 10:19,25 Intervene 10:12 13:1,6 7:19 10:5,7 5:15 6:16 11:7 12:7 4:8 6:2 8:9 10:10,11 7:10,13,22 12:10,25,25 14:2 matter 13:15,17 13:17 14:16 interveners kind 6:6 8:19 14:13 15:4 15:16 4:17 5:2 9:15 10:22 15:10,13,16 Honorable entervener's know 13:3 15:20 1:17 3:4 14:1 4:10,11,12 mean good Honor's invited 4:20 5:15 5:13 11:19 3:20,21 11:10 7:19 6:5 7:22 *Ott gotcha hoops issue 8:20 9:1 11:13 11:17 4:24 111,0 11:16 12:10 merits government horrible issues 12:14,22 14:11 8:2 5:17 5:19 6:5 14:17 15:2 MOOS grant hour 15:8 14:14 5:1 8:8 14:1 3:6 14:21,22 J minute great house L 9:24 8:4 15:19 11:19,24 1:17 2:10,11 Las moment 13:24 3:10 2:13 15:16 H hur Jack Lauderdale months Hakk 10:10 half 13:20 14:21 handed 5:13 9:1 happen 12:5,6 happens 10:21 4:24 idea 5:16 immediate 11:5 immediately 9:15 important 2:2 4:5 Jeffrey 1:11,17 3:4 4:6 JR 2:6 Judge 3:25 6:10,12 7:3,18 8:24 10:4,5,7,10 2:14,21 leave 8:14 let's 8:6 11:11 22:1 litigation 7 : 9 little 3:15 13:20,21 morning 3:20,21 motion 4:1 6:2 7:6 8:9 9:11 11:18 14:2 movant's 14:12 move EFTA00183635

Proceedings June 10, 2009 4 11: 25 noved 6:11 noving 4:22 5: 2 0 N N 2:7 3:1 name 4:1 nature 6:20 need 6:6,22 7:18 10:8 11:5 14:21 needs 9:14 non-criminal 6:4 non-party 3:11,13 non-prose... 6:11,18 15:5 noon 14:3 NOS 1:4 Notary 1:24 note 13:17 noted 3.7 notes 16:6 notice 8:16 11:21 12:2 13:8 14:3 N.E 2:19 0 0 3:1 objection 8:4 15:10 occurred 13:5,19 0ftke 1:25 Oh 6:15 okay 4:3 11:24 13:13 15:11 Olas 2:13 openness 12:8 opportunity 4:24 opposed 7:11 order 5:2,14 6:13 6:13,17,23 7:2,3,4 8:17 9:20 10:6,13 11:22 13:25 14:2,4,10 14:15 Orders 8:21 9:1 Ought 4:12 outlined 13:12 outlines 14:6 P P 3:1 Palm 1:2,20,21,25 2:4,7 3:5,5 3:13 paragraph 14:6 Pardon 10:1 part 6:19 parties 6:19 7:3,17 party 2:9,16 4:23 peak 4:18 pending 7:9 people 12:23 pertains 7:2O petition 8:12 PL 2:18 place 6:25 7:4,17 7:25 9:20 placed 9:16 Plaintiff 1:8 Plaintiffs 6:17 7:1 Plaintiff's 6:7 Please 10:17 position 7:23 14:12 possible 12:2 13:23 Post 2:16 3:14,16 7:21 8:10 13:21 postpone 12:11 Post's 4:7 7:23 practical 11:14 prejudice 11:23 prepared 11:12 procedurally 5:3 procedure 7:16,25 8:15 8:20 13:11 procedures 4:19 11:7,9 14:6 proceedings 1:16 3:3 7:13 15:21 16:5 process 11:23 12:1,4 proper 4:16 propriety 13:2 prosecution 7:11 prudent 14:25 pubic 13:22 public 1:24 7:24 public's 11:1 Pucillo 11:11 13:9 14:10 punitive 4:17 purpose 4:8 pursuant 11:21 put 7:16 Q question 12:18 quickly 12:1 quo 12:7 quote 10:7 13:23 3:1 16:1 Rawls 1:23 16:4,11 reactivate 13:11 read 9:6 15:11 really 6.7 reason 7:5 reasoned 6:13,17 7:16 record 3:9 11:8 16:6 records 4:8 10:12 11:15 13:2 13:4 reduce 14:14 relief 10:8 remain 14:9 WOONNERED 3:3 Renewed 9:11 report 16:5 reported 1:23 13:21 represent... 10:17 represent... 11:1 request EFTA00183636

Proceedings trying 5 5:16 twelve 12:5 two 6:10 9:1 12:15 13:19 15:11 types 14:7 U ultimately 7:25 understand 13:22 unique 12:24 unseal 4:17 6:11 10:12 11:15 unsealed 5:2 7:17 unsealing 4:8 vacate 10:13 vs 1:9 3:8 6:17 1:19 went 7.1 west 1:21,25 2:4 2:7 3:5 we'll 14:7 woos.* 9:17,19 11:6 William 2:10 3:10 wish 5:4 words 10:9 written 14:15 Yeah 12:13 14:18 year 13:9 yelling 10:18 z zealous 10:17 w #100578 waiting 12 : 5 want 4:17 6:21,22 7:1,2,5,17 13:18,23 14:14 wasn't 8:15 week 13:19 weeks 12:15 13:20 weighing 1: 2516: 11 1 1:30 15:15 10 1:18 3:6 10th 16:8 101 2:19 11:08 1:19 3:6 11:25 1400 2:3 1500 2:20 1650 2:13 2 2.303 8:17 14:4 2.420 13:10 14:6 2.420(d) 8:18 2006-CF9454 1:4 2008-CF93B1 1:4 2009 1:18 3:6 16:8 22nd 15:14 25th 15:15 250 2:3 3 3rd 2:19 33301-1181 2:21 33394 2:14 33401 2:4 33401-4349 2:7 400 2:7 401 2:13 4 515 2:7 June 10, 2009 EFTA00183637

U, f I I I I I I. I I I EFTA00183638

IN THE CIRCUIT OCURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2.303-9/08 IN RE: SEALING OF COURT HEARINGS AND RECORDS The Florida constitution mandates that the public shall have access to court records, subject only to certain enumerated limitations which are restricted by operation of state law, federal law, or court rule. jr re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420 — Sealing of Court Records, 954 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2007). The Rules of the Supreme Court strongly disfavor court records that are hidden from public scrutiny. The Florida Supreme Court recently adopted Interim Rule 2.420 of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration which addresses the procedures for sealing noncriminal court records. In order to ensure that both criminal and noncriminal court records are sealed properly it is NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority conferred by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. A request to make court records or a court hearing confidential in any type of case must be made by written motion. Parties cannot submit an agreed-upon order. The Motion must be captioned "Motion to Make Court Records Confidential" or"Motion to Make Court Hearing Confidential". The Motion must identify with particularity the records or hearing to be made confidential and the grounds upon which it is based. The Motion must include a signed certification by the party making the request that the motion is being made in good faith and is supported by a sound factual and legal basis. I 2. The records that are the subject of a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential will be treated as confidential pending resolution of the motion. The case number, docket number, or other identifying number of a case will remain public. Pseudonyms may be used as permitted by the court. Court records made confidential under this rule must be treated as confidential during any appellate proceeding in this Circuit. 3. A public hearing on any motion to seal a court record or court hearing will be held as soon as practicable but no less than ten (10) days prior to the notice being given to the public and the press and no later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. A party may seek to hold all or EFTA00183639

a portion of the hearing on a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential in camera if necessary to protect any of the interests listed in Interim Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(cX9XA). The moving party will be responsible for ensuring that a complete record of any hearing be created either by use of a court reporter or by any recording device that is provided as a matter of right by the court. 4. A sealing order issued by a court must state with specificity the grounds for sealing and the findings of the court that justify sealing. The order granting the sealing request must contain as much detail as possible including the parties' names or pseudonyms, whether the progress docket is to be confidential, the court records that are to be confidential and the names of persons who are permitted Recta% The order must contain specific findings that the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality are no broader than necessary to protect the interests listed in Interim Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(cX9XA). The order will not reveal the information that is to be made confidential. The order will direct whether the progress docket is to be sealed. 5. If an order sealing a court file is silent as to whether the progress docket is to be sealed, the clerk shall seal the court file but maintain a public docket with no alternation of the parties' names. In accordance with Interim Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(cX9) the Clerk shall NOT seal the case number, docket number, or any other identifying number of a case that is sealed by court order. 6. The Court will direct the Clerk to post the order sealing the court file on the Clerk's website as well as on the bulletin board located at the Main Courthouse within ten (10) days following the entry of the order and must remain posted in both locations for at least 30 days. 7. A nonparty may file a written motion to vacate a sealing order in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 (2007); in re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420 — Sealing of Court Records, 954 So.2d 16 (Fla, 2007). I 8. A public hearing must be held on any contested motion to vacate a sealing order. The court, in its discretion, may hold a hearing on an uncontested motion. While challenge hearings must be open to the public, a party may seek to hold a portion or all of the hearing In camera if necessary to protect the interests listed in Interim Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(cX9XA). The movant must ensure that a record of the hearing is made. The movant seeking to vacate an order bears the burden of showing that the order is unsound. 9. If the identity of a party is to remain confidential, all applicable pleadings will be filed with the following designation on the front of the pleading: "Confidential Party — Court Service Requested". The judicial assistant for the division in which the pleading is filed is responsible for providing such notice to the applicable parties. The judicial assistant is to provide such notice so as not to inadvertently reveal the identity of the confidential party. 2 EFTA00183640

10. This administrative rule does NOT address the confidentiality of records admitted into evidence and it does NOT pertain to the statutory process for sealing or expunging criminal history records. Motions to Seal pleadings or court records filed in a criminal case must, however, comply with this Administrative Order. This administrative order also does NOT pertain to court records that are confidential pursuant to statute, rule or other legal authority. 11. 11 a motion to seal is not made in good faith and is not supported by a sound legal and factual basis, the court may impose sanctions upon the movant. 12. The Clerk of Court, or a deputy clerk, is hereby authorized to open any court file sealed by operation of law or court order for the purpose of filing documents pertinent to the particular file, as well as for microfilming or imaging files, and for preparing a record on appeal. The Clerk, or deputy clerk, shall reseal the file immediately upon completion of the task, with the date and time of the unsealing clearly marked on the outside of the file thong with the initials of the deputy clerk. 13. In all matters except adoption and surrogacy cases, the Clerk of Court will make the contents of a sealed file available to adult parties and their attorneys of record. The contents of adoption and surrogacy files shall not be made available to any person absent a court order. DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida day of September, 2008. supersedes admin. order 2.03210/06 3 EFTA00183641

EFTA00183642

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2.032 - 10106* IN RE: SEALING COURT HEARINGS AND RECORDS WHEREAS all court proceedings are public events and a strong presumption of public access attaches to all proceedings end their records; and WHEREAS records made or received pursuant to court rule, law, or ordinance, or in connection with the transaction of official business are subject to public disclosure; and WHEREAS privacy rights of litigants may in certain circumstances require that court records or documents in the record should be sealed. NOW, THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that to balance the competing interests of litigants' privacy interests and the public's right to access to court records. the following procedures are established for scaling court records: I . When a Motion is received for the sealing of a hearing or all or part of a court record, the Court will direct a hearing be held on same. The Court will give notice of the hearing by posting same on the electmnic bulletin board established by the Clerk of Court expressly for this purpose. Unless otherwise ordered with a reason given by the Court, notice should include enough disclosure to identify the case, the movant, the respondent, and a brief, generic description of the matters sealed or sought to he sealed. 2. The Court will not set a hearing less than ten (I0) days prior to the notice being given to the public and the press. 3. Where prior notice to the public and press regarding the scaling of a record is not practicable, the Court will address such Motion, and if granted, provide notice of any decision to seal on the Clerk's electronic bulletin board. Unless otherwise ordered with a reason given by the Court, notice should include enough disclosure to identify the case, the movant, the respondent, and a brief, generic description of the matters scaled or sought to be sealed. 4, Access to court proceedings and records may be restricted to protect the interests of litigants only after a showing that the following has been met: (i) the measure limiting or denying access, closure or sealing of records or both, Is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of Justice; EFTA00183643

(ii) no less restrictive alternative measures are available which would mitigate the danger; and (ill) the measure being considered will In fact achieve the courts protective purpose. 5. The reasons supporting seating the file must be stated with specificity In the order sealing the court record or hearing. The Case number should remain accessible on banners' regardless of whether the case has been sealed. DONE and ORDERED, in Chambers. at West Palm Beach. Florida this 13th day of October. 2006. /S/ Judge Kathleen 1. Kroll. Chief Judge supersedes administrative order no. 2.032 •1104 " The Court recognizes the present technology (as of October 10. 2006) used by the Clerk supports this, however it con not happen without a system modification which shall be completed by December 31.2006. EFTA00183644

1 EFTA00183645

Westlaw, Not Reported in So.2d Not Reported in So.2d, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.), 22 Media L. Rep. 2497 (Cite as: 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.)) C Florida Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County. JOHN DOE-I THROUGH JOHN DOE-4 and Par- ents of John Doe-1 through John Doc-4, Plaintiffs, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND HISTORY OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., Defendant. Nos. 92-32567-CI-CI, Div. 32. June 8, 1994. William H. Ogle, Ormond Beach, FL. W. Douglas Childs, Jacksonville, FL. Jonathan D. Kaney Jr., Daytona Beach, FL. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO CLOSE TRIAL RICHARD B. ORFINGER, Circuit Judge. *1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the plaintiff? motion to exclude the public from the tri- al of this case. Notice of hearing was given to rep- resentatives of the media as required by law. News- Journal Corporation, publisher of The News- Journal, filed a response and appeared in opposi- tion to the motion. Defendant took no position. According to the complaint, a man who worked at the local museum sexually abused the minor plaintiffs. He had first come into contact with three of the minors as they served as volunteers under his supervision. More than four years ago, the abuser was prosecuted and sentenced to prison. Since then the plaintiffs have settled suits for damages result- ing from this abuse against the Daytona Beach Mu- seum of Arts and Sciences, the Volusia County School Board, and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. As a previous employer of the abuser, plaintiffs allege this de- Page I fendant failed to disclose information about the ab- user's record of sexual abuse when it received an inquiry related to his employment in this com- munity. Although so many persons have become familiar with the case that defendant has listed eighty-one potential fact witnesses, no victim has yet been identified in the media. Relying on a privacy interest in the facts relating to the sexual abuse, plaintiffs argue that closure is ne- cessary to prevent the substantial harm that likely would result from revelation of these facts and identification as the victims.EN I Thus the motion calls upon the court to decide whether a privacy in- terest in the facts relating to sexual abuse suffered by the minors provides a proper basis for closure of the trial of the minors' suit for damages arising out of this abuse. For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that this is not a proper basis for closure and denies the motion. FN1. Previously, plaintiffs moved for an order restraining anyone, including the me- dia, from publishing information disclosed during the trial that would identify the minor victims. The court denied this mo- tion. See: Nebraska Press Association I Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) and The Flor- ida Star' B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989). Whenever other interests compete with the public interest in open judicial proceedings, "folur analys- is must begin with the proposition that all civil and criminal court proceedings are public events, re- cords of court proceedings are public records, and there is a strong presumption in favor of public ac- cess to such matters." Sentinel Communications Co. I. Watson, 615 So.2d 768, 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing Barron'. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Mc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla.1988)). This presumption rests on the most fundamental values of American government. (ID 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00183646

Not Reported in So.2d Not Reported in So.2d, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.), 22 Media L. Rep. 2497 (Cite as: 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.)) "[T]he people have a right to know what is done in their courts.... [T]he greatest publicity to the acts of those holding positions of public trust, and the greatest freedom in the discussion of the proceed- ings of public tribunals that is consistent with truth and decency, are regarded as essential to the public welfare." Barron, 531 So.2d at l 1 6-7 (citing In re Shortridge, 34 P. 227, 228.29 (Cal.1893) ). Open- ness in courts has a salutary effect on the propensity of witnesses to tell the truth and of judi- cial officers to perform their duties conscientiously. It informs persons affected by litigation of its effect upon them and fosters "respect for the law[,] intelli- gent acquaintance ... with the methods of govern- ment[, and] a strong confidence in judicial remedies ... which could never be inspired by a system of secrecy...." Id., (citing 6 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 1834 (Chadbourn rev.1976) ). These fundamental values come into play whenever the court is in ses- sion; and the presumption of openness applies in hard cases as well as easy cases. "The reason for openness is basic to our form of government." Id. •2 This motion is opposed by various news organ- izations, but the presumption of openness is of lar- ger importance than the immediate interest of the press in the case of the moment. To be sure, the press has a cognizable interest in maintaining open courts "because its ability to gather news is directly impaired or curtailed" by restrictions on access. Moreover, the press is assigned a fiduciary role in enforcing public rights of access because the press "may be properly considered as a representative of the public [for] enforcement of public right of ac- cess." Nevertheless, the values of openness in courts transcend the interests of the press because "[f]reedom of the press is not, and has never been a private property right granted to those who own the news media. It is a cherished and almost sacred right of each citizen to be informed about current events on a timely basis so each can exercise his discretion in determining the destiny and security of himself, other people, and the Nation." Stew ex rel. Miami Herald Pub. Co.l McIntosh, 340 So.2d 904, 908 (Fla.1977). In serving the right of each cit- Page 2 izen to be informed, judicial openness, of which the press is an instrument, sustains public confidence in the judiciary and thus serves the ultimate value of popular sovereignty. This higher purpose of openness is not always ap- parent in the public scrutiny of the daily business of the courts. Depending on the definition of news- worthiness, it may be possible to dismiss as un- worthy much that transpires in civil courts. Here, it is easy to ask what public interest is served by sub- jecting these minor victims to the risk of public identification. However, Barron teaches that this is the wrong question because it overlooks the higher purpose of openness in the courts. In Barron, a case involving privacy concerns inher- ent in a divorce case, the court strongly reaffirmed the presumption that Florida civil courts are open. In dissent, Justice McDonald saw the question in case-specific terms. He would have closed the pro- ceeding because "the rights of the public to inform- ation contained in a domestic relations lawsuit is minimal, if existent at all." 531 So.2d at 121. Impli- citly, this approach would have required the pro- ponent of openness to show a particular need to know facts of the specific case in order to gain ac- cess. The majority rejected this approach because it saw the conflicting interests in broader terms. "The parties seeking a dissolution of their marriage are not entitled to a private court proceeding just be- cause they are required to utilize the judicial sys- tem." 531 So.2d at 119. A closure request implicates the integrity and cred- ibility of the judicial system itself and not just the immediate concerns of the parties. The balance to be struck is not between the people's need to know the particular facts of the case versus the parties' need to keep these facts private but between the public interest in open courts versus the personal desire for a private forum. "Public trials are essen- tial to the judicial system's credibility in a free soci- ety." Barron at 116. •3 Although the Florida Supreme Court holds that O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00183647

Not Reported in So.2d Not Reported in So.2d, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.), 22 Media L. Rep. 2497 (Cite as: 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Clr.Cf.)) "the public and the press have a fundamental right of access to all judicial proceedings," however, this right is not absolute. State ex ref. Miami Herald Pub. Co.l. McIntosh, 340 So.2d at 908-9. In Bar- ron, the court took the occasion to establish the standards upon which the presumption of openness may be overcome when necessary "to protect com- peting interests." The court wrote a "definitive statement ... to assist judicial officers in this sensit- ive area." 531 So.2d at 117-8. Barron establishes a strong presumption of open- ness for all court proceedings and records, places the burden on the proponent of closure, and grants standing to the public and media to challenge clos- ure orders. Before a court may enter any order of closure it must determine there are no reasonable alternatives to closure and must order the least re- strictive closure necessary to accomplish the pur- pose of closure. 531 So.2d at 118-9. A closure or- der should be "drawn with particularity and nar- rowly applied." 531 So.2d at 117. Barron specifics an exclusive listing of those com- peting interests that may under appropriate circum- stances be sufficiently weighty to justify closure. Closure may be ordered "only when necessary" to serve one of six competing interests: (a) to comply with established public policy set forth in the constitution, statutes, rules, or case law; (b) to protect trade secrets; (c) to protect a compelling governmental interest [e.g., national security; confidential informants]; (d) to obtain evidence to properly determine legal issues in a case; (e) to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties (e.g., to protect young witnesses from of- fensive testimony; to protect children in a di- vorce]; or (f) to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclos- Page 3 urc of matters protected by a common law or pri- vacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of civil proceeding sought to be closed.... At the outset, the proponent of closure must identi- fy one or more of such interests that is implicated in the proposed closure. Here it is not necessary to go beyond this first level of analysis because plaintiffs have not connected their motion to a valid interest that would justify closure. This motion poses a direct confrontation between the individual interest in privacy and the public in- terest in open courts. Because there is inherent in the case sensitive, intimate, and embarrassing private facts, plaintiffs seek to litigate their claim in a closed proceeding. They argue "[ghat revelation of [the identities of the minor plaintiffs] has the po- tential to inflict substantial harm upon them (as] a matter of common sense." There is no question there are strong reasons to keep private the facts surrounding the abuse prac- ticed on the minors by the now-imprisoned abuser. The question this court must decide, however, is whether these are reasons to secure the courtroom. The question is not whether to afford privacy to the plaintiffs but whether to afford plaintiffs a closed forum in which to disclose these facts. *4 Although there is no case directly on this point, the present question comes fully within the holding of Barron, which thoroughly considered the com- petition between the people's interest in public courts and the personal interest in private facts. In effect, Barron raised the question of the role to be assigned to privacy in a system of public courts, and the majority resolved the issue by granting a narrow role to privacy based on considerations re- lating to the legitimate expectations of privacy. In the Florida Supreme Court's well-developed pri- vacy jurisprudence, the fundamental basis of the right of privacy is a legitimate expectation of pri- vacy. Not every fact in every circumstance is private, and not every act of government violates C> 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00183648

Not Reported in So.2d Not Reported in So.2d, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.Cir.Ct.), 22 Media L. Rep. 2497 (Cite as: 1994 WL 741009 (Fla.ffir.Ct.)) the right to be let alone. The concept by which the court separates the appropriate from the inappropri- ate instance for invoking the privacy right is this expectation. Stall'. State, 570 So.2d 257, 261 (Fla.1990). In order to establish a right of privacy, the individual must establish that "a reasonable ex- pectation of privacy ... exist[s]." Winfield'. Divi- sion of Parl-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla.1985). A right of privacy cannot attach when there is no expectation of privacy. Under our historic tradition of public courts, what reasonable expectation of privacy could a litigant possibly entertain? Concur- ring in Barron, Justice Erhlich would have con- ceded the litigant no reasonable expectation of pri- vacy. He pointed out, "we have recognized that title potential for invasion of privacy is inherent in the litigation process.' Rasmussen, South Flor- ida Blood Service, 500 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987). While civil litigants may have a legitimate expecta- tion of privacy in pretrial depositions and interrog- atories which are not filed with the court (citations omitted), no such expectation exists in connection with civil proceedings and court files which histor- ically have been open to the public. See Forsberg! Housing Authority, 455 So.2d 373, 375 (Fla.1984) (Overton, J., concurring) (there is traditionally no expectation of privacy in court files)." 531 So.2d at 120. Justice Erhlich shows the conflict between pri- vacy and publicness. If the privacy interest were al- lowed unbounded scope, it would overcome the public nature of trials. Thus a system of public tri- als must insist that litigants abandon qualms about disclosure of private facts when they place them in contest in the court. Without rejecting this view entirely, the majority nevertheless identified a limited scope of privacy within civil litigation. "\Ve find that, under appro- priate circumstances, the constitutional right of pri- vacy established in Florida by the adoption of art- icle 1, section 23, could form a constitutional basis for closure under (e) or (f)." 531 So.2d at 118. The majority thus conceived of two instances in which a Page 4 reasonable expectation of privacy might be found. *5 First, there is the privacy expectation of persons who are not parties to the case. Involuntary parti- cipants may have a reasonable claim of privacy. Thus under item (g), Barron recognizes that closure may be justified if the proponent carries the heavy burden of showing closure is necessary "to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties [e.g., to protect young witnesses from offensive testimony; to protect children in a divorce]." 531 So.2d at 118. Second, there is the more limited privacy expecta- tion of a party. Again, the doctrine of legitimate ex- pectation is applicable. Although a litigant has no right to expect privacy in matters involved in the case litigated in a public court, there may be mat- ters extrinsic to the case with respect to which a lit- igant has a reasonable privacy claim. Under Bar- ron's item (f), a proponent may be entitled to clos- ure if he or she carries the burden of showing that closure is necessary "to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a com- mon law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of civil proceeding sought to be closed." 531 So.2d at 118. Barron rules out closure based on privacy interests of parties in the subject matter of the case itself. In recognizing a peripheral role for the privacy claims of civil litigants, the majority held there can be no privacy interest in that which is inherent in the case. Because litigation in a public court system in- volves an inherent tendency to invade privacy, a lit- igant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject matter of a case. This must be so if, as Barron soundly affirms, there is to be a system of open courts in Florida. Applying this standard in Barron, the court determ- ined the medical history in question should not be sealed because it was inherent in the case. "Although generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer pro- tected when the medical condition becomes an in- tegral part of the civil proceeding, particularly O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00183649