Epstein grand jury 8.20.25 OCR

Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , -against￾JEFFREY EPSTEIN , Defendant . 19 CR. 49 0 ( RMB) DECISION & ORDER Having reviewed , among other things : ( i ) the Government's motion , dated July 18 , 2025 , to unseal the grand jury transcripts in United States v. Epstein , and the Government's motion , dated August 8, 2025 , to unseal the exhibits related to the transcripts ; (ii) the grand jury transcripts , date d June 1 8 , 2019 and July 2, 2019 , which together total 7 0 page s ; (iii) the grand jury exhibits (a PowerPoint presentation and 4 pages of call logs ); (iv) two letters , dated August 5, 2025 , from attorneys for Epstein victims and two letters from individual victims ; (v ) a letter from the Epstein estate executors , dated August 5 , 2025 ; and (vi) the Opinion & Order, dated August 11 , 2025 , in United States v. Maxwell denying the Government's motion to unseal the Maxwell grand jury transcripts and exhibits , the Court denies the Government's motions to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts and exhibits . ¹ , 2 1 Jeffrey Epstein was indicted on July 2 , 2019 on one count of sex trafficking conspiracy and one count of sex trafficking . Epstein never went to trial as he killed himself on August 10 , 2019 while remanded in Federal prison . See Gov't Letter Mot ., dated Aug. 19 , 2019 (ECF No. 47) . United States v. Maxwell is very much the companion case to United States v. Epstein . Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell went to trial , and on December 29 , 2021 she was found guilty of ( 1 ) conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts , (2) conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts , (3) transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts , (4) sex trafficking conspiracy , and (5) sex trafficking of a minor . 2 The Government filed similar if not identical motions in Epstein and in Maxwell on July 18 , 2025 seeking to unseal the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials . Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled on 1 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 14 The principal ruling in this case is that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) governs an d that there is clear precedent and sound purpose for grand jury sealing.³ The Government concede s that no Rule 6(e)(3) " exceptions " to grand jury secrecy apply in this case . At the same time , the Government fails to demonstrate any "special circumstance []" which might justify unsealing . See In re Pet. of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 , 102 (2d Cir. 1997 ) (" There is a tradition in the United State s , a tradition that is ‘older than our Nation itself ,' that proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secre t ." ) (quoting In re Biaggi , 478 F.2d 489 , 491 (2d Cir. 1973 ) (Friendly , C.J.)); Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stop s Nw ., 441 U.S. 211 , 218 n.9 ( 1979) ; United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (PAE ), 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11 , 2025 ) . "The Government's invocation of special circumstances . . . fails at the threshold . " Maxwell, 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 9. I. BACKGROUND Jeffrey Epstein was first investigated for sex crimes involving minor girls in 200 5 by the Palm Beach , Florida police department. See Decision & Order Remanding Def., date d July 18 , 2019 , a t 3 (ECF No. 3 2 ) . The investigation also involved th e U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida . See id. In the Fall of 2007 , Epstein entere d into a non -prosecution agreement with the Southern District of Florida base d upon Epstein's abus e of minor girls . See id. And, in June 200 8 , Epstein pled guilty in Florida stat e court to "one count of procuring a person under the ag e of 18 for prostitution , a felony , and one count of solicitation of August 11 , 202 5 agains t unsealing in a very thorough an d persuasive Opinion & Order. Se e United States v. Maxwell , 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) , 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11 , 2025 ). 3 This ruling also finds that some information contained in the Epstein grand jury materials is in the public spher e . See page s 11-12 , infra ; Maxwell , 202 5 WL 2301281 , at * 15 . The ruling also finds that the Government has not established any " special circumstance []." See also Maxwell , 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 21 . 2 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 14 prostitution , " als o a felony . Id. Epstein was sentence d to 18 months in prison although he served (only ) 1 3 months in a work-release program . Se e id. Epstein was als o required t o register a s a sex offender. See id. On July 2, 2019 , Epstein was indicted in the Southern District of New York on one count of sex trafficking conspiracy and one count of sex trafficking . Se e Indictment , date d July 2, 2019 , at 1 , 11 (ECF No. 2 ). Epstein was arrested on July 8, 2019. On July 18 , 2019 , this Court remanded Epstein , finding that he " pose [d ] a threat to additional young girls if he [were ] released. " Decision & Order Remanding Def. at 11 , 33. The Court also found that " Epstein or his representatives ha [d] intimidated , threatened, and/ or made payments to potential witnesses[, ]" and that "Epstein [w]a s not always . . . compliant with hi s legal obligations a s a registered sex offender. " Id. at 15, 18. While awaiting trial , Epstein was found dea d in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 10, 2019. Soon thereafter, the Government requested that the Court enter an order ofnolle prosequi . See Gov't Letter Mot., date d Aug. 19 , 2019 (ECF No. 47); see also Hr'g Tr., dated Aug. 27 , 2019 , at 28 : 15-17 (ECF No. 53 ) (Prosecutor : “[ T]he government is legally obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment against Jeffrey Epstein , and we respectfully submit ... that the entry of the proposed order is similarly required by law . " ) . At the August 27 , 2019 hearing , th e Court also heard from no les s than 2 3 Epstein victims.4 Se e id. a t 5 1 : 14–17 ( Attorney David Boies : " [H]ow proud I am of all of these women who have come forward . It's 4 The Court had issued the following Order: "The Court will conduct a brief hearing on Tuesday, August 27 , 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in connection with the nolle prosequi order proposed to the Court on August 19 , 2019 by the United States Attorney . The Court believes that where, as here , a defendant ha s died before any judgment has ben entere d agains t him , the public may [participat e ] in the proces s by which the prosecuto r seeks dismissal of an indictment. At the hearing , Counsel for the Government and for the decease d Defendant, Jeffre y Epstein, will be hear d . Counsel for the victims and the victims will also be heard , if they wish to be . ” Order, dated Aug. 21 , 2019 (ECF No. 48 ). 3 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 14 taken an enormous amount of strengt h and courage for them to do so .” ) ; id. at 59 :5–10 (Annie Farmer : "I think this is a really important signal to send a message to victims out there that people will take you seriously , people will follow through , and ... that even those in power will be held accountable .”) . II. LEGAL STANDARD The rule of grand jury secrecy (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)) reflects the "important ways in which it is said to contribute t o the succes s of grand juries and to the protection of those who appear before them ." In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 101-02 . Rule 6(e) requires that grand jury activities be secret for the following reasons : 1. To prevent the escap e of those whose indictment may be contemplated ; 2. To insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations , and to prevent person s subjec t t o indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors ; 3. To prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at th e trial of thos e indicted by it; 4 . To encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by person s who have information with respect to the commission of crimes ; and 5. To protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation , and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt . United States v . Procter & Gamble Co. , 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 ( 1958 ) (quoting United States v. Rose , 215 F.2d 617 , 628–29 (3d Cir. 1954 )). There are several (limited ) exceptions to grand jury secrec y under Rule 6(e)(3) which resolve almost all applications for the unsealing of grand jury records . See Fed . R. Crim. P. 6(e) (3) ( E)( i ) –(v); In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 102. The Second and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also review “ special circumstances ' in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside of the boundaries ofthe rule . " In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 102 (quoting In 4 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 5 of 14 re Biaggi , 478 F.2d 489 9 , 49 4 (2d Cir. 1973 ) (Friendly , C.J . )) ; see Carlson v. United State s , 837 F.3d 753 , 756 (7th Cir. 2016 ) . , 5 District courts in the Second Circuit determine whether exceptions to grand jury secrecy apply and when disclosure of records may be appropriate . See In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 102 . Disclosure of grand jury materials outside of the exceptions under Rule 6(e) involve " special conditions " which " rest [] on the exercise of a sound discretion " of the trial court. Id. at 103; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States , 360 U.S. 395 , 399 ( 1959 ). In analyzing "special condition []" exceptions , district courts consider the following nine ( 9) so -called In re Craig factors : 1. The identity of the party seeking disclosure ; 2. Whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure ; 3 . Why disclosure is being sought in the particular case ; 4. What specific information is being sought for disclosure ; 5. How long ago the grand jury proceedings took place ; 6 . The current statu s of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families ; 7. The extent to which the desired material - either permissibly or impermissibly has been previously made public ; 8. Whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affecte d by disclosure are still alive ; and 9. The additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question . Laws. ' Comm . for 9/11 Inquiry , Inc. , 43 F.4th at 285 (quoting In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106). The party seeking to unseal grand jury materials must demonstrate tha t unsealing is appropriate . See id. (“The burden is on th e requester to demonstrate that disclosure is appropriate , and 'the baseline presumption [i s ] against disclosure ."" ) (quoting In r e Craig, 131 F.3d at 104). 5 The Sixth , Eighth , Eleventh , and D.C. Circuits do not include any exceptions outside the terms of Rule 6(e). See McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842 , 850 (D.C. Cir. 2019 ) , cert . denied, 140 S. Ct . 597 . 5 Case 1 : 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 6 of 14 III. DISCUSSION The Government concede s that it cannot meet any of the exceptions specified in Rule 6(e). Rather , th e Government contend s that unsealing is warranted under a particular "special condition [], " namely a public interest exception . See Gov't Mot. at 4 ; but see Maxwell, 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 11 ("Contrary to the Government's depiction , the ... gran d jury testimony is not a matter of significant historical or public interest. Far from it. ") . There is certainly and appropriately lots of discussion about the Epstein case and for that reason the Court is proceeding to evaluate the validity of the Government's special condition claim under the nine In re Craig factors . Factor 1. The Identity of the Party Seeking Disclosure The Government is the party seeking disclosure - however unusual it is for the Government to seek to unseal grand jury material . See In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 491. Not since In re Biaggi ( 1973 ) has the Government sought to unseal grand jury materials based upon "special circumstances . ” Gov't Mem. at 3-4 (acknowledging the " extraordinary nature" ofthe Government's unsealing request). The Government's argument for unsealing " is not dispositive ," and it "should . . . not b e taken a s demanding , or even authorizing [] public disclosure of a witness ' grand jury testimony . ” In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 10 6 ; In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 494 . A significant and compelling reason to reject th e Government's position in this litigation is that the Government ha s already undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the Epstein case and, not surprisingly , has assembled a " trove " of Epstein documents , interviews , and exhibits . And, the Government committed that it would share its Epstein investigation materials with the public . See Press Release , Dep't of Just ., Attorney General Pamela Bondi Releases First 6 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 7 of 14 Phase ofDeclassified Epstein Files (Feb. 27 , 2025) ( “ DOJ Press Release"), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-releases-first-phase￾declassified￾epstein-files ( "The Department remains committed to transparency and intends to release the remaining [Epstein] documents .") (emphasis added). The Government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd page s of Epstein grand jury materials . See Adam Goldman & Alan Feuer, How a Frantic Scouring of the Epstein Files Consumed the Justice Dept. , NY Times (July 24 , 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/us/politics/epstein-files￾trump -bondi -justice -department -fbi.html . The Government's "Epstein Files " are sui generis . They ar e investigatory an d not subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). The Government i s th e logical party to make comprehensive disclosure t o th e public of th e Epstein Files . By comparison , th e instant grand jury motion appear s to be a “ diversion " from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession. Maxwell, 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 11 . The gran d jury testimony i s merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct. In February 202 5 , the Government , as noted, was prepared to release their "Epstein Files " to the public . See DOJ Press Release . But then, on July 6, 2025, the Government announced it would not make the files available to the public . See DOJ & FBI Memo . at 1 (" [ I ]t is the determination of the Department of Justic e and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted . ”). 6 The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer ( R￾Ky.) has recently stated that the U.S. Department of Justice informed the Committee it will begin providing Epstein-related records " this week ." Press Release, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Aug. 18 , 2025 ), https://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-comer-doj-complying-with￾epstein -records -subpoena / . 7 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 8 of 14 There is another compelling reason not to unseal the Epstein grand jury materials at this time , namely possible threat s to victims ' safety and privacy . The Court received a very compelling lette r , dated August 5 , 2025 , from three leading victims ' rights attorneys, who have state d : "[A]ny disclosure of grand jury material —especially material tha t could expose or help identify victims in any way - directly affects the CVRA's [ 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ] fairness , privacy , conferral , and protection guarantee s ." Edwards et al. Letter , dated Aug. 5, 2025 , at 2 (ECF No. 7 3 ) . These attorneys represent "numerous survivors of Jeffrey Epstein , including several individuals whose names and identifying information appear in the subject materials . ” Id. at 1 . Whether victims do or do not favor unsealing , it is imperative that victims have adequate notice of unsealing and adequate time to respond in advance of disclosure . See id. at 2. Victims did not have sufficient notice before the Government filed the instant motions to unseal . See id. The Government must ensure a proper review and redaction process in coordination with victims ' counsel . Id. It is critical that victims be afforded " narrow tailoring , maximal privacy protections , an d meaningful victim participation " in accordance with the Crime Victims ' Rights Act . Id. at 4 ; 18 U.S.C. § 3771. And, best practice s require advance approval of redactions by an objective party. See Edwards et al. Letter at 3 . The following comments were included in letters recently received by the Court : (i) Letter from Boies Schiller on behalf of Annie Farmer , dated August 5, 2025 : " The grand jury transcripts should be released subject to narrowly tailored redactions of the names , likenesses , an d identifying information of the victims” " ; (ii) Letter from Bradley Edwards , Brittany Henderson , and Prof. Paul G. Cassell , dated August 5, 2025 : " [ T]ransparency cannot come at the expense ofthe very people whom the justice system is sworn to protect— particularly amid contemporaneous events that magnify risk and trauma ” ; ( iii) Letter of Jane Doe 1 , dated August 8 Case 1: 19- cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 9 of 14 4, 2025 : " It is imperative with the scrutiny over this media frenzy that the victims are completely and entirely protecte d " ; and (iv ) Letter of Jan e Doe 2, date d August 4 , 2025: " I beg the court to make sure it is the upmost priority that in any sort of release ALL and EVERY detail that could possibly reveal our identities be redacted. " Factor 1 favors continued sealing . Factor 2. Whether the Defendant to the Grand Jury Proceeding or the Government Opposes the Disclosure Jeffrey Epstein is dead . And, the Government supports unsealing . The Co -Executors of Epstein's Estate “take [] no position regarding the Government's motion to unseal . ” Co￾Executors ' Letter , dated Aug. 5 , 2025 , at 1 (ECF No. 71 ). There are important considerations - particularly safeguarding victims ' rights - which counsel against the Government's unsealing motion . See victims ' rights discussion at page s 8-9 , supra ; se e also In r e Biaggi , 47 8 F.2d a t 49 4 (unsealing “rest s on th e exercise of a sound discretion under the special circumstances of [each] case ") . Factor 2 favors continued sealing . Factor 3. Why Disclosure Is Being Sought in the Particular Case Another question surrounding the Government's motion to unseal is what constitutes the "public interest. " Gov't Mot. at 4. It is clear that grand jury materials may not be unsealed based upon "a blanket assertion that the public has an interest in the information contained in the grand jury [materials ]. " In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 105. The Government contend s that " public interest" came to the forefront on July 6, 2025 when the Department of Justic e and the Federal Bureau of Investigation " announced the conclusion oftheir review of the particulars of Epstein's crimes and death. " Gov't Mot. at 2. Since then, according to the Government , " the public's interest in the Epstein matter has 9 Case 1 : 19 - cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 10 of 14 remained . " Id. The Government's assertions are legally insufficient . See In re Craig, 131 F.3d a t 105 ( "[T]he distric t court' s comment tha t public interes t , without more , cannot permit disclosure must be read simply a s the commonplace observation tha t th e 'special circumstances' tes t canno t be satisfie d by a blanket assertio n that the public has a ] [generi c ] interes t in the information contained in the grand jury transcripts . ”) . Factor 3 favors continued sealing . Factor 4. What Specific Information Is Being Sought for Disclosure The Government doe s not attempt to tailor discret e (specific ) items within the record . Id. at 106; Maxwell , 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 13 . Nor does the Government seek leave to disseminate gran d jury materials to a specialized audience (with appropriate safeguards). In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106; Maxwell, 2025 WL 2301281 , at * 13 . Not a single victim was called to testify before the Epstein grand jury. In fact, the only witness in th e grand jury was a law enforcement FBI agen t who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay. The grand jury materials in question include the following: a. A 56-pag e transcript of the agent' s presentation to the grand jury on June 18, 2019 ; b. A 14-page transcript ofthe agent's presentation to the grand jury on July 2, 2019 ; C. A PowerPoint exhibit shown to the grand jury on June 18 , 2019 ; and d. A call log exhibit shown to the grand jury on July 2, 2019 . Factor 4 favors continued sealing . Factor 5. How Long Ago the Grand Jury Proceedings Took Place The Epstein grand jury convened on June 18 , 2019 and July 2 , 2019. Epstein died a little more than six years ag o . The Government ha s suggeste d that "public interest” in the Epstein matter peaked a s recently a s July 6, 2025 . Se e pag e 7, supra . 10 Case 1 : 19 - cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 11 of 14 The Second Circuit has found that the "public interest" often span s several decade s , i.e. before any unsealing of grand jury materials . Se e In re Craig, 131 F.3d a t 105. Indeed , courts have granted unsealing motions where grand jury proceedings took place a s long as decade s ago. See In re Pet. ofNat'l Sec . Archive , 104 F. Supp . 3d 625 , 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2015 ) ; In re Pet . ofAm . Hist. Ass'n , 49 F. Supp . 2d 274 , 277-78 (S.D.N.Y. 1999 ) . Factor 5 favors continued sealing . Factor 6. The Current Status of the Principals of the Grand Jury Proceedings and That of Their Families Jeffrey Epstein is dea d and representatives of Epstein's estat e have "take [n] no position regarding the Government's motion to unseal . " Co -Executors ' Letter at 1 . Factor 6 is neutral . Factor 7. The Extent to which the Desired Material - Either Permissibly or Impermissibly —Has Been previously Made Public "[D]esired material ” refers to a relatively modest amount ( 70 pages plus exhibits ) of Epstein grand jury information which is secre t under Rule 6(e). The material was sufficient to obtain the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein , but not more . Because Epstein died before trial, the material was never presente d to a trial jury and was never subjecte d to examination and cross examination . It was the hearsay testimony of one FBI agent. The Government has estimated that some Epstein grand jury information became public via the Maxwell criminal trial (and also through civil cases related to Epstein and Maxwell). Gov't Letter, dated Aug. 8 , 2025 , at (ECF No. 75) (in making its assessment , " the Government . . compared the [Epstein ] gran d jury exhibits against the trial record and exhibits in the ... Maxwell trial , a s well a s against any publicly filed civil complaints " ). Because the Epstein cas e never went t o trial , most of th e Epstein gran d jury material did not become public . See Laws. ' 11 Case 1 : 19 - cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 12 of 14 Comm . for 9/11 Inquiry , Inc. , 43 F.4th at 286 (denying a motion to unseal , in part, because some of the materials requested by the applicant were not public ). Desired material refers also to the Government's substantial investigative trove concerning the Epstein cas e (an d presumably the Maxwell cas e as well). The Government ha s , so far, withheld these materials from the public . Very recently , the Government announced that it was going to make thes e materials public - presumably piecemeal – in response to a congressional subpoena . See Michael Gold , Top Republican Says Justice Dept. Will Begin Sharing Epstein Files, NY Times (Aug. 18 , 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/ u s / politics / epstein-files -release-trump.html . The Government's complete information trove would better inform th e public about th e Epstein cas e . Se e page s 6-7 , supra . Factor 7 favors continued sealing . Factor 8. Whether Witnesses to the Grand Jury Proceedings Who Might be Affected by Disclosure Are Still Alive The only witness who presente d before th e Epstein grand jury was the FBI law enforcement agent who is still alive . Because Epstein died before his trial , the Government moved the Court for an order of dismissal of Epstein's case (nolle prosequi ). See Gov't Letter Mot., dated Aug. 19 , 2019 (ECF No. 47); see also Hr'g Tr. at 28 : 15-17; see also pages 3-4 , supra . The same agent testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell gran d jury (and in the Maxwell trial)." Maxwell was found guilty of ( 1 ) conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engag e in illegal sex act s , (2) conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex act s , (3) transporting a minor t o participate in illegal sex act s , (4) se x trafficking conspiracy , and (5) se x trafficking of a minor . 7 There was a second witness in the Maxwell grand jury , i.e. a New York Police Department detective . 12 Case 1 : 19 - cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 13 of 14 8 Maxwell's convictions were affirmed by the Second Circuit . The Maxwell case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court . See United States v. Maxwell, No. 24-1073 (S. Ct. Apr. 10, 2025 ). Victims were not called to testify in the Epstein grand jury. Victims did have the opportunity to speak in public at the August 27 , 2019 nolle prosequi hearing . See pages 3-4 , supra . And, as noted, 23 victims spoke movingly about their horrific Epstein experiences at the hearing . According to the Government , there are over a thousand victims of Jeffrey Epstein . See DOJ & FBI Memo . at 1 (The Government " confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims . "). It is difficult to know exactly how many victims favor unsealing and how many favor continued sealing . It is likely that victims who favor disclosure do so on the assumption that their safety, privacy , and dignity will be protected . Se e id.; Edwards et al . Letter at 4 ( "[T]ransparency cannot come a t the expense of the very people whom th e justice system is sworn to protect— particularly amid contemporaneous event s that magnify risk and trauma . "). Factor 8 favors continued sealing . Factor 9. The Additional Need for Maintaining Secrecy in the Particular Case in Question The Epstein grand jury materials ar e subjec t to th e provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6 exceptions . See page s 4-5 , supra . And , in the Second Circuit , unsealing applications are subject to " special circumstances " jurisprudence . See, e.g. , In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 102. 8 Judg e Alison J. Nathan who preside d over the Maxwell trial foun d tha t the thre e conspiracy count s agains t Maxwell were multiplicitous . Judg e Nathan entere d a judgment on only on e ofthe three conspiracy counts . See Maxwell Judgment , dated June 29 , 2022 , at 1 (ECF No. 696). 13 Case 1 : 19 - cr -00490 - RMB Document 77 Filed 08/20/25 Page 14 of 14 The information contained in the Epstein gran d jury transcript s pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice. See discussion at page s 8- 9 , supra (concerning victims ' rights and the importance of protecting victims ' safety, privacy , and dignity ). Factor 9 favors continued sealing . IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above , including the In re Craig analysis and based upon the record, the Government's motions to unseal the grand jury transcripts and exhibits in United State s v. Epstein [ECF # 61 & 75 ] are respectfully denied . Date : August 20, 2025 New York, New York 14 RichardM.Berma RICHARD M. BERMANn , U.S.D.J.