EFTA02729582

06-01-'09 15:31 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-987 P001/007 F-845 THOMAS LOCI C ER 0 BRALOW .t. 400 N. Ashley Drive•Suite I IO0eTampa FyL 33602 facsimile transmittal To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. Judith Stevenson Area, Esq. Michael McAuliffe, Esq. Fax: (561) 820-8777 (561)355-7351 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (561) 835-8691 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (954) 527-8663 William J. Berger, Esq. From: Deanna K. Skullman, Esq. Date: 06/01/2009 Re: State v. J. Epstein Pages: 6 Urgent For review K Please coTment U Please see attached Motion to Intervene and Petition for Amass Please reffiltl Please =vale K gia/a- ide&te -(47) gfriidufrt CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMEh TMs eatcoemic mettap tranSIDOS OfiAIMS. The WomanIon b Iota Us sly disclosure, espying_ iateib in woe. please Reify os by ackpba IRS Clammier 230 Diedoiert. To th be toed by any taxpayer. for the rocooneedleg go mother piny my trona:don a mean addressed herein If you nook) like us to prepare written Per advice demand* provide penalty protection, please toad us and we will be happy to axon the meta with you n more detail 09/12/2019 C • clgP I Agency to Agency R"Liet 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331871 EFTA 00204597 EFTA02729582 06-01-'09 15:31 MI -THOMAS & L0CICER0 THOMAS June I, 2009 LOCICERO BRALOW 8139843070 T-987 P002/007 F-845 Tamps 400 N. Asbkry Or, St Int Tempe, Pi. &%02 P.O. Box 2602. Tempt FL 331301.2002 ph. 613-904-X60 lax 813-044-3070 106 IN•0004954100 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach Palm Beach County Courthouse Main Judicial Complex 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Dear Judge Colbath: Ft. Latartlala 101 N.E. mid Ave, MA 1500 Li Lauderdale FL 31301 ph 964-332.3019 lax 877.904244 toll tee 600-0074000 New York 0117 220 E. 42nd St, 1001Floor Newton. NY 10017 ph 2)2-210-2898 fax 212-21020113 met.Nastraor Deanna K. Shullman Direct (561) 967-2009 DeannaStullme00004reftrm.com Reply To Tampa Enclosed is a courtesy copy of non-party Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post's (the "Post") Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access to certain court records in this case. It is our understanding that Bradley Edwards and William Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler have filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as "E. W.," and that E.W.'s motion is set for hearing on June 10,2009. The Post requests an opportunity to be heard on the issue of access to these records at that time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. cc: Counsel of Record 09/12/2019 Sincerely, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL K 9,itabv, Deanna K. Shulhnan CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331872 EFTA_00204598 EFTA02729583 06-01-'09 15:32 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 8139843070 T-987 P003/007 F-845 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-AXX PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR ACCESS Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (the "Post") moves to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of seeking access to documents filed under seal. The documents relate directly to the Defendant's guilty plea and sentence. Thus, the sealed documents go to the heart of the disposition of this case. But in requesting that Judge Pucillo seal these documents, the panics failed to comply with Florida's strict procedural and substantive requirements for sealing judicial records. In addition, continued sealing of these documents is pointless, because these documents have been discussed repeatedly in open court records. For all of these reasons, the documents must be unsealed. As grounds for this Motion, the Post states: I. The Post is a daily newspaper that has covered this matter and related proceedings. In an effort to inform its readers concerning these matters, the Post relies upon (among other things) law enforcement records and judicial records. 2. As a member of the news media, the Post has a right to intervene in criminal proceedings for the limited purpose of seeking access to proceedings and records. So Barron v Florida Freedom Newspapers. Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Pybl'g Co. 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). 09/1212019 CONFIDENTIAL T Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331873 EFTA_00204599 EFTA02729584 06-01-'89 15:32 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 8139843070 T-987 P004/007 F-845 3. The particular documents under seal in this case are a non-prosecution agreement that was docketed on July 2, 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. Together, these documents apparently restrict any federal prosecution of the Defendant for offenses related to the conduct to which he pleaded guilty in this case. Judge Pucillo accepted the agreement for filing during a bench conference on June 30, 2008. The agreement, Judge Pucillo found, was "a significant inducement in accepting this plea." Such agreements and related documents typically are public record. See Oregonian Publishing Co. v United States District come 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"); United States v el y , 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (11th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to defendant's change of plea and sentencing could be sealed only upon finding of a compelling interest that justified denial of public access). 4. The Florida Constitution provides that judicial branch records generally must be open for public inspection. $__t An. I, § 24(a), Fla. Const. Closure of such records is allowed only under narrow circumstances, such as to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration of justice; or to protect a compelling governmental interest. Ha. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A). Additionally, closure must be effective and no broader than necessary to accomplish the desired purpose, and is lawful only if no less restrictive measures will accomplish that purpose. $ Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2. 420(c)(9XB) & (C); Lewis 426 So. 2d at 3. 5. In this case, the non-prosecution agreement and, later, the addendum were sealed without any of the requisite findings. Rather, it appears from the record, the documents were sealed merely because the Defendant's counsel represented to Judge Pucillo that the non- prosecution agreement "is a confidential document." See Plea Conference Transcript page 38 09/12/2019 2 Pa CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331874 EFTA 00204600 EFTA02729585 . 06-01-'89 15:32 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-987 P005/007 F-845 (June 30, 2008). Such a representation falls well short of demonstrating a compelling interest, a genuine necessity, narrow tailoring, and that no less restrictive measures will suffice. Consequently, the sealing was improper and ought to be set aside. 6. In addition, at this time good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of their public significance. Since the Defendant pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution, he has been named in at least 12 civil lawsuits that — like the charges in this case — allege he brought and paid teenage girls to come his home for sex and/or "massages.i' At least 11 cases are pending. In another lawsuit, one of the Defendant's accusers has alleged that federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding the disposition of possible charges against the Defendant= State prosecutors also have been criticized: The Palm Beach Police Chief has faulted the State Attorney's handing of these cases as "highly unusual" and called for the State Attorney's disqualification. Consequently, this case — and particularly the Defendant's agreements with prosecutors — are of considerable public interest and concern. 7. The Defendant's non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors also was important to Judge Pucillo. As she noted in the June 2008 plea conference, "I would view [the non-prosecution agreement] as a significant inducement in accepting this plea." See Plea Conference Transcript page 39. Florida law recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Div See. e.g.. Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 2 v. Epstein. Case No. 08-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 3. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 4._vinstein, Case No. 08-80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 v, Epstein, Case No. 08- 80381 (S.D. Ha. 2008); C.M.A. v. Epstein Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No, 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 6 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe II v, Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009)• Doe No. 101 v. Epstein. Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Doe No. 102 v Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 2 Em In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008). 0911212019 3 Pa CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331875 EFTA_0020460 EFTA02729586 06-01-'09 15:32 FROM-THOMAS 8. LOCICERO 8139843070 T-987 P006/007 F-845 of the New York Times Co. v. Holtzendorf 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("While a judge may impose whatever legal sentence he chooses, if such sentence is based on a tangible proceeding or document, it is within the public domain unless otherwise privileged."). In this case, no interest justifies continued sealing of these "significant" documents that Judge Pucillo considered in accepting the plea and sentencing the Defendant. The lack of any such compelling interest — as well as the parties' failure to comply with the standards for sealing documents initially — provide good cause for unsealing the documents at this time. 8. Finally, continued closure of these documents is pointless, because many portions of the sealed documents already have been made public. For example, court papers quoting excerpts of the agreement have been made public in related federal proceedings.3 As the Florida Supreme Court has noted, "there would be little justification for closing a pretrial hearing in order to prevent only the disclosure of details which had already been publicized." Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 8. Similarly, in this case, to the extent that information already has been made public, continued closure is pointless and, therefore, unconstitutional. 9. The Post has no objection to the redaction of victims' names (if any) that appear in the sealed documents. In addition, insofar as the Defendant or State Attorney seek continued closure, the Post requests that the Court inspect the documents in camera in order to assess whether, in fact, continued closure is proper. See, es "Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen's Motion for Stay " C.M.A. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2008) (filed publicly Jan. 7, 2009). 09112/2019 4 CONFIal5ENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331876 EFTA_002 04602 EFTA02729587 86-01-'09 15:33 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 8139843070 T-987 P007/007 F-845 WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum and grant the Post such other relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL fiv K. Sh man Florida Bar No.: 0514462 lame:TB-Lake 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via facsimile and U.S. Mail to: R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561.820-8777); Michael McAuliffe, Esq., and Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-355.7351); Jack Man Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave.. Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-835-8691); and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 (fax: 954-527-8663) on this 1st day of June, 2009. 09/1212019 lutAtuazftki 5 Page 3855 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331877 EFTA_002 04603 EFTA02729588 06-26-'09 13:44 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-060 P001/005 F-889 THOMAS I OCICFRO BRALOW 400N. AshleyDl-M:0,31Mo 1100•Tampa, FL 33602 813-984.3060 (Pbone)•813.984-3070 (Fax) Toll Free: 866.395-7100 L facsimile transmittal To: Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Jodge FAX Colbatb R. Alexander Acosta, Esq., USAO Barbara Burns, Esq., ASAO Jack Alan Coldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. eritteet, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Erotti Deanna K. %ulinaa, Esq. Date: Ro. State v. J. Epsteln Pages: 5 Urgent❑ For review O Please comrnentO j. Fleet* replyO _I Please regale O Please see attached proposed Order. C0NfIDfNTULtTY STATEmENT This ele«rooic @osuu uusiutui« conuins inforoution TIPU Me Iaw firm of Thome@ LoCkero @ Bralos./ PL, ard is ~Maiti@ or privikgcd. The ideaali« b inenek4 lo be for the tae Mike: individual or oUty named ahon. If you are nol Me intended raipicm, be awarc tal any discluure.copying.distribution or ase of ;he COIllertforthls Informan n prolubitcd. ifyou Sure rocentd this elcctronsc ~intoa in cfrot, picote noify us by telophou (813)984-3060 nnmedialtly. Thank >cm for per. CoOpourion 1R$ Circular 230 DistiMult To (he «uni his conespondesce costains fetkral tiw edvice, such adrice et% nor Wanda to he used, amd cannot be used by any Uupuu. for OK ',tappio of midi,' pcnaltird uida Ne laterna] Rennes Code or (i) pronsOdny„ or reconsowndinlyto media pury any uovattion or maa addrused IfyouwouWlikaintopreparewr®enaadvioedesigrcdwpmvi.b PonkllY proxdim, Pachn COntia La and wc yval bo hamy to enon, me mm« wiM you b morc &UI 09/1212019 p Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331878 EFTA 00104604 EFTA02729589 06-26-'09 13:44 FROM-THOMAS 8. L0CIGER0 8139843070 T-060 P002/005 F-889 THOMAS June 26,2009 I OfICFRO BRALOW VIA FASCIMILE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach Palm Beach County Courthouse Main Judicial Complex 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: Tan*. 600 N Ashley Dr., ale. 1100. Fornro. FL 33602 P.O. Box 2602. Tampa. FL 33001-2602 ph 613464-3060 tax /1134444070 ion ON 806-335-7100 FL Latxlerdele to, N.E. Third Ave. SI. 1603 FL Lou0pdole. FL 33301 Oh 9644324610 lax 0174674244 loll te0 N4467-2000 New Yak City 210E 4260 St. 1061 Floor Nevi York NY 10017 p1212.210.2093 fax 2124104883 0366129Kstasc03 Deanna K. Shuhman Direct Dial (561) 967-2009 DeanneShullmanratiolawfirm.corn Reply To Tampa This law firm represents the Palm Beach Post in the above matter. I have prepared a proposed Order, which I believe accurately reflects your ruling at the hearing on June 26, 2009 on Defendant Jeffrey Epstcin's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review. By copy of this letter, I am providing all counsel of record a copy of the proposed Order. If the attached Order meets with Your Honor's approval, please enter the same. If you would like to have an electronic copy of this proposed order, please have your Judicial Assistant call my office to make arrangements for us to send you the order via email. 09/12/2019 Sincerely. THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL &As, K Deanna K. Shullman P n CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331879 EFTA_002 04605 EFTA02729590 06-26-'09 13:44 RCM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 8139843070 T-060 P003/005 F-889 Hon. J. Colbath 06/26/09 Page 2 of 2 DKS/kb Enclosures cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorney's Office (via facsimile) Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (via facsimile) Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. (via facsimile) Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile) 09112/2019 Page 3858 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331880 EFTA_002 04606 EFTA02729591 06-26-'09 13:45 FROM-THOMAS 8 L0CICER0 8139843070 T-060 P004/005 F-889 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA vs. Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-AXX JEFFREY EPSTEIN ORDER This matter came before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review and upon further consideration of this Court's June 26, 2009 Order unsealing certain records in this case. A hearing was conducted on these matters on June 26, 2009. On June 26, 2009, this Court entered an order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and an addendum on file in this case. Having inspected the documents, this Court finds that they do not name any victims and do not contain any material subject to confidentiality pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Thus, the Court declines to make any redactions to the records before releasing them to the public. The Court further finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Defendant has not shown any irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits on appeal. These documents were not properly closed in the first instance, no present basis for closure exists, and good cause supports disclosure given the public interest in these proceedings and the lack of compelling interest in closure. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows: 1. Effective at noon on July 2, 2009, the non-prosecution agreement (docketed July 2, 2008) and addendum (docketed August 25, 2008) are unsealed; 0911212019 Pan CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331881 EFTA_002 04607 EFTA02729592 06-26-'09 13:45 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICERD 8139843070 T-060 P005/005 F-889 2. Defendant's Motion for Stay pending appellate review is DENIED: 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to release the documents to the public at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Done and ordered this day of June, 2009 in Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Florida. Hon. Jeffrey Colbath CIRCUIT JUDGE cc: U.S. Attorney's Office State Attorney's Office Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Deanna K. Shullrnan, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 09112/2019 CONFIDENTIAL 2 Page 3860 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331882 EFTA_002 04608 EFTA02729593 JUN-26-2009 FRI 02:29 P11 Date: 6/26/09 FAX NO. 5818358891 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM FAX COVER SHEET To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. USAO Barbara Burns, Esq. ASAO Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Subject: State of Florida v. Epstein Pages: 3 including this cover sheet. See attached letter. ORIGINAL WILL BE SENT: YES _X__ NO IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT (661) 659-8300 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. P. 01/03 The infomabon contained In this facsimile message Is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message Is not tha intended recipient, you are hereby nottfied that any dissemination, cfuttrtbution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication In error, please immediately notify us by telephone. Thank You 09/12/2019 61 CONFIDE ge NTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_0033t 883 EFTA 00204609 EFTA02729594 JUN-28-2009 FRI 02;29 PM June 26, 2009 TELECOPIED THIS DATE The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY t JACK A. GOLDBERGER JASON SVVEISS Rose ratified CrtrnivITrill Attonicy ; member of New Jolty Et ReSda firm Re; State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: On behalf of Mr. Epstein, we strongly object to the proposed order submitted by Deanna Shullman on behalf of the Palm Beach Post. The court has already entered an order dated June 25, 2009 on: a) Non-party, E.W.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) B.B's Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d} Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential. The only matter before the court today was Defendant Epstein's Motion for a Stay which the court denied. Contrary to the assertions in the proposed order submitted to you by the Palm Beach Post, the court made a specific finding that the Defendant Epstein has met his burden of irreparable harm. Additionally, all of the other matters contained in the proposed order were addressed in the court's Order of June 25, 2009. It is the position of Defendant Epstein that the order on today's Motion to Stay should simply state that the Defendant's Motion to Stay is denied. In this way, the court's order of June 25, 2009 on the merits of the issue and the order of the court One Clearlake Centre Suite 1400 ow12/2019. p 581.0 I 250 Austpikpflanue South West Palm EREWEFERAIRRey Requet: 19-411 FIDEUTIAL. SDNY_GM_00331884 EFTA_002046 10 EFTA02729595 JUN-26-2009 FIN 02:30 PM The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath June 26, 2009 Page 2 FAX W2 5618358691 F. 03/03 denying the stay motion can properly be reviewed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. JAG:cg cc: U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) State Attorney's Office(via facsimile) Deanna K Shullman, Esquire (via facsimile) Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire (via facsimile) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) 09112/2019 V trulyyWurs, ACK A. GOLDBERGER CONFPITSENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331885 EFTA 0020461 EFTA02729596