EFTA02729635

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08CF009381AXXXMB DIVISION "W' vs. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant. AGREED ORDER CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERROR THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the agreement of Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., attorney for the Defendant, and Barbara Burns, Esq., Assistant State Attorney, and the Court being otherwise fully apprised of the facts and circumstances therein, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order of Community Control is corrected to delete special condition #26 (Supervision by DOC by means of an electronic monitoring device or system) and special condition #27 (Electronic monitoring 24 hours per day). The plea agreement and plea colloquy clearly reflect that the Defendant was not to be placed on the electronic monitor. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this day of May, 2009. JEFFREY COLBATH Circuit Court Judge Copies Furnished: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Ne Barbara Burns, Esq., Assistant State Attorney Department of Corrections — Probation and Parole 09/12/2079 CONFIDENTIAL T 9 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331925 EFTA_00204651 EFTA02729635 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 2008-9381CF-AXX NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post will call up for hearing its Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie FAry., Room 11F, West Palm Beach on June 10, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Time reserved: 10 Minutes 09/12/2019 THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW P1, nna K. Shullman Florida Bar No.: 0514462 James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 0023477 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 984-3060 Facsimile: (813) 984-3070 Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post CONFPITTENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331926 EFTA_00204652 EFTA02729636 State v. Epstein Case No. 2006-CF9454 & 2008-9381CF Notice of Hearing on Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via C14.8. Mail; 'Facsimile; 3 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; William J. Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3394; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 on thi 9 Goldberger, of June, 2 cc: Judicial Assistant (Via Fax and U.S. Mail) Esquire Court Reporting 09/12/2079 Atto CONFIDENTIAL Page 9 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331927 EFTA_00204653 EFTA02729637 • 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-CF9454arc &r..O a: PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE : 274 AND PETITION FOR ACCESS 11 14 rn r 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 parties 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: 1. The Post is a daily newspaper that has covered this matter and related 7,32,) proceedings. In an effort to inform its readers concerning these matters, the Post relieiWon;.: (among other things) law enforcement records and judicial records. 71 -13 (77 2. As a member of the news media, the Post has a right to intervene in cnnunalze proceedings for the limited purpose of seeking acrecs to proceedings and records. Warm v. Florida Freedom Nerawers. Inc. 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'R Co. v I swic 426 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1982) (news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). 09/1212019 P CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331928 EFTA 00204654 EFTA02729638 3. The particular documents under seal in this case arc 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 arc public record. See Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"). United States v KOOiStrit 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (I 1th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to defendant's change of plea and sentencing could be scaled 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. See Art. 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. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9XA). 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. See 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 Page 3907 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet 19-111 SDNYGM_00331929 EFTA_00204655 EFTA02729639 (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."' At least I1 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.2 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 — arc 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, "1 would view [the non-prosecution agreement] as a significant inducement in accepting this plea." Plea Conference Transcript page 39. Florida law recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. See 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. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Pry. islet, tv Poor-in Case No. 08- 80381 (S.D. Fla. 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); Poe No. 6 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Poe 11 v Fpwrin Case No 09-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 101 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009)• Poe No 102 v Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Poe No 8 v Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 2 See InithrigDpe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008). 09/12/2019 49.39.8 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331930 EFTA_00204656 EFTA02729640 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 papas 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. 3 See. e.a.. "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). 09/1212019 t~ge 3909 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331931 EFTA_00204657 EFTA02729641 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 PA etif--* I A. avtion K. Shu man Florida Bar No.: 0514462 James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 0023477 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 984-3060 Facsimile: (813) 984-3070 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 Attorneys Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: 561-355-7351); Jack Alan 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 3910 CONFItefgNTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331932 EFT/XJ.)0204658 EFTA02729642