savE frtofN tiuQSUAL

savE frtofN tiuQSUAL EFTA00183935 THE PALM BEACH POST - MONDAY, NNE IS, 2009 The Palm Beach Post ALEX TAYLOR, Publisher TIM BURKE, Executive Editor RANDY SCHULTZ, Editor of the Editorial Page Unseal the Epstein deal A rich, middle-aged Palm Reacher who preyed on girls almost 40 years younger already has received too many breaks from the system. He doesn't deserve another. In July 2008, at the age of 55 and after paying the equiva- lent of a small countryb gross domestic product in legal fees, Jeffrey Epstein escaped federal charges and pleaded guilty in state court to a pair of charges related to his luring five girls — ages 14 to 17 -- to his house. The girls undressed and massaged him in return for $200 to $300. He's serving only 18 months in the. Palm Beach County Jail, and heb serving only nights. And now he wants just one more favor. When Epstein entered his state plea, the terms of his federal deal were sealed from the public. That violated normal procedures. Attor- neys for some of the victims, who ' have filed civil lawsuits, want that plea deal unsealed, probably because the details would help their cases. But given the nature of this case, thereb also a public interest. One con- dition of the federal plea, for example, was that he take the state deal. Thatb why The Post also is seeking to have the file unsealed. Epsteinb lawyers, Epstein Palm Beach sex offender deserves no more breaks. of course, want it kept secret. Last week, a Palm Beach County judge set a hearing for June 25. Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger claims that the file should stay sealed to protect the "orderly administration of justice" and "protect a compelling government interest." Oh, and third parties might get hurt The compel- ling interest is Epsteinb, and there is no privacy issue since the victims themselves are making the request. Palm. Beach police spent 11 months investigating Epstein, only to see then-State Attorney Barry Krischer kick the case to a grand jury Mr. Krischer backed off when one of Epsteinb gold-plated attor- neys, Alan Dershowitz, announced that some of the victims had posted MySpace comments about their alco- hol and marijuana use. Epsteinb "best" defense has been that he didn't know the girls were underage. "How he verified that," Mr. Goldberger said, "I don't know." Investigators found a high school transcript in Epstein's house. He didn't know? The public should know what Jeffrey Epstein did, and what the system did for him. EFTA00183936 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2008CF009381A DIVISION W STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO MAKE COURT RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL Comes now the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorney's, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Administrative Orders of this Court , specifically AO 2.303 and moves this Court to treat as confidential the following records. A. A document referred to as "Non-Prosecution Agreement" filed under seal in the court file on July 2, 2008. B. A document referred to as "The Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement" filed under seal in the court file on August 25, 2008. 1. The above referenced documents were Ordered Sealed at a hearing held before the Honorable Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo on June 30, 2008. 2. A Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records was filed by Non-Party EW on or about May 15, 2009. 3. A Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access was filed by Non-party Palm Beach Post on June 1, 2009. 4. This Court granted Non-Party. and Palm Beach Post Motion to Intervene on June 10, 2009 but took no immediate action on E. W.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unsealing Records or on Palm Beach Posts Petition For Access, pending a further hearing. EFTA00183937 5.. The documents should remain confidential for the following reasons: a. To prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice. b. To protect a compelling government interest. c. To avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties. d. To avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in these specific type of proceedings, sought to be closed. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order keeping the above referenced records confidential, and maintaining them under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion is made in good faith and supported by a sound and factual legal basis. CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 11 day of June, 2009. AI% CHARLENE A. GRIFFITH. N Commission* DO 8130359 1 , Expires may 15, 2013 Aft no, Nor orgrit0 0:40401 Notary Public State of Fl My Commission Expires EFTA00183938 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Mail; /Facsimile; (3 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Judith Stevenson Areo, Esq., State Attorney's Office- West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Deanna K. Shullman, 400 North =Drive, Suite 1100, P.O.Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, Robert D. Critton, BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER, & COLEMAN, 515 N. Flagler Dr. Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. this 11 day of June, 2009. BURMAN CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. OBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. / CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ Florida Bar No lorida Bar No. EFTA00183939 June 11, 2009 Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courhouse 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: State of Florida 1 Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 2008 CF009381A Dear Judge Colbath, JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY JACK A. GOLDBERGER JASON S.WEISS Board Certified Oiminallrial Attorney Member of New Jersey & Fonda Bars Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 11, 2009. ; A. uly yours, Ja A. dberger, Esq. JAG/cg Enc. cc: Alexander Acosta U.S. Attorney State Attorney William Berger, Esq. Bradley Edwards, Esq. Deanna Shullman, Esq. Robert Critton, Esq. One Clearlake Centre. Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 p www.agwpa.com EFTA00183940 AT I ERBURY GOLDBERGER WEISS, One Clearlake Centre, Suite MOO 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 oytt. .;:ercA; Alexander Acosta United States Attorne ::1::1:::: 04.5.-IBSCfa513&2 $0.442 C 06/11/2009 Filailtd From334( EFTA00183941 NE PALM BEACH POST THURSDAY, JUNE 11.2009 Judge delays ruling on request to unseal plea deal in sex case By SUSAN SPENCER -WENDEL Palm Beach Post Staff Witter WEST PALM BEACH — A circuit judge on Wednes- day did not unseal the deal that money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach struck with fed- eral prosecutors to avoid charges, opting instead to give Epstein lawyers a chance to demonstrate why it should remain hid- den from public view Circuit Judge Jeff Epstein Colbath ac- knowledged at a hearing that Epstein's deal was not sealed in state court in ac- cordance with the rules. "1 don't see where any of the procedures were ever followed," he said. Colbath has given Epstein defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, an op- portunity to argue that the document was properly sealed and asked lawyers to submit briefs to him by Friday. Colbath also set a full hearing for June 25. Attorneys for young women now suing Epstein are asking Colbath to un- seal the deal that Epstein brokered with federal prosecutors. A lawyer for The Palm Beach Post also has joined in the request. "Itb a secret agree- ment. A secret, sweetheart agreement," said former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, who now represents some of the women. "Everybody was in on this deal except the victims and the public," Berger said. "The public should be outraged it has gone as far as it has." A second attorney representing the women, Brad Edwards, has seen the sealed document A federal judge allowed him and his clients to view it, but not to discuss its con- tents. Edwards said the women were "outraged" at what had been negotiated without their knowledge. A reporter asked Edwards if he thought Epstein re- ceived special treatment by federal prosecutors. "Are you kidding? Itb transparent. Certainly no one else gets treated like that," Edwards said. Epstein, 56, a reported money manager of billion- aire's, is currently serving an 18-month sentence in the Palm Beach County Stockade after pleading guilty nearly a year ago in state court to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution. The saga began years ago when the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating whether young wonien were be- ing brought to Epstein mansion on El Brillo Way to massage him and have sex with him in exchange for money. Epstein's attorneys, in federal filings, have referred to sealed docu- ments as a deferred pros- ecution agreement with federal prosecutors and have called it "unprec- edented" and "highly unusual." Goldberger said his cli- ent has not received any special treatment. sm. EFTA00183942 THE PALM BEACH POST • WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 Women want sex plea deal unsealed Their attorneys will ask a judge to open Jeffrey Epsteffi's records. By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL Palm Beach Post Staff Writer WEST PALM BEACH - When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach pleaded guilty last year to pro- curing teens for prostitution, his case detoured around local and state rules regarding the sealing of court documents. At a plea conference on the state charges, a judge, a defense lawyer and a pros- ecutor huddled at the bench and decided that a deal 'Epstein Epstein had struck with federal prosecu• tors to avoid charges should be sealed, according to a transcript of the hearing. And so it was. But Florida rules of judicial adnlin- istration, as well as rules of the Palm Beach County court system, require public notification that a court document has been or will be sealed, meaning.kept from public view The rules also require a judge to find a significant reason to seal, See EPSTEIN, 4A ► See past coverage of Jeffrey Epstein's sex scandals. PalmBeachPost.eom/epsteln EFTA00183943 Public has right to know details I of deal; Post attorney will claim Po EPSTEIN from IA such as protecting a trade secret or a compelling gov- ernment interest. Yet no notification or reason occurred in Epstein% case, according to court records. Epstein own attorneys, in federal filings, have referred to his confiden- tial deferred prosecution agreement with the US. attorney% office, struck in September 200Z as "un-. precedented" and "highly unusual." And it was "a significant inducement" for Epstein to-accept the state% deal, observed the state judge who accepted his plea, County Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo. Epstein now faces at least a dozen civil lawsuits in federal and state courts filed by young women who said they had sex with him and now are seeking damages. Attorneys for some of those women want his agreement with federal prosecutors unsealed and will ask Circuit Judge Jef- frey Colbath to do so today. "It is against public policy for these documents to be have been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. member of the public, has a right to have documents unsealed," wrote former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, now in private practice and representing one of the women. The Palm Beach Post also will ask Colbath to unseal the agreement. Post attor-. ney Deanna Shullman will argue that the public has a right to know the specifics of Epstein% deal. According to various media accounts, Epstein moved in circles that in- cluded President Clinton, Donald Tnunp and Prince Andrew. "International Moneyman of Mystery," de- clared a 2002 Nero York mag- azine profile of Epstein. Epstein, 56, is in the Palm Beach County Stock- ade, serving an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty nearly a year ago to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution. He is allowed out from 7 am. to 11 p.m., escorted a deputy, said Palm Be County Sheriffs Office spokeswoman 'Teri Barbera. During a Palm Beach Police Department in- vestigation, five victims and 17 witnesses gave statements. They told of young women brought by his assistants to Epstein% mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and sexual activity, and then being paid afterward. At Epstein% plea confer. ence last year, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, and then-Assistant State At Lanna Flipp approached a sidebar conference. Pucillo, who had left the bench nine years earlier, was filling in temporarily as a senior judge. According toatranscript, Goldberger told Pucilb that Epstein had entered a con- fidential agreement with the US. attorneys office in which federal prosecu- tors brokered not pursuing charges against him if he pleaded guilty in state court Pucilb then said she wanted a sealed copy of the agreement filed in his case, and Goldberger concurred nted it sealed. later signed off on The • Florida Supreme Court has expressed "seri- ous concern" and launched an all-out inquiry into seal- ing procedures across the state following media re- ports in 2006 of entire cases being sealed and disappear- ing from court records. 'The public% constitu- tional right of access to court records must remain invio- late, and this court is fully committed to safeguarding this right," justices wrote in their final report Epstein% office on lliesday referred any questions to Goldberger, who declined to comment. Pucillo also has declined to comment • Susan .spencer EFTA00183944 ME PALM BEACH POST • HAMMY JULY 2, 2009 METRO REPORT IN COURT WEST PALM BEACH —An appellate court on Wednesday granted financier Jeffrey Epstein's request to block the unsealing of his non-prosecution agreement with the U.S.Attorney's Office while the court consid- ers his appeal. A circuit judge had ordered the release ot the documents, but Epstein attorney argued that it would cause "ir- reparable harm." Attorneys for women now suing Epstein and for The Palm Beach Post sought the documents' release. The Fourth District Court of Appeal blocked the unsealing while both sides present legal arguments and the court considers them. Epstein pleaded guilty last year to solicita- tion of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution. EFTA00183945 Epstein THE PALM BEACH POST FRIDAY, JULY-10,2009 EPSTEIN SEX PARTNER LOSES LAWSUIT AGAINST NEWSPAPER Pervy Palm Beach moneybags Jeffrey Epstein, who at the tail-end of his 18- month sentence for solicitation of prostitu- tion, is the talk of the legal world again. One of the young girls he invited up for strange sex when she was 16 lost her defamation lawsuit against The New York Post last week. Ava Cordero was asking for Got a news tip? Call Jose at $100 million because, in 200Z the paper outed her as a transgender person (boy to girl) and, she claimed, made her look like "a promiscuous slut." The paper quoted her MySpace page as saying she fantasized about being with multiple partners. A New York appel- late court sided with the tabloid, saying that Cordero herself gave the public the reasonable impression of promiscuity. Ya think? or e-mall EFTA00183946 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DOCKETING STATEMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Revised as of May 1, 2001) The Court requires the following information in order to facilitate disposition of the case. APPELLANT/PETITIONER: If this case Involves an original writ, is an appeal of a non-final order or is a case involving child custody, this docketing statement must be completed and returned within five days. In all other cases, the appellant must file the docketing statement within 20 days from the date of the acknowledgment of the notice of appeal. APPELLEE/RESPONDENT: Is apj required to file a docketing statement unless there are amendments, corrections or additions to the docketing statement filed by the appellant/petitioner. Appellee/respondent is only required to file a notice of appearance if counsel's name does not already appear on the certificate of service. Appellee's/respondent's docketing statement, if necessary, is due within 5 days from service of the appellant's/petitioner's docketing statement. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: DOCKETING STATEMENT OF: (CHECK ONE) 1. STYLE OF CASE Jeffrey Epstein'. State of Florida APPELLANT/PETITIONER  APPELLEE/RESPONDENT DCA CASE NUMBER 4D09-2554 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER 2008 CF 009381A 2a. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT (If party is not represented by counsel, party should so indicate and provide accurate mailing address and phone number). Name See attached. Bar Number Address Attorney For Phone Number Fax Number 2b. APPELLEE'S TRIAL COUNSEL AND/OR APPELLATE COUNSEL (IF KNOWN) Name See attached. Bar Number Address Attorney For Phone Number Fax Number 3. INTERESTED PERSONS: List names of all persons or entities having an interest in this matter. Please clarify whether these persons or entities are parties, lawyers or otherwise, and as to parties, designate whether appellant or appellee. See attached. EFTA00183947 4. JUDGES BELOW: List the name of all judges, deputy commissioners and hearing officers/examiners who were involved in this action below. Specify the judge who entered the order appealed. Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (entered order appealed) 5. JURISDICTION: State the basis for this court's jurisdiction, including the following: (1) the appellate rule providing jurisdiction claimed 9.100(c)(1) and 9.140(b)(1)(D)• (2) the date of filing in the lower tribunal of the order appealed June 25.2009 ; (3) if this is an appeal from a final order, the date of the return of verdict in a jury action N/A the service date of any Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 motion N/A and the date of entry of the order deciding such motion N/A 6. PENDING MATTERS IN LOWER TRIBUNAL: Are there any matters, including counts of claims or Counterclaims, still pending in the lower tribunal? If yes, please explain exactly what remains pending. Not in the criminal case. There are civil cases pending against Mr. Epstein. 7. CURRENT AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT: List by style and case number of this court, all cases which are or have been pending before this court involving issues arising from the same lower tribunal case and the current status of same: None. Criminal appeals: List by style and case number of this court all co-defendants currently or previously on appeal to this court. None. Similar Issues: List by style and case number of this court, all cases which are or have been pending before this court which are related to this action or which involve an issue which will be similar or determinative to the issue in this case on appeal. Epstein, Case No. 4D09-2409. If you become aware of appeals filed subsequent to the submission of this docketing statement involving a co-defendant in a criminal case, the same controversy or parties, or substantial similar issues, please file an amended response to this question. 2 EFTA00183948 8. Court Transcript: Do you intend to order any portion of the transcript for the appeal? Yes No  If yes, have all arrangements been made for its preparation? Yes No If yes, date ordered If no, why not? Already filed with court. Estimated date of completion: Estimated number of pages: Name and address of court reporter(s): 9. CUSTODY STATUS IN CRIMINAL APPEALS: Is the appellant in custody and serving a sentence imposed as a result of a conviction which is the subject of this appeal? ves If so, state the length of the sentence imposed. 18 months iail followed by 12 months community control 10. ISSUES: If this case involves the determination of the constitutionality of a statute, cite the statute involved. N/A Please state in short form the anticipated issues raised. For example, on criminal issues: denial of motion for judgment of acquittal, denial of motion to suppress evidence, error in sentence; on civil issues, award of alimony, error in valuation of assets for equitable distribution, error in determining contract damages; error in admission of hearsay at trial. Error in unsealing confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum. 11. TYPE OF CASE: PLACE A CHECK BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE TYPE OF CASE: A. Civil 1. Domestic Relations - divorce, child custody, paternity or support 2. Child dependency 3. Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights 4. Professional Malpractice 5. Products Liability 6. Negligence 7. Contract or Indebtedness 8. Condominium - rules violations, developer suits 9. Foreclosure - mortgage, lien 10. Inmate Appeal - gain time, rule challenges, disciplinary action 11. Attomey's Fees 12. All others - specify 3 EFTA00183949 B. Criminal 1. Direct Appeal - judgment and sentence 2. Direct Appeal - sentence only 3. Direct Appeal - juvenile 4. Collateral Attack - (Rule 3.850 or habeas corpus) - judgment and sentence 5. Collateral Attack - (Rule 3.800, Rule 3.850 or habeas corpus) - sentence only 6. Collateral Attack - juvenile 7. Appeal by the State  8. All Others - specify unsealing of confidential federal non-prosecution agreement C. Administrative 1. Department of Professional Regulation 2. Unemployment Appeals Commission 3. Rule Challenge - specify agency 4. All others - specify Certificate of Service I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished by of July , 2009, to: See attached. mail this 8'44... day mail/hand delivery/fax ignat r A-4-4-12-44- (Print Name) 4 EFTA00183950 2a. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Florida Bar No. BARBARA J. COMPIANI Florida Bar No. KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beams_ 33401-5913 Phone: Fax: Email: Appellate counsel for petitioner ROBERT D. C Florida Bar No. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West P 3401 Phon Fax: Counsel for petitioner JACK A. GOLDBERGER Florida Bar No. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West P u 3401 Phon Fax: Counsel for petitioner EFTA00183951 2b. APPELLEE'S TRIAL COUNSEL AND/OR APPELLATE COUNSEL (IF KNOWN) WILLIAM J. BERGER Florida Bar No. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale FL 3 394 Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener,M. DEANNA K. SHAS1 Florida Bar No. THOMAS, LC SE NIRIn BRALOW, P.L. 400 North IM Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, F Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post SPENCER T. Kial Florida Bar No. LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410 Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener, Florida Bar No. STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE--WEST PALM BEACH 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm ch FL 33401 Phon • Fax: Counsel for respondent, State of Florida Florida Bar No. U.S. Attorney's Office--Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fa Fax: EFTA00183952 3. INTERESTED PERSONS: of State Attorney's Office--West Palm Beach (counsel for respondent, State of Florida) • (non-party intervener) William J. Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (counsel for non-party intervener,...) Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (circuit court judge) Barbara J. Compiani of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petitioner) Robert D. Critton of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman (counsel for petitioner) Jeffrey Epstein (petitioner) Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. (counsel for petitioner) of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petitioner) Spencer T. Kuvin of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. (counsel for non-party intervener,..) Honorable Kenneth A. Marra (judge, Southern District of Florida) Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (non-party intervener) Deanna K. Shullman of Thomas, Locicero & Bralow, P.L. (counsel for non-party intervener, The Palm Beach Post) U.S. Attorney--Southern District EFTA00183953 State of Florida (respondent) i• (non-party intervener) EFTA00183954 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale FL 33394 Counsel for•. SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for petitioner STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW, P.L. 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for petitioner EFTA00183955 KREUSLER-WALSM, COMPIANY & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE 503, FLAGLER CENTER 501 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401.5913 111111,1 U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 .21340 bSE.G3S CO23 h1111111111111.111 4 ASS 1"0 PiTNCY COWLS 02 1P 0004162054 JUL 08 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP cone 33401 $ 000.61° Jill EFTA00183956 r, • Fourth District Court of Appeal 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE DATE: July 1, 2009 STYLE: JEFFREY EPSTEIN STATE OF FLORIDA 4DCA#: 4D09-2554 The Fourth District Court of Appeal has received the Petition reflecting a filing date of 7/1/09 The county of origin is Palm Beach. The lower tribunal case number provided is 20098CF009381A The filing fee is Paid In Full - $300. Case Type: Certiorari Criminal The Fourth District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER. Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment. RECEIPT JEFFREY EPSTEIN I. STATE OF FLORIDA 4DCA#: 4D09-2554 Receipt # R2009-1015476 Method of Payment: CK Check # 25986 PAYER: El Filing Fee: $300.00 Total: $300.00 EFTA00183957 cc: Barbara J. Com iani Deanna K. Shullman Hon. Jeffrey J. Colbath Jack A. Goldberger State Attomey-P.B. Spencer T. Kuvin Robert D. Critton, Jr. U.S. Attomey'S Office William J. Berger EFTA00183958 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH Duna= 1525 PAUA BEACH Wass Rom Warr Peas BEACH, Roam 33401 CK U.S. Attorney'S Office Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 SG i -62313 4D09-2554 0171415532992 C..) tU re Cr 14 $0.44° irr 0 4 .0 I 07/01(2009 D. co 1409td FrOC1334 01 r EFTA00183959 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 July 1, 2009 CASE NO.: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. : 20098CF009381A JEFFREY EPSTEIN STATE OF FLORIDA Appellant / Petitioner(s), Appellee / Respondent(s). BY ORDER OF THE COURT: ORDERED that the motion to file under seal is granted. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants the Motion to Use One Appendix to Support the Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants petitioners Emergency Motion to Review the Order June 26, 2009, that denies the motion for stay. The June 25, 2009. order granting the motion to unseal is stayed pending further order of this court. ORDERED FURTHER that within ten (10) days of this order respondent shall show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent shall address this court's jurisdiction to review the order as well as the merits of the petition. ORDERED FURTHER that petitioner may have ten (10) days thereafter to reply. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: Sharon R. Bock, Clerk Robert D. Critton, Jr. Deanna K. Shullman Hon. Jeffrey J. Colbath dl Fourth District Court of Appeal Spencer T. Kuvin Jack A. Goldberger U.S. Attorney's Office William J. Berger EFTA00183960 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Fouorm Dew 1525 Pa BEACH LAKES Eiwo. WEST Nut BEACH, Flamm 33401 DL U.S. Attorney'S Office Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 6237 It n a 1i U 0171415532992 $0.442. I 07/0112009 Mallet! ifrOln .3340 1 US POSTAGE 4D09-2554 1,.11,,,Ii.,i,ilil 11,11nish6161.1,11.,ill EFTA00183961 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA,16LM BEc H NEWSPAPERS, INC., IE., a nd Respondents. Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case Nos. 2006 CF 9454AMB, 2008 CF 9381 AMB PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a THE PALM BEACH Paws 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, Florida 33301 EFTA00183962 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION 1 JURISDICTION 2 NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 7 ARGUMENT 8 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW. 8 II. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NPA. 8 A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance. 8 1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly Occurred without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper Order. 11 2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any Procedures to Protect the Right of Access at all 12 B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum 13 1. Petitioner Cannot Identify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 26 EFTA00183963 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Craig I Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 8 Doe I Hammond, 502 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2007) 24 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1299 (M.D. Fla. 1977) 23, 24 Lockhead Martin Corp. I Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2005) 23 Oregonian Publishing Co. I United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) 9 U.S. I Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2007) 23 United States I Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9 State Cases Anderson I E.T„ 862 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) 8 Barron I Florida Freedom Newspapers. Inc., 631 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) 10 Combs I State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983) 8 Doe I Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville. Inc., Case No. 92-32667, 1994 W 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) 17 Fla. Sugar Cane League. Inc. I Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir. Sept 20, 1991) 22 Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach . Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) 21 In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007) Sarasota Herald Tribune. Div. of the New York Times Co. I. Holtzendorf, 507 So. 2d 667(Fla. 2d DCA 1987) 9 Sarasota-Herald Tribune I State, 924 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2QQ6) 2 Sentinel Communications Co. I Watson, 615 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) 9 Wallace I Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) 21 ii EFTA00183964 Other Authorities Fla. Const. Art. I, § 23 18 Fla. Const. Art. I, § 24 2 Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d) 2 Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 18 iii EFTA00183965 INTRODUCTION This appeal concerns attempts to thwart public scrutiny of how government responded to the prostitution of children in Palm Beach County. In the order at issue below, the trial court correctly unsealed a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum. A predecessor judge found that the agreement significantly induced Petitioner to accept a plea agreement that allowed him to serve 18 months in jail for luring children to his Palm Beach mansion for "massages" or sexual activity. At the time that the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively "the NPA") were accepted for filing, no basis for closure was asserted or found. Thus, the NPA was not properly sealed, and the prior closure order was properly vacated. Moreover, no basis currently exists for closure, and the pending petition — like Petitioner's filings below — contain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions that confidentiality is required. Thus, continued closure is not warranted. Certainly unsealing the documents was not such a clear departure from the essential requirements of law as to warrant certiorari relief. Consequently, the pending petition must be denied. In addition, this Court should exercise its inherent authority under Rule 9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to sanction Petitioner for his frivolous and bad faith attempts to cloak the resolution of the criminal charges 1 EFTA00183966 • against him in secrecy by awarding to Respondent, Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post") its attorneys' fees and costs in responding to this petition. JURISDICTION The Post adopts Respondent 's statement concerning jurisdiction. Insofar as this Court finds jurisdiction, the Post requests that this Court expedite its consideration of this matter, so as to remedy the denial to date of the public's and press's constitutional and common law rights of access. Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d); Sarasota-Herald Tribune.. State, 924 So. 2d 8, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (rule 9.100(d) permits "expedited" review of orders excluding the press). NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT The Post asks this Court to deny the pending petition and to let stand the circuit court's Orders dated June 25, 2009 and June 26, 2009, which unsealed the NPA, and directed the Clerk of Court in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida to release these records to the public.' Petitioner has sought review of the June 26, 2009 Order by motion rather than by petition for writ of certiorari. Though the June 26 Order does address the matter of Petitioner's request for stay, the order also directs the Clerk of Courts to release the records, review of which should have been sought by certiorari. 2 EFTA00183967 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS This proceeding concerns the public's constitutional and common law rights of access to records crucial to the disposition of criminal charges against Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, Petitioner seeks review of two orders unsealing a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively the "NPA"), which are records of the trial court below. State I Epstein, Case Nos. 06 CF9454AMB, 08 CF938 1 AMB. Petitioner was investigated by the State of Florida for felony solicitation of children for prostitution. (A-7 at p. 3, I. 15 — p. 4,1.4; A-8.) The victims allege Epstein brought and paid teenage girls to come to his home for sex and/or "massages." (A-11 at ¶ 6 and n. 1.) Epstein's minor victims are numerous (A-7 at p. 20,11. 13-18) and the case drew attention of the highest-ranking law enforcement officials in Palm Beach County. Frustrated during the course of the investigation, Police Chief Michael Reiter even penned a letter to State Attorney Barry Krischer, calling his office's handling of the investigation "highly unusual" and suggesting that he disqualify himself from the case if the state would not act (A-11 at ¶ 6; A- 18 at p. 36,11. 7-142.) A federal investigation of Epstein's conduct as it relates to soliciting children for prostitution ensued. 2 References to "A-" are to Petitioner's Appendix. 3 EFTA00183968 Then abruptly, in June 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in the trial court below to felony solicitation of minors for prostitution, was designated a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida law, and was sentenced to 18-months jail and community control. (A-8.) Before accepting the terms of his state plea, Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. (A-7 at p. 38, 11. 9-18.) The non-prosecution agreement and its addendum were filed under seal in the lower court on July 2, 2008 and August 25, 2008, respectively.3 According to Epstein's lawyers (and presumably the NPA itself ), taking the state plea was a condition of the NPA. (A-7 at p. 38,11. 13-18.) The NPA is invalidated if Epstein fails to fulfill the obligations of the state plea deal (A-7 at p. 38, 11. 22 - 25.) In accepting the state plea, the trial court viewed the NPA a "significant inducement in accepting" the plea and recognized that the NPA influenced the defendant to make the state plea. (A-7 at p. 39, 11. 19-21; p. 40,11. 10-13.) In considering the plea at the hearing, the court requested a sealed copy of the non-prosecution agreement and asked whether Petitioner had signed it. (A-7 at 3 The NPA and its addendum were filed under seal in this Court on July 1, 2009. 4 The Post and its lawyers have not seen the NPA, though it was reviewed, in camera, by the trial court (A-19). 4 EFTA00183969 p. 40,11.4-6.) Epstein's lawyer indicated it was signed and interjected that he "would like to seal the copy." (A-7 at p. 40,11. 7-9.) Representatives from the U.S. Attorneys' Office were present at the hearing (A-7 at p. 39,11. 22-23) but stated no objection to filing the non-prosecution agreement in the state court file. Thereupon, without any further consideration, the trial court requested a sealed copy of the non-prosecution agreement. (A-7 at p. 40,11.9-10.) On July 2, 2008, without any further proceedings on the issue, the court entered an Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File, which allowed Epstein to file the non-prosecution agreement that was attached to the Agreed Order under seal. (A-9.) By its terms, the closure order was limited to the non-prosecution agreement and did not include its addendum. The order makes no findings with respect to closure and never expires. (A-9.) The addendum was filed six weeks later, on August 25, 2008, without any further order of the Court with respect to closure. Since Epstein 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 Epstein lured teenage girls to his Palm Beach mansion for sex and/or "massages." (A-1)5 At least 11 cases are pending. In another lawsuit, one of the Epstein's 5 See also A-11 at 116 (citing Does Epstein, Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 2j Epstein, Case No. 08-80119 (S.D. Ha. 2008); Doe No. 3.! Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 4.1 Epstein, Case No. 8- (Footnote continued on next page) 5 EFTA00183970 accusers has alleged that federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding the disposition of possible charges against Epstein. (A-1; A-18 at p. 22,1. 20 — p. 23,1. 15.)6 Given the important public interest in this matter, on June 1, 2009, the Post moved to intervene below for the purpose of obtaining access to the NPA. The Court granted the Post's motion to intervene on June 10, 2009 (Supp.A.-1 at 1.)7 The trial court granted the Post's petition for access on June 25, 2009 (A-16, A-18) and on June 26, 2009 denied Epstein's motion for stay and directed the clerk to release the records at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. (A-17, A-19.) Epstein's emergency petition for writ of certiorari regarding the June 25, 2009 order and his emergency motion to review the June 26, 2009 order followed. 0 ( D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 1. Epstein, Case No. 08-80381 (S.D. Fla. 2008); . 1. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 71. Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 6'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe II Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Ha. 2009); Doe No. 101 Epstein, Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 102'. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 81. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). 6 See also (A-11 at116) (citing In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). 7 References to "Supp.A." correspond to the supplemental appendix filed by the Post simultaneous with this brief. 6 EFTA00183971 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Petitioner's initial filing of the NPA under seal was achieved without any regard for the public's constitutional, statutory and common law rights of access. Florida law flatly prohibits the standardless permanent closure that was achieved in this case. The public has a right to know what transpires in its courtrooms generally and in particular has an interest in understanding how the resolution of this highly unusual prosecution occurred. Moreover, no present basis for closure exists. Petitioner has not shown — and cannot show — that continued closure is proper. Instead, he has made conclusory assertions and relied on red herrings in attempting to keep the public from understanding how government responded to his solicitation of children to perform sex acts. The trial court, having reviewed the records in camera, saw through Petitioner's flimsy arguments. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in ordering the records unsealed. 7 EFTA00183972 ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The standard of review for a petition for writ of certiorari is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Combs . State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983); Anderson E.T., 862 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). II. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NPA. The NPA was neither properly sealed in the first instance nor is properly sealed at present. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the records. A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance. The NPA — a significant inducement to Petitioner's acceptance of the plea — was accepted for filing under seal without any deference to the public's right of access to court records. Such standardless closure cannot withstand scrutiny. Florida has traditionally served as a model for open government and courts. It is well-settled in Florida that "[a] trial is a public event [and] [w]hat transpires in the court room is public property." Miami Herald Publ'g Co._'. Lewis, 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (quoting Craig'. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947)). When considering a request to seal judicial records, this Court's "analysis must begin 8 EFTA00183973 with the proposition that all civil and criminal court proceedings are public events, records of court proceedings are public records and there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to such matters." Sentinel Communications Co.' Watson, 615 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Indeed, the people of this State added Article I, Section 24 to the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution to make clear that the right of access to the records of all three branches of government is of constitutional magnitude. All citizens possess the right to "inspect or copy" such records. Plea agreements and related documents typically are public record. See Oregonian Publishing Co. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"); United States • Kooistra, 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). Florida law likewise recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. See Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. of the New York Times Co.,. 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 9 EFTA00183974 privileged."). Under Florida law, closure of judicial records is warranted only under very limited circumstances. In particular, the party seeking closure must demonstrate that: 1. restricting public access is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice; 2. no alternatives, other than a change of venue, would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial; and 3. closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose. Miami Herald Publ'g Co.'. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 6 (Fla. 1982). This test, as well as the standard announced in Barron'. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), was essentially codified in former Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, now 2.420, which was applicable in both criminal and civil cases. Sarasota-Herald Tribune, 924 So. 2d at 11. In April 2007, the Florida Supreme Court adopted emergency amendments to Rule 2.420 in response to Florida media reports of hidden cases and secret dockets, a process that has come to be known as "super-sealing." In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007). In adopting the interim rule, the Florida Supreme Court confirmed its commitment to safeguarding the public's constitutional right of access to court 10 EFTA00183975 records, which the Court held "must remain inviolate." Id. at 17. By its terms, Rule 2.420 does not apply to criminal cases; however, later this year the Supreme Court will consider amendments to the rule that essentially seek to apply the standards applicable in civil cases to criminal ones. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, Case No. 07-2050 (Fla. 2007). In the circuit below, however, the new Rule 2.420 procedures have been in effect since September 29, 2008. (Supp.A.-2.) In addition, the sealing of the NPA violated principles of Florida law established long before the amendments to Rule 2.420. Consequently, the unsealing of these documents was proper. 1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly Occurred without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper Order. The non-prosecution agreement was sealed pursuant to an agreed order dated July 2, 2008 (A-9.) At the time, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2.032 applied to requests for closure of court records in the lower court. (Supp.A.-3.) The order requires a motion, notice, and a hearing, none of which occurred in this case. (Id. at ¶¶ 1 — 3.) The order further provides that closure is proper only upon showing that the factors set forth in Lewis have been met (Id. at 4) and that "[t]tle reasons supporting sealing the file must be stated with specificity in the order sealing the court record" (IA at ¶ 5), neither of which occurred in this 11 EFTA00183976 case. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion (Petition at 13) neither this rule, nor the common law of Florida, nor the Florida constitution contemplates sua sponte closure of court records upon simple request of the Court or any party. Nor was the closure, in fact, sua sponte, as Epstein himself requested closure (A-7 at p. 40, II. 7-9.) and admittedly filed the NPA in the court file under seal pursuant to an agreed order (A-18 at p. 11, II. 22-23). The agreed order (A-9) contains none of the findings required by Lewis or paragraph 5 of the Administrative Order. The closure order is invalid and was properly vacated. 2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any Procedures to Protect the Right of Access at all. With respect to the sealing of the addendum to the non-prosecution agreement, no procedures were put in place at all. The original non-prosecution agreement was attached to the July 2, 2008 agreed order, which allowed to be filed under seal the "attached document" only. (A-9.) It appears from the record that the addendum — which was not attached to the July 2, 2008 order but was filed six weeks later — was simply filed and accepted under seal without any order allowing for closure. Closure of the addendum was thus improper on that basis as well. The trial court properly unsealed these documents. 12 EFTA00183977 B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum. After the Post intervened, at a June 10, 2009 hearing on the issue of closure, the trial court asked Epstein's counsel about the Post's motion (A-11) specifically. Epstein's counsel replied: If the Post's position is the public has a right to acc — access this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct a hearing and do a balancing test where you look at whether there is some 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 having a hearing in front of the Court. (Supp.A.-1 at p. 3,1. 22 — p. 4,1. 5.) Importantly, Petitioner's counsel did not assert that he had complied with these requirements, but that he would. The Court reset the hearing for June 25, 2009. Petitioner filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13) on June 11, 2009. In it, Epstein cited four reasons the NPA should remain under seal: 1. to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration ofjustices; 2. to protect a compelling government interest; 3. to avoid substantial injury to innocent 8 This assertion apparently has been abandoned by Petitioner, because his petition asserts that he has asserted three bases for confidentiality, and does not include this basis. Accordingly, it will not be addressed, except to make note of the fact that Epstein has not at any point in this proceeding identified a threat to the administration of justice, much less a serious and imminent threat. 13 EFTA00183978 third parties; and 4. to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in these specific type of proceedings sought to be closed. (A-13 at ¶ 5.) The motion failed to explain how these interests were implicated, failed to address alternatives to closure, and failed to explain how closure would protect the interests. (A-13.) The lower court heard argument on June 25, 2009. The United States Attorneys' Office was provided notice of the hearing, but chose not to appear. (A- 18 at p. 7, 11. 10-14.) In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel fore. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not followed and then heard argument from Epstein's counsel on his June 11, 2009 motion (A-13). Epstein's counsel consented to that procedure. (A-18 at p. 9,11. 16 -18.) The Judge held that neither the State, nor the U.S. Government, nor Epstein had shown why the NPA ought to remain confidential and ordered the records unsealed.9 (A-16.) It is important to note that the State Attorney's Office appeared at the hearing for the limited purpose of objecting to the release of minor victim's names, which turned out to be a non-issue because the Court, having reviewed the documents in camera, determined that no victim's names were included in the documents (A-19 at p. 21,11. 14-19.) The federal government, as mentioned above, took no position (Footnote continued on next page) 14 EFTA00183979 The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. Administrative Order of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 2.303 applies to Petitioner's June 11, 2009 request to seal the records in this case. (Supp.A.-2.) That administrative order — consistent with Lewis and its progeny — applies Rule 2.420's standards to requests for closure of records in criminal proceedings in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Any order authorizing closure must contain findings that one of the interests set forth in Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(9)(A) is met and that closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest. (Supp.A.-2 at ¶ 4.); see also Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 3. Motions seeking closure 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." (Supp.A.-2 at11 1.) Epstein's initial oral request for closure failed to comply with the requirements of then-applicable law, and he has never presented a sound factual or legal basis for present closure. Consequently, unsealing the documents was fully consistent with the essential requirements of law. and did not appear at any of the hearings on this matter. Nor has either agency appealed the lower court's decision. 15 EFTA00183980 I. Petitioner Cannot Identify a Rule 2.420(c)(9) Interest that Warrants Closure. Though Epstein's belated written motion identified four interests set forth in Rule 2.420(c)(9) that purportedly warrant closure, he failed to explain — either in his motion or at the hearing — how any of them applied. Instead, Petitioner asserted closure was proper because these broad interests would be served by closure, principles of comity require closure, and because the records contain information protected from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Even though Petitioner now attempts to craft his arguments around the interests set forth in Rule 2.420(c)(9), the trial court cannot be said to have departed from the essential requirements of the law in holding that Epstein's burden had not been met. Epstein's petition asserts that closure is necessary to protect a compelling government interest because, he claims, the U.S. Attorneys' Office — who has been notified of these proceedings and has taken no position whatsoever — has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. See Petition at 15. Assuming such a provision exists (the Post has not seen the document), Petitioner is in no position to assert a compelling interest on the government's behalf, given its decision to take no position on the matter. If such an interest exists, the U.S. government is the party to assert it, and 16 EFTA00183981 it has specifically failed to do so. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in closure. Epstein next asserts that closure is warranted to protect the interest of "innocent third parties" and identifies those third parties as Mr. Epstein's co- conspirators. (Petition at 15). Again, Mr. Epstein lacks standing to assert the interests of third parties. Dol. Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Inc., Case No. 92-32567, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) (plaintiff lacks standing to assert privacy interest of third party, minor victims of sexual assault by defendant's former employee, who had been convicted) (copy attached at Supp.A.-4). In addition, even if the third parties Mr. Epstein identifies — his purported co-conspirators — were before the Court, they would have no privacy interest in matters pertaining to their criminal conduct. Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc.,. Doe, 612 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1992) (Does, whose names were implicated in criminal prostitution scheme, had no right to privacy by virtue of their participation in a crime and thus their names could not be redacted from records provided to the public). Thus, the trial judge did not depart from the essential requirements of law in finding insufficient third-party interests to justify closure. 17 EFTA00183982 The third interest Epstein seeks to invoke is his own right to privacy. See Petition at 15. While Epstein actually does have standing to assert his own right to privacy, Florida law is clear that closure is only proper to protect a "substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) (emphasis added). Epstein argues disclosure of a plea agreement is not generally inherent in a state court plea hearing See Petition at 16. That argument is absurd. Of course Epstein's plea agreement is generally inherent in his criminal prosecution. It is the very reason that prosecution ended, and as the lower court recognized in accepting the plea, it was a "significant inducement" to Petitioner to take the state's deal. (A-7 at p. 39, II. 19- 21.; p. 40,11. 10-13.) Moreover, Florida's constitutional right to privacy is expressly subordinate to the rights of Floridians to access the records of their government. To wit, Article I, § 23, which sets forth the right to privacy, further provides: "[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law." Fla. Const. Art. I, § 23. As the Florida Supreme Court has recognized, the privacy amendment has not been construed to protect names and addresses contained in public records. Post Newsweek, 612 So. 18 EFTA00183983 2d at 552. The trial court, having reviewed the NPA in camera, certainly had an opportunity to assess whether a privacy interest not inherent in his criminal prosecution for felony solicitation of children for prostitution is implicated by the NPA. It cannot in good faith be argued that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in determining that no such privacy interest was implicated. 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.1° Nor did the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In the Southern District of Florida, one of the minor victims of Epstein filed a Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Acts (A-1)." The victim also asked the federal court to allow her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Government had argued (A-4) — that the NPA was not a record of the federal court. (A-6) ("First, as respondent points out, the Agreement was not filed in this 10 The Post adopts and incorporates M.'s arguments and analysis on this issue in addition to the arguments it sets forth herein. " The Post notes that A-3 through A-5 were not part of the record below. If the Court is inclined to consider these federal court pleadings, then in fairness it must consider those related pleadings which are attached hereto as Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A.-7 of the Post's Supplemental Appendix. 19 EFTA00183984 case, under seal or otherwise."). The federal court also declined to provide any relief from restrictions on the parties' use and dissemination of the discovery document without prejudice. (A-6 at p.2.) Petitioner argues that the Post should be required to seek relief in Judge Marra's court. He mischaracterizes the nature of the proceedings there. There is no document to unseal in Judge Marra's court. The NPA is not a record of that court, and thus any effort by the Post to obtain access to the NPA there would be futile, and any order requiring it be unsealed by the lower court herein does not conflict with any decision of the federal court. (A-16 at p.3.) In fact, when Judge Marra has been asked to seal records of his court that quote the NPA, he has refused to do so, and has required such records to be filed in the public court file (Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A.-7)'2 Thus, though the NPA is not a record of the federal court, the federal court has rejected attempts to file portions of it under seal. As a result, portions of the NPA appear in the public court file in 12 Page 4 of Supp.A.-5 and paragraph 5 of Supp.A.-6, both publicly on file in the federal court, quote from the NPA. In addition, Epstein's own lawyers quoted extensively from the NPA in seeking to stay one of the civil suits against him. (A- 11 at ¶ 6; A-18, p. 35,1. 18 - p. 36,arporating by reference Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A-6 and Supp.A.-7 I. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008) at Dkt. 33 pp. 2-5)).) 20 EFTA00183985 the federal civil litigation against Epstein. (Supp.A-5 at p. 4; Supp.A.-6 at ¶ 5; Supp.A.-7 at pp. 2-5.) The proverbial cat is already out of the bag. Notwithstanding, the NPA is a record of this lower court. The lower court did not enter an order conflicting with Judge Marra's rulings (A-16 at p. 3 — expressly noting lack of conflict with Judge Marra's orders) and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.13 Finally, unsealing the NPA did not conflict with federal law. Records available under state law are sealed by federal law only when federal law absolutely conflicts with state law and requires confidentiality of the records. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. VI, U.S. Const., comes into play only when federal law clearly requires the records to be closed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.g., Wallace I. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach'. Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (Federal Privacy Act does not exempt from disclosure records of housing authority which are open for inspection 13 The Post adopts and incorporates 's arguments and analysis on this issue in addition to the arguments it sets forth herein. 21 EFTA00183986 under Florida Public Records Act); Fla. Sugar Cane League, Inc. I Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir. Sept. 20, 1991), per curiam affirmed, 606 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992 (documents received by state agency in course of settlement negotiations to resolve federal lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice open to inspection because federal law did not clearly require confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida constitution and common law in this case. In particular, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not restrict access to the NPA. Federal Rule 6(e) restrains grand jurors, court reporters, government attorneys, interpreters and the like from disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury. Petitioner — apparently the former target of the grand jury — is none of these persons. His actions in filing the NPA under seal do not implicate Rule 6(e) no matter what information the NPA contains. The lower court's actions in unsealing the NPA likewise do not implicate Rule 6, because the lower court also is not restrained by Rule 6(e). Moreover, the information contained in the NPA does not constitute "matters occurring before the grand jury" within the meaning of Rule 6. The secrecy rule is limited to such matters for the purpose of "preventing targets of an 22 EFTA00183987 investigation from fleeing or tampering with witnesses or grand jurors, encouraging witnesses to appear voluntarily and speak fully and frankly, avoiding damage to the reputation of subjects or targets of the investigation who are not indicted, and encouraging grand jurors to investigate suspected crimes without inhibition and engage in unrestricted deliberations." Lockhead Martin Corp... Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1279 (M.D. Ha. 2005). The rule aims to "prevent disclosure of the way in which information was presented to the grand jury, the specific questions and inquiries of the grand jury, the deliberations and vote of the grand jury, the targets upon which the grand jury's suspicion focuses, and specific details of what took place before the grand jury." In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1299, 1302-03 (M.D. Fla. 1977). In other words, Rule 6 is implicated if disclosure would reveal secret inner workings of the grand jury. U.S. . Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651, 654 (E.D. Va. 2007). Disclosure of details of a government investigation that is independent of a parallel grand jury proceeding does not violate Rule 6. Id. Statements by a prosecutor's office about its own investigation, therefore, are not covered by the secrecy rule. Id. at 655. Likewise, the mere mention of other targets of an investigation does not implicate the grand jury secrecy rule. E.Q., In re Interested Party, 530 F. Supp. 2d 136,140-42 (D.D.C. 2008) (government not prohibited by 23 EFTA00183988 Rule 6 from disclosing plea agreement and other materials); Doe f . Hammond, 502 F. Supp. 2d 94, 99-101(D.D.C. 2007) (same). Moreover, "when the fact or document is sought for itself, independently, rather than because it was stated before or displayed to the grand jury, there is no bar of secrecy." In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. at 1304. Here, the Post seeks to review the NPA for its own intrinsic value, and not for the purpose of discerning what transpired before the grand jury now more than a year ago. It is clearly well within the public's right and interest to review the NPA, given the circumstances surrounding the investigation and prosecution of Petitioner as well as the civil claims by women who say Epstein sought to make them his child prostitutes. These facts clearly constitute a proper basis for unsealing these improperly sealed documents. Finally, and even assuming for a moment that the NPA contains grand jury information — which the Post doubts — when the grand jury's work has concluded, and the accused apprehended, the veil of secrecy no longer is necessary and safely may be lifted. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. at 1303. Ilere, Petitioner has been convicted, and nothing in the record suggests the grand jury's work is ongoing. Consequently, no basis exists for finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. 24 EFTA00183989 CONCLUSION The trial court was correct in unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum. These materials were not properly sealed in the first instance. Moreover, Epstein has not and cannot provide any basis for closure at this juncture. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. Its order should be affirmed, and the Post should be awarded its fees and costs and such other further relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS oCICERO & BRALO , PL D nna K. Shullman lorida Bar No.: James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post 25 EFTA00183990 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail to: Hon. Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Esq., Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman, 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Esq., 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913; Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 on this 10th day of July, 2009. Att ey 26 EFTA00183991 CERTIFICATE OF TYPE. SIZE AND STYLE Counsel for Petitioners certifies that this Petition is typed in 14 point (proportionately spaced) Times New Roman. , 27 EFTA00183992 - Not an Official Document Page 1 of II ReporLSeJection Criteria Case ID: Docket Start Date: Docket Ending Date: Case Description Case ID: Case Caption: Division: Filing Date: Court: Location: Jury: Type: Status: 502008CF009381AXXXMB 502008CF009381AXXXMB EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E W - COLBATH Thursday , June 26th, 2008 CF -FELONY MB - MAIN BRANCH N-Non Jury CF -FELONY CLSD - CLOSED CASE Related Cases No related cases were found. Case Event Schedule No case events were found. Case Parties Seq Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name JUDGE DEFENDANT COLBATH, JUDGE JEFFREY GOLDBERGER , ESQ, JACK A 3 30-JUN- 2008 ATTORNEY Aliases: Aliases: Aliases: none none none Docket Entries http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pIs/jiwp/ck_public_qrydoct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183993 - Not an Official Document Page 2 of I I Docket Number Docket Type Book and Page No. Attached Ti:-. 11 0000C - RPT CASE INITIATED TIMELINESS Filing Date: 26-JUN-2008 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 1 INFO - INFORMATION SHEET Filing Date: 26-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: ARISES FROM 2006CF009454AXX 1 A AREC - ARREST RECORD Filing Date: J 26-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. i 1 B TEXT - SEE DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT Filing Date: 26-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: ROUGH ARREST - NO PROBABLE CAUSE FILED 1 C WOAR - WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT Filing Date: 26-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: FILED BY JACK GOLDBERG EVSCH SCHEDULED - HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 27-JUN-2008 Filing Party: !Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183994 - Not an Official Document Page 3 of I I (Docket Text: 'none. I 2 JDN - JUDICIAL NOTES Filing Date: 27-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SET CASE FOR 6/30/08 @ 8:30 AM FOR STATUS CHECK LEVHLD - EVENT HELD Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: J EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-DAMES. PLEAD & ADJ GUILTY SEXUAL OFFENDER. PBCJ 6 CONSECUTIVE W/06-9454AXX. 12 MOS PROB. DEFT MUST REGISTER OFFENDER W/IN 48 HRS OF RELEASE. AS CHARGED. STIP/FOUND: MOS W/CD FOR 1 DAY, TO RUN PBCJ SENTENCE FOLLOWED BY AS A SEXUAL DNA SWAB. MER 2 A GUIL - JUDGMENT OF GUILTY [Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 [Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 2 B IFNGR - FINGERPRINTS Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 2C ISORD-SENTENCE ORDER Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: J EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 2 D SORC - CONTINUED SENTENCE ORDER - Filing Date: f30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: IEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183995 - Not an Official Document Page 4 all Docket Text: lInone. 2 E RITE - WAIVER OF RIGHTS Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: j none. 2 F I PLS - PLEA SHEET Ifiling Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: J none. 2 G J GLSS - GUIDELINE SCORESHEET Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: d EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: !Docket Text: none. 2 H OAFC - FEES/COST ORDER ASSESSING Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (JUDGE PUCILLO FOR MCSORLEY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $473.00 AS CONDS OF PROB. MER 3 AREC - ARREST RECORD Filing Date: 01-JUL-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: 1 Docket Text: RECOMMIT RCMIT - RECOMMITMENT Filing Date: 01-JUL-2008 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. CLSD - CLOSED CASE http://courtcon.co.palm-beackfLus/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt docket report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183996 - Not an Official Document Page 5 of I I Filing Date: 08-JUL-2008 Filing Party: 'Disposition Amount: Docket Text: il none RCPT - RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT Filing Date: 14-JUL-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: Iii Payment of -$473.00 was made on receipt CFMB30200. From Bond ID: 00073142 4 ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 21-JUL-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (JUDGE MCSORLEY) OF PROBATION..NUNC PRO TUNC 6/30/08 5 PROC - TRANSCRIPT CRT REPORTER OF Filing Date: 22-JUL-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E IDisposition Amount: Docket Text: PLEA CONFERENCE, TAKEN 6/30108 6 MOT - MOTION Filing Date: I -DEC-2008 Filing Party: _ EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: TO CLARIFY SENTENCE TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERROR FILED BY JACK GOLDBERGER Filing Date: 04-MAY-2009 Filing Party: I EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (JUDGE COLBATH) THAT THE ORDER OF COMMUNITY CONTROL IS CORRECTED TO DELETE SPECIAL CONDITION #26 AND #27. 1-8- --I MOT - MOTION I http://courteon.co.palm-beachnus/p1s/jiwplek_public qry_doct.ep_dktrpt_docket_report5... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183997 - Not an Official Document Page 6 of I I !Filing Date: 112-MAY-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (NONPARTY E VVS) TO VACATE AND UNSEAL RECORDS. ORDER SEALING RECORDS ORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING Filing Date: [15-MAY-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SET FOR 5/29/09 RE:MOTION UNSEAL RECORD TO VACATE ORDER TO SEAL AND I EVSCH SCHEDULED - HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 19-MAY-2009 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 10 j NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING Filing Date: 26-MAY-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SET FOR 5/29/09 10:30 12 I PONG - PLEA OF NOT GUILTY Filing Date: 29-MAY-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E _ Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. EVSCH SCHEDULED - HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 01-JUN-2009 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: NON PARTY 'S MOTION TO RECORDS A NSEAL RECORDS VACATE ORDER SEALING EVCAN EVENT http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dIctrpt_docket report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183998 - Not an Official Document Page 7 of 11 J CANCELLED/SETTLED Filing Date: 01-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 11 RNOH - RE-NOTICE OF HEARING Filing Date: 01-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SETTING CASE FOR OTHER HEARING ON 6/10/2009 AT 10:30 AM FILED BY BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. RE: NON PARTY 'S R MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SEALING RECORDS AND UN L RECORDS, HEARING SEET FOR 5/29/2009 IS CANCELLED 13 MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 03-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: TO VACATE ORDER SEALING RECORD AND UNSEAL RECORDS FILED BY BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. 14 I MOT - MOTION Filing Date: J 03-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR ACCESS FILED BY DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQ. EVRST EVENT RESET Filing Date: 10-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-BELTRAN. MOTION TO INTERVENE-GRANTED. NO ACTION ON MOTION TO UNSEAL. RESET FOR MOTION HRG ON 6/25/09. BLE 15 ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 10-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doctcp_dlctrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183999 - Not an Official Document Page 8 of I I 'Docket Text: II(COLBATH) 16 CEF - COURT EVENT FORM Filing Date: 10-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Lissposition Amount: 'Docket Text: none. 17 ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 10-JUN-2009 Filing Party EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E 'Disposition Amount: iDocket Text: (COLBATH) EVSCH SCHEDULED - HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 11-JUN-2009 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 19 MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 11-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E 'Disposition Amount: Docket Text: TO MAKE COURT RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL. GOLDBERGER, ESQ FILED BY J. 18 MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 11'5-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: TO INTERVENE AND SUPPORTING FILED BY S. KUBIN, ESQ MEMORANDUM OF LAW. EVSCH SCHEDULED HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 25-JUN-2009 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: ITO STAY DISCLOSURE http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry doct.cp_d1ctrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184000 - Not an Official Document Page 9 of I I EVHLD EVENT HELD Filing Date: Filing Party: 25-JUN-2009 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-WIGGINS (COLBATH) DEFT PRES W/J.GOLDBERGER, GRANTED, CASE RESET FOR MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE _EVSCH HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED Disposition Amount: Docket Text: Filing Date: Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 21 I MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 25-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: TO STAY DISCLOSURE OPF THE NON- PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW. FILE BY R. CRITON, PA EVHLD - EVENT HELD Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-WIGGINS. MOTION TO STAY, DENIED. WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION ARE DELAYED UNTIL NOON ON THURSDAY 02-JUL-2009. MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEFT TO POST BOND - DENIED. 25 -"MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 1Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pIs/jiwp/ck_public qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184001 - Not an Official Document Page 10 of I I Docket Text: "FOR ATTY'S FEES AND COSTS. FILED BY D. SHULLMAN, PA 31 CEF - COURT EVENT FORM Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 32 f ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (JUDGE COLBATH) THAT THE RECORDS ARE DENIED. THE GRANTED. THE MOTION TO UNSEAL GRANTED. MOTIONS TO SEAL THE COURT MOTIONS TO INTERVENE ARE THE DOCUMENTS IS 23 RESP - RESPONSE TO: Filing Date: 29-JUN-2009 'Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: MOTION TO STAY AND SUPPORTING FILED BY S. KUVIN, ESQ MEMORANDUM OF LAW. 24 ODMO - ORDER DENYING MOTION Filing Date: 29-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (COLBATH) TO STAY DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 26 PROC - TRANSCRIPT CRT REPORTER OF Filing Date: 01-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT, 27 1 PROC - TRANSCRIPT CRT REPORTER OF Filing Date: 01-JUL-2009 Filing Party: 'EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E I http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fi.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dIctrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184002 - Not an Official Document Page I I of 1 1 [Disposition Amount: Docket Text: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 22 ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 02-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: THAT THE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IS GRANTED. ORDERED FURTHER THAT THIS COURT GRANTS THE MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCEY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY. ORDERED FURTHER THAT THIS COURT GRANTS PETITIONERS EMERGENCEY MOTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER JUNE 26, 2009, THAT DENIES THE MOTION FOR STAY. THE JUNE 25, 2009 ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO UNSEAL IS STAYED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. ORDERED FURTHER THAT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER RESPONDENT SHALL SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. RESPONDENT SHALL ADDRESS THIS COURTS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE PETITION. ORDERED FURTHER THAT PETITIONER MAY HAVE TEN (10) DAYS THEREAFTER TO REPLY. 28 MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 06-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: NONPARTY M.'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FILED BY W. BERGER 29 RESP - RESPONSE TO: Filing Date: 06-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (NTERVENER'S) MOTION TO STAY AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW. FILED BY S. KUVIN, ESQ 30 EXLT - EXHIBIT LIST Filing Date: 08-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. htm://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pls/jiwp/ckpublic_qry_doct.cp_dkupt_clocket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184003 07/20/2009 15:22 FAX USA° WPB 07-20-'09 14:21 5 & LOCICERO T-113 P002/00P-137 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, LALM BE NEWSPAPERS, INC., ,and I., Respondents. Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case Nos. 2006 CF 9454AMB, 2008 CF 9381AMB PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POSTS MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS THOMAS, LoCICERO 8t BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shullman James B. Lake 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 EFTA00184004 07/20/2009 15:22 FAX USAO WP goo4 27-20-'09 14:22 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO T-113 P003/007 F-937 RESPONDENT PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and 9.410 and Administrative Order Number 2.303 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (the "Pose') moves this Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this review proceeding. In support thereof, the Post states: 1. 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. On June 10, 2009, the trial court granted the Post's Motion to Intervene in this action for the purpose of seeking access to court records. Specifically, the Post sought access to a non-prosecution agreement that was docketed on July 2, 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. 3. On June 25, 2009, the trial court heard oral argument on the Post's (and other non-parties') motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. 2 EFTA00184005 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX USAO WP 07-20-'09 14:22 MI PR EIO S & LOCICEE0 kboos T-113 P004/007 F-93/ 4. The Post is entitled to its fees and costs in this matter pursuant to Administrative Order Number 2.303 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida.' Specifically, that order allows sanctions to be imposed against the moving party "if a motion to seal is not made in good faith and is not supported by a sound legal and factual basis." Admin. Or. 15th Jud. Cir. Fla. 2.303. 5. The Post also is entitled to fees and costs in this matter pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 9.410, which gives appellate courts discretion to impose sanctions if an appeal "presents no justiciable question and is so devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little prospect it will ever succeed." E.g.. Visolv I Sec. Pac. Cred. Cow., 768 So. 2d 482, 490-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.410). Frivolous appeals include those in which a case is found: a. to be completely without merit in law and not supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; b. to be contradicted by overwhelming evidence; c. as having been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id. at 491. A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post's Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief. 3 EFTA00184006 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX USAO SIP N 01-20-'09 14:22 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO nocie T-113 P005/W0I F-9:17 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition like his initial filing of these documents under seal and his June 11, 2009 Motion to Make Court Records Confidential — was neither made in good faith nor supported by a sound legal and factual basis. The certiorari petition asserted three interests that ostensibly would be protected by closure but cited no recoid evidence in support of that assertion. Indeed, both in his motion below and at the hearing on the motion, Epstein made no genuine effort to demonstrate by evidence how and why any material interests would be served by closure. Instead, Epstein's arguments addressed extraneous, inapplicable issues that did not support closure and demonstrated his lack of good faith in bringing his motion. Moreover, Epstein's assertion that the trial court's orders contradicted and were preempted by federal court rulings was simply false. Epstein likewise failed to substantiate his arguments in this proceeding, instead again relying on red herrings and unsubstantiated blanket assertions to support his baseless claim that closure is or was proper in this case. 7. Rather, it appears Epstein opposed unsealing of these records simply for the purpose of shielding from public view documents material to the resolution of criminal charges against him for soliciting children for prostitution. In other words, the petition to this Court was merely a ploy intended to delay the public access to judicial records that that the Florida Constitution and common law guarantee. 4 EFTA00184007 07/20/2009 15;23 FAX gm= USA0 NP 07-20-'09 14:22 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO T-113 P006/007 F-937 8. In sum, Epstein's arguments for restricting access to his non- prosecution agreement and its addendum are without merit, Epstein's petition to this Court was likewise without support in fact or law, and the Post is entitled to an award of its fees and costs in defending its rights of access. WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court award to it its fees and costs and grant such other relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW 5 PL De a K. Shull F rida Bar No.: James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauder Telephone: Facsimile: deanna.shullman@uolawfirm.com Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post EFTA00184008 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX USAO WP 07-20-'09 14:22 tilIRMS & LOCICERO goof( T-113 P007/007 F-937 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been famished U.S. Mail to: Hon. Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; and 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; Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Esq., Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman, 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Esq., 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913; Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; and Bradley 3. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 on this 20th day of July, 2009. 6 EFTA00184009 ____Q7/20/2009 15:22 FAX USA° WPB CONFRM (41001 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Patin Beach, FL 33401-6235 TO: ORGANIZATION: FAX #: SUBJECT:S i FROM: • x) NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: COMMENTS: Original document: To follow via regular mail . To follow via Federal Express tz _vio follow via hand delivery Nothing to follow, FAX := original EFTA00184010 07/20/2000 15:22 FAX USA° WP 07 -2a -'09 14:21 ,WIRRS & LOCICERO I6 002 Thai P1301/Idla r THOMAS LOCICERO BR ALOW a 400 N. DriveeSuite 1100eTam FL 33602 (Phone) (Fax) To Free: facsimile transmittal To: Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Judge FAX Colbath It Alexander Acosta, Esq., USAO Barbara Burns, Esq., ASAO Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Re: State., J. Epstein Date: Peps: 7 Urgent 0 Please see attached . For review Please comment U Please reply U Please recycle CONFIDENTIALITY STATESfEhtf This eltetroaie message transmission contains information from the law firm of Thomas, LoCiccro PL we is confidential or privileged. The informerion is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity earned above. If you are not the intended recipient, he await that any disclosure, espying, disuibtai contents of this information is prohibited. If you Iowa received this electronic transmission le error, please notify 1.15 by tckphonc immediately. Thank you for your cooperation IRS Circular 230 Dirclosurc, To the extent this conespondence contain: federal tax "Nice, such advice, WAS nee intended to be used, and cannot be vied by any taxpayer, for the purpose of 10 avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (i) promoting, matketing, or mcarnmendlagm mother paro,r any uansactlon or mew addressed herein. If you would like of to prepare written tax advl ee designed to provide penalty 1,10=4ica. please eontba us and we will be happy to discuss the meter with you a more derail confidential EFTA00184011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. 4D09-2554 PALM BEACH COUNTY Petitioner, L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381 A 1. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. AGREED MOTION TO FILE ONE REPLY SUPPORTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND FOR THE TIME TO RUN FROM SERVICE OF THE LAST-FILED RESPONSE Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests this Court's permission to file one reply supporting his petition for certiorari to the three separate responses filed by respondents and for the time to run from service of the last-filed response, for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Epstein filed an Emergency Petition for Certiorari to review an order compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum. 1 EFTA00184012 2. On July 1, 2009, this Court ordered respondent to show cause within 10 days why the petition should not be granted. This Court allowed Mr. Epstein 10 days to reply. 3. Three groups of respondents filed responses: (1) ■.; (2) M.; and (3) Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a Palm Beach Post ("the Post"). Each respondent is represented by different counsel. The responses were served by mail and on different days. 4. Due to the overlap of arguments in the three responses, it would benefit the parties and this Court if Mr. Epstein filed one reply to the three responses. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein requests permission to file one reply to the three responses. Mr. Epstein requests this Court to order that the reply is due 10 days from service of the last-filed response. Opposing counsel has contacted counsel for respondents (William J. Berger for ■.; Diana L. Martin for M.; and Deanna K. Shullman for the Post), who have all advised they have no objection to this motion. 2 EFTA00184013 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent byAmail this J4k.L, day of July, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Counsel for SPENCER T. KUVIN DIANA L. MARTIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for M. State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 15th Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER of ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and 3 EFTA00184014 and . I :tBARA. I WIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner By: - NE KUSLER-WALSH orida Bar No. 4 EFTA00184015 KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE 603, FLAGLER CENTER 501 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5913 Fa: - liliui U.S. Attorney's outhern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 s posPo„ 41/4 ige ►ITNry DOWELS 02 IP 0004162054 JUL 14 2009 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33401 $ 000.44° II 11 I I ill lid • EFTA00184016 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, Respondents. MOTION TO FILE PORTION OF RESPONSE UNDER SEAL Respondent, , moves to file under seal a portion of her response (dealing with this Court's lack of jurisdiction) to the petition for writ of certiorari, on the following grounds: In a portion of her response, attached hereto in the sealed envelope, . discusses page-by-page the sealed document, the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Public disclosure of this portion ofla's response would violate this Court's order staying disclosure of the NPA. For this reason, . moves to file the attached under seal. Copies of the sealed portion have been served only on the attorneys for petitioner and the U.S. Attorney. EFTA00184017 The undersigned counsel spoke with , attorney for petitioner, and represents that she does not oppose this motion to file under seal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a correct copy of the foregoing has been served by mail this I day of July, 2009, on the parties listed below. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for.. 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Telephone Telecop By: W. ram J. Berger Florida Bar No. SERVICE LIST Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401-5913 Deanna K. Shullman 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 Tampa, Fl 33602 2 EFTA00184018 Spencer T. Kuvin Leopold- Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Robert D. Critton of Burma; Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 State Attorney's Office- West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 3 EFTA00184019 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, 15, THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI' Respondent, would show this Court as follows: I. Introduction: In an unprecedented request that should shock the conscience of this Court, a convicted child sex offender seeks to conceal from the public the details of his deal with the U.S. Attorney (filed in the lower court) that led him to plead guilty to state charges of procuring a minor to engage in prostitution (a 2nd degree felony) and felony solicitation of prostitution (a 3rd degree felony). His request would make a sham of the public's state has also filed herewith under seal a request to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. That response is filed under seal because it discusses page-by-page the sealed document EFTA00184020 constitutional right to open government. The lower court properly denied this attempt. This Court, it is respectfully submitted, should deny the petition for certiorari and vacate the order staying disclosure of the sealed