| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 152 | Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 |
Page 1 of 8¶
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶
JANE DOE NO. 2,¶
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff, vs.¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff, vs.¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
JANE DOE NO. 4,¶
Plaintiff, vs.¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
JANE DOE NO. 5,¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Defendant.¶
EFTA00182748¶
| Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM | Document 152 | Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 |
Page 2 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein¶
Page 2¶
JANE DOE NO. 6,¶
Plaintiff,¶
CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Defendant.¶
CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
JANE DOE NO. 7,¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
JANE DOE,¶
Plaintiff,¶
CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,¶
Defendants.¶
DOE II, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,¶
Defendants.¶
EFTA00182749¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009¶
Page 3 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein¶
Page 3¶
JANE DOE NO. 101,¶
CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶
Defendant.¶
JANE DOE NO. 102,¶
CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
Plaintiff,¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Defendant.¶
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 102’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT (dated 5/29/09, [DE 128]¶
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (“EPSTEIN”), by and through his undersigned attorneys responds to the Plaintiffs’ Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102 (“Plaintiffs”) Motion For Leave To File Under Seal Response In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Stay Or, In The Alternative, To Unseal The Nonprosecution Agreement, and states:¶
- This Court has already entered orders preserving the confidentiality of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) and denying prior attempts to have the document unsealed. See Court’s Orders, attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, entered in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, Petitioners, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, A. Order To Compel Production And Protective Order, [DE 26], dated August 21, 2008, and B. Order [DE 36], dated February 12, 2009, on Petitioners’ Motion To Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement [DE 28]. Both of these Orders are clear that the terms of the NPA are to remain confidential and remain
EFTA00182750¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009¶
Page 4 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 4¶
protected from being disclosed to third parties. The NPA is an agreement between the United States Attorney’s Office and EPSTEIN. Plaintiffs’ motion presents nothing in support of this Court modifying its prior orders.¶
- Significantly, even the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO), along with Defendant, has strongly opposed making the NPA public. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is Respondent United States of America’s Opposition To Victims’ Motion To Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement, dated October 8, 2008, [DE 29], also filed in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, Petitioners, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. In opposing the petitioners’ attempts to make public the terms of the NPA, the United States in the Response, Exhibit C, stated:
Since the Agreement (NPA) has not been filed under seal with this Court, the legal authority cited by petitoners regarding sealing of documents, United States v. Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005), is inapposite. The parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney’s Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined the Agreement should remain confidential. They were free to do so, and violated no law in making such an agreement. Since the Agreement has become relevant to the instant lawsuit, petitioners have been given access to it, upon the condition that it not be disclosed further. Petitioners have no legal right to disclose the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision.¶
After the United States’ response, Exhibit C, this Court entered its Order, Exhibit B, agreeing with the United States’ position and maintaining the confidentiality of the NPA in accordance with its prior Order, Exhibit A. The “victims” who were provided a copy of the NPA were and are required to maintain the NPA’s confidentiality and not disclose the terms to third parties.¶
- Other parties in the consolidated cases have been able to file their responses without a similar request being made. Defendant believes that these Plaintiffs can fully respond without the need to file under seal; and reference provisions generally. However if the Court is
EFTA00182751¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009¶
Page 5 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein¶
Page 5¶
inclined to grant this Order, then in order to continue to protect the confidentiality of the NPA and to comply with the Court’s prior Orders, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Defendant would agree to allow Plaintiff to file under seal her response and reference only those portions (identified herein) of the NPA which are potentially relevant to the issues arising under claims brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 and thus, that may have impact on Defendant’s motion for stay and Plaintiff’s response thereto. Specifically, the only portions relevant for this Court to make a decision on Defendant’s motion and Plaintiffs’ response are paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the NPA, and paragraphs 7A, 7B, and 7C of the Addendum To The NPA.¶
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter an Order denying any attempts by Plaintiffs to unseal or make public or to disclose to third parties the terms of the NPA, and to deny Plaintiffs move to file their response under seal; or if the Court is inclined to grant the motion, to allow Plaintiff to file her response to the motion to stay and only the specified portions of the NPA and Addendum thereto under seal.¶
Certificate of Service¶
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 10th day of June, 2009¶
Respectfully submitted,¶
By: N¶
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.¶
Florida Bar No.¶
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.¶
Florida Bar¶
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN¶
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
EFTA00182752¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009¶
Page 6 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein¶
Page 6¶
Phone¶
Fax¶
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)¶
EFTA00182753¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009¶
Page 7 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7¶
Certificate of Service¶
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON¶
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.¶
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.¶
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A.¶
18205 Biscayne Boulevard¶
Suite 2218¶
Miami, FL 33160¶
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.¶
08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-¶
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994¶
Richard Horace Willits, Esq.¶
Richard H. Willits, P.A.¶
2290 10th Avenue North¶
Suite 404¶
Lake Worth, FL 33461¶
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80811¶
Jack Scarola, Esq.¶
Jack P. Hill, Esq.¶
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,¶
P.A.¶
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33409¶
Counsel for Plaintiff,¶
Brad Edwards, Esq.¶
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler¶
401 East Las Olas Boulevard¶
Suite 1650¶
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶
Phone: 5¶
Fax:¶
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893¶
Paul G. Cassell, Esq.¶
Pro Hac Vice¶
332 South 1400 E, Room 101¶
Salt Lake City, UT 84112¶
Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe¶
| Description | Address |¶
| :--- | :--- |¶
| Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. | Garcia Law Firm, P.A. |¶
| 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 |¶
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469¶
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.¶
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.¶
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.¶
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800¶
Miami, FL 33130¶
EFTA00182754¶
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 F¶
Page 8 of 8¶
Doe 101 v. Epstein¶
Page 8¶
Bruce Reinhart, Esq.¶
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A.¶
250 S. Australian Avenue¶
Suite 1400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.¶
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq.¶
Ricci-Leopold, P.A.¶
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200¶
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410¶
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-08804¶
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos.¶
09-80591 and 09-80656¶
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.¶
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶
250 Australian Avenue South¶
Suite 1400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012¶
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶