EFTA00230786

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY 
L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 
Petitioner/defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves this Court for an order 
allowing him to file the September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement 
("Agreement") and October 29, 2007 Addendum to the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement ("Addendum"), which are the subject of his contemporaneously filed 
emergency petition for certiorari and emergency motion to review denial of stay, 
under seal. 
1. 
The Agreement and Addendum were executed by petitioner/defendant 
and the United States Attorney's Office in September 2007. They are attached in 
the sealed envelope. 
2. 
The Agreement contains a confidentiality clause, precluding it from 
EFTA00231126

being disclosed to third parties or made part of any public record. Federal District 
Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to third parties. 
3. 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Pucillo ordered Mr. 
Epstein's attorney to file the documents under seal during his plea conference on 
June 30, 2008. 
4. 
On June 25, 2009, Judge Colbath granted non-parties' motions to 
vacate the order sealing records and ordered them disclosed. 
5. 
On June 26, 2009, Judge. Colbath denied petitioner's motion for stay, 
and ordered the Clerk of Court to make the documents available for disclosure at 
noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009, unless this Court granted a stay. 
6. 
It is necessary that this Court review the Agreement and Addendum in 
conjunction with these proceedings. To protect the purpose of the petition for writ 
of certiorari pending before this Court, petitioner asks to file the documents under 
Accordingly, petitioner requests that this Court grant this motion and allow 
2 
EFTA00231127

him to file the Agreement and Addendum, which are separate from the appendix to 
his emergency petition and motion for review, under seal. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by email 
and Federal Express this 30,1a... day of June, 2009, to: 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, 
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 M. 
JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO 
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 
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, 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
3 
EFTA00231128

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
janewalshajltwpa.com 
Counsel for Petitioner 
By: 
Ce i-INTE =WALSH 
orida Bar No. 272371 
4 
EFTA00231129

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
/ 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY 
L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT 
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND 
EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY 
Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, moves to file one appendix in support of his 
contemporaneously filed emergency petition for writ of certiorari and emergency 
motion to review denial of stay. The documents in the appendix support both the 
petition and motion to review denial of stay. In order to expedite review, avoid 
duplication of paper and unnecessary expense, Mr. Epstein requests that this Court 
allow him to use the appendix in support of both the petition and motion to review 
denial of stay. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and 
1 
EFTA00231130

Federal Express this 3**4.. day of June, 2009, to: 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, 
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 M. 
JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO 
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 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
ROBERT D. CRITTON 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 North Flagler Drive, 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
2 
EFTA00231131

JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
[email protected] 
Counsel for Petitioner 
By: 
-i•-
&A;Eel=2.
--WALSH 
lorida Bar No. 272371 
3 
EFTA00231132

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH 
LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW 
ORDER DENYING STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL 
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM 
Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate 
Procedure 9.310(1), requests this Court review the order denying his Motion to Stay 
Disclosure of Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum pending his 
contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari and grant the stay.' Mr. Epstein seeks 
review of the stay denial on emergency basis. The court stayed disclosure until noon 
on Thursday, July 2, 2009 
Mr. Epstein could seek review in this Court. Absent a 
stay by this Court, the documents will be disclosed and there will be no adequate 
remedy. 
Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to bxEoaname. Non-party 
interveners,.., M. and The Post are referred to as M., M. and The Post. All 
emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A —
Petitioner's appendix. 
1 
EFTA00231133

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony solicitation 
of prostitution. He was also charged by information with procuring persons under 18 
for prostitution. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida began a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same 
conduct. 
In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein 
negotiated and signed a non-prosecution agreement (A-7:38).2 The non-prosecution 
agreement contains an express confidentiality provision and makes specific reference 
to a grand jury investigation of Mr. Epstein (A-7:38). The United States Attorney's 
Office agreed to defer the federal criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein 
comply with many obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state 
charges in the Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the 
non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). 
On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution 
and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida criminal action (A-7; A-
2 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed with a 
motion to seal. 
2 
EFTA00231134

8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the 
plea (A-7). 
During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether any 
promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A-7:37-38). Mr. 
Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non-prosecution agreement 
with the United States Attorney's Office] that the parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). 
He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's failure to comply with the terms of the state 
plea would violate the non-prosecution agreement (A-7:39-40). 
Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted "a sealed 
copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's attorney tried to comply 
and file the non-prosecution agreement with the court, the clerk advised him an order 
was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing 
Document in Court File" (A-9). An addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was 
filed under seal on August 25, 2008. 
On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent action in the 
federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution agreement (A-1). Mr. 
Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the United States Attorney's Office 
3 
EFTA00231135

opposed disclosure (A-2). On August 16, 2008, Judge Marra of the Southern District 
ordered the United States Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement 
to the Does' attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not 
disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, including 
those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. 
In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal 
action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United 
States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the 
movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective order to which 
the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On February 12, 2009,3 Judge Marra denied 
the motion, stating in pertinent part: 
Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement with third 
parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant the 
granting of such relief. If and when Petitioners have a 
specific tangible need to be relieved of the restrictions, they 
should file an appropriate motion. If a specific tangible 
need arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged 
victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought 
in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party 
to the Agreement. 
(A-6). 
3 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 
4 
EFTA00231136

Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non-party 
, a 
victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, 
seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant 
to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10). E.W. alleged that the 
proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). 
claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein; that she, 
as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued 
sealing violates public policy (A-10). 
On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The 
Post") moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged that the procedures for sealing had 
not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of 
their public significance." (A-11:3). 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard 
's and The Post's 
motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both 
motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later 
hearing (A-13). 
5 
EFTA00231137

The next day, June 11, 2009, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records 
Confidential (A-13). 
Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain 
confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly 
administration of justice; to protect a compelling government interest; to avoid 
substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by 
disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally 
inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). 
Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order 
unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties 
. and The Palm 
Beach Post (A-12). 
Judge Colbath heard 
.'s, The Post's, and ■.'s motions to unseal and Mr. 
Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The court granted 
.'s, The Post's, and ■.'s motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court 
concluded: 
At the time the State court took these matters under seal, the 
proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been 
followed. 
Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. 
Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient 
evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held 
by the Court. 
(A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as 
6 
EFTA00231138

permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." 
(A-16:3). Subsequent to this oral ruling, Mr. Epstein provided the court with a Motion 
to Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to 
stay, scheduled for the next day (A-16:3). 
The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. 
Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain 
under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but 
stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, I Mr. Epstein could seek emergency 
review of the denial in this Court (A-17). 
ARGUMENT 
Whether to grant a stay is discretionary with the trial court. See Pabian v. 
Pabian, 469 M. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Factors courts consider in deciding 
whether to grant a stay pending appellate proceedings include the likelihood of success 
on the merits, the likelihood of harm if not stay is granted, and the remedial quality of 
any such harm. See Perez v. Perez, 769 M. 2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see 
also State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 E. 2d 1037, 1038 n.3 (Fla. 1980). The trial 
court agreed that Mr. Epstein had established irreparable harm (A-17:16), denied a 
7 
EFTA00231139

stay. 
The trial court abused its discretion by denying a stay. As set forth in the 
contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari, Mr. Epstein will likely succeed on the 
merits. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the 
motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum 
between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. 
These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal 
court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane 
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not 
disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, 
thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. 
Disclosure also violates Judge Main's two orders in the federal district court, denying 
disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating that 
his "Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District 
Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). But there is no way disclosure 
does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. 
The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court 
8 
EFTA00231140

on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury 
proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)--an 
attorney for the government "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand 
jury." As a consequence of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution 
agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal 
grand jury proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 
6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the 
United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. 
Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal 
court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did 
Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer 
to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. 
The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not 
properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule 
of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge 
Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule 
(Id.). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, 
"Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Non-Criminal Cases 
9 
EFTA00231141

Confidential") do not apply to criminal cases. See Ha. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 
Court Commentary ("New. subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court 
records in non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (cX9)."); see 
also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & 
Dockets, 954.. 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure 
regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules 
committees for further study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the 
documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. 
Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to 
give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee 
Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(c)(9)(D), 
make clear that advance notice is not always required: 
Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has 
been held to require notice and hearing prior to closure, see 
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426.. 2d I (Fla. 
1982), The closure of court records has not required 
prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court 
record may be impractical and burdensome in 
emergency circumstances or when closure of a court 
record requiring confidentiality is requested during a 
judicial proceeding. 
The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 
10 
EFTA00231142

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order 
addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was 
not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered 
the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative 
Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As 
explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge 
Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that 
the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule 
prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when 
she sealed the documents in June 2008. 
Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. 
Epstein met them. At all times, the rules of judicial administration provided that court 
records "shall be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is 
required. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(cX9). Rule 2.420(cX9) provides: 
(c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial 
branch shall be confidential: 
(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in 
case decision or court rule on the grounds that 
(A) confidentiality is required to 
(i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the 
fair, impartial, and orderly administration of 
justice; 
(ii) protect trade secrets; 
11 
EFTA00231143

(iii) protect a compelling governmental 
interest; 
(iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues 
in a case; 
(v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third 
parties; 
(vi) avoid 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; 
(vii) comply with established public policy 
set forth in the Florida or United States 
Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case 
law; 
(B) the degree, duration, and manner of 
confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no 
broader than necessary to protect the interests set 
forth in subdivision (A); and 
(C) no less restrictive measures are available to 
protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). 
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a 
fmding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, 
impartial, and orderly administration of justice," to "avoid substantial injury to 
innocent third parties" or to "avoid 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)(i), (v), (vi). 
Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these 
requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate 
grounds for confidentiality. He first argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect 
12 
EFTA00231144

a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States 
Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of 
its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest 
against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to 
plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended 
that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, i.e., the other 
persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be 
harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that 
confidentiality is necessary to avoid 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. Disclosure of these documents is not 
generally inherent in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common 
law right to confidentiality. 
Granting a stay would vindicate the values and purposes of grand jury secrecy 
which will be implicated, if a stay is denied, by the public disclosure of a confidential 
agreement that references matters related to a federal grand jury investigation. There is 
no prejudice to non-parties/interveners 
and The Post, if disclosure is stayed 
pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, 
on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced--a fact 
13 
EFTA00231145