EFTA00231917

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 Marra'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 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 
 net-diselese-a-matter-eeetwring-before the grand j y." As 4 cons 
aeuce of 
the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution agreement, information 
that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal grand jury 
10 
EFTA00232277

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 a 
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 a ). By its terms, however, the 
procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, "Request to Make Circuit and 
 Cormtrecturt-Records2m-Noneintinal-eases-C-orrfidentian-du nut apply 
to criminal cases. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 Court Commentary 
("New subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court records in 
11 
EFTA00232278

non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (c)(9)."); see 
also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court 
Records & Dockets, 954 So. 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(cX9)(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 So. 2d 1 (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 
12 
EFTA00232279

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. 
Ha. R. Jud. Admin. 
2.420(c)(9). Rule 2.420(c)(9) provides: 
—0)-Exemptionsr-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 
13 
EFTA00232280

(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; 
(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 finding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and 
imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of 
justieee-teaveitl-substantittlAnjury-te-inneeent-third-partics" 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 
14 
EFTA00232281

sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(cX9Xi), (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 fast argued that 
confidentiality is necessary to protect 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 e-be-elosecl-.—Diselosurrof-these-doeumentr ir not-generallrinherent-----------
in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common law right 
to confidentiality. 
15 
EFTA00232282

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 the trial court 
recognized (A-19:16). 
CONCLUSION 
This Court should grant certiorari and quash the June 25, 2009 order 
granting non-parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States 
Attorney's Office. 
CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY 
Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this petition 
constitutes an emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, 
provides that the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and 
addendum will be disclosed. 
Once these documents are disclosed, 
irreparable-harm will result. 
16 
EFTA00232283

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by 
E-Mail and Federal Express this 30*-4. day of June, 2009, to: 
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN 
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 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, LUITIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
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 
17 
EFTA00232284

Counsel for Petitioner 
JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Dive, Suite 503 
est Palm 
ch, FL 33401-5913 
18 
EFTA00232285

06-26-'09 13:39 FROM 
& LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-059 P001/005 F-889 
THOMAS LOCICERO
B RALOW 
400 
IM
O 
verSukel100•Tmm a FL 33602 
(Phone 
(Fax) 
TolFree: 
[._ 
 
 
facsimile transmittal 
To: 
Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Judge 
FAX 
Colbath 
R. 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. 
From: 
Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. 
Re: 
State v. J. Epstein 
Date: 
06/04/2009 
Pages: 
5 
Urgent C 
For review El 
Please see attached proposed Order. 
Please comment jJ
I_ Please reply U 
Please recycle El 
CONFIDESITIALITYSTATISSABNT 
This electronic message transmission contains Information from the law finn of— 
LoCicero it Bralow PL and is confidendal or 
privileged. The information is intended to be for tic use of the individual or entity 
ove. If you ere not the intended recipient, be aware 
that any disclosure. copying. disnl 
• 
contents of this information is whined. If you have received this eicetronie transmission 
in error. please notify us by telephone 
immediately. Thank you for your cooperation 
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure. To the extent rhis conesponderct contains federal tax advice, such advice was na intended to be used, and cannot 
be used by any taxptyct, for the purpose of (i) :voiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (I) promoting, marketing, or 
recommending to another party any transacdon or matter addressed herein. If you would like us to prepare written tax advice designed to provide 
penalty prolectin please contact us and we will be happy to discuss the muter with you bi more detail 
confidential 
EFTA00232286

06-26-'09 13:39 FROMM 8, LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-059 P002/005 F-889 
THOMAS 
June 26, 2009 
I OCICERO 
BRALOW 
VIA FASCIMILE 
The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Main Judicial Complex 
205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 1 IF 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re: 
State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Judge Colbath: 
Tampa 
dC0 N 
p., Ste. 1100, Tamed, FL 33602 
P. 
- 02 
ph. 
fax 
tea am 
Ft. Lauderdale 
tOi N E. Third Ave std. 1500 
FL 
3 AIME toll free
oh 
New York City 
220 E 42nd St., 10th Elder 
N 
17 
ph 
fax- 
ww•SlS2M 
Dea 
Reply To Tampa 
This law firm represents the Palm Beach Post in the above matter. I have prepared a 
proposed Order, which I believe accurately reflects your ruling at the hearing on June 26, 2009 
on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement 
and Addendum Pending Review. 
By copy of this letter, I am providing all counsel of record a copy of the proposed Order. 
If the attached Order meets with Your Honor's approval, please enter the same. If you would 
like to have an electronic copy of this proposed order, please have your Judicial Assistant call 
my office to make arrangements for us to send you the order via email. 
Sincerely, 
LOCICERO & BRALOW PL 
&swat 
K 0441411Vra%. 
Deanna K. Shullman 
EFTA00232287

06-26-'09 13:40 FROMM & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-059 P003/005 F-889 
Hon. J. Colbath 
06/26/09 
Page 2 of 2 
DKS/kb 
Enclosures 
cc: 
U.S. Attorney's Office (via facsimile) 
State Attorney's Office (via facsimile) 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile) 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (via facsimile) 
Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. (via facsimile) 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile) 
EFTA00232288

06-26-'09 13:41 FROM 
& LOCICEPO 
8139843070 
T-059 P004/005 F-889 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 
2008-9381CF-AXX 
ORDER 
This matter came before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay 
Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum Pending Review and upon further 
consideration of this Court's June 26, 2009 Order unsealing certain records in this case. A 
hearing was conducted on these matters on June 26, 2009. 
On June 26, 2009, this Court entered an order unsealing the non-prosecution agreement 
and an addendum on file in this case. Having inspected the documents, this Court finds that they 
do not name any victims and do not contain any material subject to confidentiality pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Thus, the Court declines to make any redactions to the 
records before releasing them to the public. 
The Court further finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that a stay pending appeal is 
warranted. Defendant has not shown any irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits 
on appeal. These documents were not properly closed in the first instance, no present basis for 
closure exists, and good cause supports disclosure given the public interest in these proceedings 
and the lack of compelling interest in closure. 
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged as follows: 
1. 
Effective at noon on July 2, 2009, the non-prosecution agreement (docketed July 
2, 2008) and addendum (docketed August 25, 2008) are unsealed; 
EFTA00232289

06-26-'09 13:42 FROMM 8. LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-059 P005/005 F-889 
2. 
Defendant's Motion for Stay pending appellate review is DENIED; 
3. 
The Clerk of Court is directed to release the documents to the public at noon on 
Thursday, July 2, 2009. 
Done and ordered this 
day of June, 2009 in Palm Beach County, West Palm 
Beach, Florida. 
Hon. Jeffrey Colbath 
CIRCUIT JUDGE 
cc: 
U.S. Attorney's Office 
State Attorney's Office 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 
Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
2 
EFTA00232290

KREUSLER-WALSH, 
COMPLUsa & VARGAS, P.A. 
SUITE 503, FLAGLER CENTER 
SOI SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE 
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-5913 
JANE KREUSLER-WALSH 
TELEPHONI 
BARBARA J COMPIANI 
PAESIMILE 
REBECCA MERCIER VARGAS 
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE LAWYERS 
June 30, 2009 
By Hand Delivery 
Honorable Jeffrey Colbath 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 
205 North Dixie Highway, Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Re: 
Epstein v. State of Florida 
15th Circuit Court Case No. 2008CF009381A 
Dear Judge Colbath: 
JKW/bl 
Enclosure 
ostenerRebert-DrEritton 
Jack A. Goldberger 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
Judith Stevenson Arco 
William J. Berger 
Deanna K. Shullman 
Spencer T. Kuvin 
Enclosed is a copy of Epstein's Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 
Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay, Motion to Use One Appendix and 
Motion to Seal, as filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Due to the 
volume of the appendix, we have only enclosed the table of contents. Please let us 
know if you wish to receive a copy of the appendix. Thank you. 
Very truly yours, 
;---
ICREUSLER-WALSH 
EFTA00232291

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF 
FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH COUNTY 
Petitioner, 
L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
APPENDIX TO 
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND 
EMERGENCY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY 
ROBERT D. CRITTON 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & 
, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KRETTST.F.12-WAT 
COMPLANT & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
Counsel for Petitioner 
EFTA00232292

9. 
RECYCLED PAPER 
TO REORDER CALL 
EFTA00232293

Document 
Tab 
Proceedings in Southern District Court 
Victim's (Doe) Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's 
Right Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 
Judge Marra's Order to Compel Production and Protective 
Order (8/21/08) 
Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Motion to Unseal Non-
Prosecution Agreement (9/25/08) 
A-1 
A-2 
A-3 
Respondent's (U.S. Attorney's Office) Opposition to Victims' 
Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (10/8/08) 
A-4 
Victims' (Doe #1 and Doe #2) Reply to Respondent's 
A-S 
Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution 
Agreement (10/16/08) 
Judge Marra's Order Denying Petitioners' (Doe #1 and Doe #2). 
A-6 
Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (2/12/08 [sic should 
be 2/12/09]) 
Proceedings in 15th Judicial Circuit 
Transcript of Epstein's Plea Conference (6/30/08) 
A-7 
Epstein's Plea (6/30/08) 
A-8 
Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File (7/2/08) 
A-9 
NonParty M's Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records 
A- 1 0 
And Unseal Records (5/12/09) 
Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for 
A- 1 1 
Access (6/1/09) 
Applicant, M.'s Motion to Intervene and Supporting 
A- 1 2 
Memorandum of Law (6/11/09) 
EFTA00232294

Document 
Tab 
Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (6/11/09) 
A-13 
Epstein's Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution 
A-14 
Agreement and Addendum Pending Review (6/25/09) 
Intervener's [..] Response to Motion to Stay and Supporting 
Memorandum of Law (6/26/09) 
A-15 
Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath granting motions to unseal (6/25/09) 
A-16 
Order of Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath denying motion to stay (6/26/09) 
A-17 
Transcript on non-parties' motions to unseal and Epstein's 
motion for confidentiality (6/25/09) 
A-18 
Transcript on Epstein's motion to stay (6/26/09) 
A-19 
EFTA00232295

nbs :LEGAL 
RECYCLED PAPER 
TO REORDER CALL 
EFTA00232296