EFTA00182748

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 3 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 3 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
DOE II, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 
Defendants. 
JANE DOE NO. 101, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
JANE DOE NO. 102, 
Plaintiff, 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON 
CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE 
NO. 102'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND IDENTIFY 
JANE DOE NUMBERS 101 AND 102 IN THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES 
OF DISCOVERY 
EFTA00182768

Cate 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 4 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 4 
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, 
hereby files his Reply To Jane Doe No. 101 And Jane Doe No. 102's Response In Opposition To 
Motion To Compel and Identify Jane Doe Numbers 101 and 102 in Third Party Subpoenas For 
Purposes of Discovery: 
1. 
Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition is set forth in DE 124. Plaintiffs' response is 
drafted in a calculated effort to continue to argue issues relating to 18 U.S.C. 2255 rather than 
deal solely with the issue of identification of the Plaintiffs. Obviously, Plaintiffs' identification 
takes a second seat to Plaintiffs' attempt to continue to argue issues that are or may be set forth 
in their opposition to Epstein's motion to dismiss, which largely deals with issues surrounding 18 
U.S.C. 2255. See Defendant's Motion to Identify Jane Doe 101 [DE 16]. 
2. 
In their response, Plaintiffs seem to forget that they brought this lawsuit against 
Epstein. Plaintiffs claim they will suffer physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, 
psychological and psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, 
loss of educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy, 
separation from her family, medical and psychological expenses, loss on income, loss of the 
capacity to earn income in the future, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life. 
e.g., 
¶¶28, 
Comp., DE 1; see also j¶36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 61, 65, and 69, Comp., DE 1. Jane Doe 101 and 
102 came to Defendant's home on a number of occasions. Jane Doe 101 brought her friend, 
(referenced by name in a number of actions) to experience this same "trauma" — it 
does not make sense. Jane Doe 101 had issues associated with law enforcement involving drugs, 
battery, fleeing police; Jane Doe 102 claims to have been raped by two (2) individuals in 1998; 
pre any involvement with Epstein. This type of information is relevant, and Defendant is entitled 
EFTA00182769

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 5 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 5 
to fully explore it. As such, Plaintiffs' have placed their past and medical history as well as 
education, social, work, interpersonal, recreational legal, criminal and other aspects of their past 
and current lives at issue in light of the allegations they allege in their respective complaints. 
Despite Plaintiffs contention and effort to mislead this court, Epstein does not wish to publicize 
Plaintiffs' names in an effort to embarrass them. On the contrary, Epstein wishes to defend the 
claims made against him and dispute the damages Plaintiffs' claim by conducting discovery. 
Again, Plaintiffs allege substantial economic and non-economic personal injury damages. If this 
Court prevents Epstein from serving Third-Party Subpoenas identifying Plaintiffs, Epstein will 
be denied his due process rights by Plaintiffs in that he will be prevented from conducting broad, 
open and liberal discovery. The undersigned must serve subpoenas on medical doctors to obtain 
medical information related to Plaintiffs' alleged psychological and physical damages and or 
other third parties such as employees for other damages as same goes to the heart of Epstein's 
defenses and Plaintiffs' damages. 
Plaintiffs' intent is to have Epstein try this case without 
having obtained relevant and meaningful discovery. Plaintiff's proposal will chill Defendant's 
ability to fully and fairly access and obtain discovery. See infra. 
3. 
Plaintiffs' counsel are competent trial attorneys well versed in many areas of the 
law, including that of personal injury. Despite the foregoing, Plaintiff's counsel, in some 
highlighted effort to resolve the discovery issues Plaintiffs have intentionally created in an effort 
to chill discovery, offers to provide only the documents that Plaintiffs' counsel obtains from third 
parties through its own selective procedures, and only after Plaintiffs' counsel has been able to 
cull through same. 
EFTA00182770

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 6 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 6 
4. 
It is hard to believe that any competent law firm responsible to his/her client 
would ever allow an opposing party to request records and provide those records to the 
requesting firm only after the opposing firm had an opportunity to review and filter through 
same. Plaintiffs, in this case, seek thousands if not millions in damages, including physical and 
emotional/mental and personal injury type, and Epstein must and is entitled to conduct his own 
discovery thereon. No valid discovery objections or exemptions exist preventing necessary and 
reasonable discovery. To hold otherwise prevents Mr. Epstein from preparing and defending this 
matter and denies to him his right to fully and fairly defend these cases. 
5. 
Plaintiffs cite a host of cases for the proposition that anonymity should be granted 
when, for instance, a fear of retaliation or ostracism exists. Inconsistent with the cases Plaintiffs 
cite, not once do they state that Plaintiffs will be embarrassed, ostracized, or psychologically and 
emotionally unable to proceed with the action. Even so, embarrassment alone is not enough. $
Response to Motion to Proceed Anonymously. In determining whether to allow a party to 
proceed with litigation anonymously, a court must consider whether the identification poses a 
risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to 
innocent non-parties. Doe. No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), citing, 
Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 106i), 281.1.S.C,A. Further, Plaintiffs cite cases wherein a psychologist 
opined that plaintiff suffered or will suffer sever emotional distress. Id. Here, no such affidavit 
has been provided and/or submitted to this court to justify Plaintiff's requests to proceed 
anonymously. Good cause must also be shown in order to proceed anonymously. Good cause 
for a protective order, which Plaintiffs have not filed here, is established upon a showing that 
disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure; the injury 
EFTA00182771

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 7 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 7 
must be shown with specificity. See Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001). Thus, 
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of persuasion. N. Plaintiffs fail to show good cause in that 
they have not clearly defined what injury they will sustain if not permitted to proceed 
anonymously; they have only offered speculation. Such a failure is fatal to their request to 
proceed anonymously. See infra. 
6. 
In Kolko, a case cited by the Defendants, the court specifically found that 
proceeding anonymously (i.e., in the style of the case only) would not inhibit discovery. Here, 
preventing Epstein from identifying Plaintiffs' in subpoenas and other type discovery 
overwhelmingly inhibits discovery. Ees Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. at 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) 
(denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious 
specific injury and allowing Defendants to identify Plaintiff in discovery because holding 
otherwise would "chill defendants ability to conduct discovery"). Plaintiffs obviously cannot 
cite one case preventing open and broad discovery or preventing the identification of Plaintiffs in 
third-party subpoenas or in other discovery. While Plaintiffs cite to each of above cases, it is 
misleading for Plaintiffs to suggest the case did not allow for the service of third party subpoenas 
with the correct names. 
7. 
Next, Plaintiffs' cite a host of criminal cases and statutes which this court has an 
obligation to distinguish when attempting to in artfully apply same in the civil context. For 
instance, while Fla. Stat. §794.024 and §794.026 appear to prevent the disclosure of the identity 
of a sexual assault victim, Fla. Stat. §794.024 only applies to public employees (and to 
investigations and state prosecutions related to claims of rape) and §794.026 only applies if 
disclosure is being done "with a reckless disregard for the highly offensive nature of the 
EFTA00182772

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 8 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 8 
publication." Rather, disclosure is being requested in order to properly litigate and defend this 
matter. Further, §794.026 does not (emphasis added) prevent the disclosure of the name of a 
sexual assault victim - it only allows for civil remedy as a result thereof assuming one meets the 
criteria to recover (i.e., disclosure with a reckless disregard for the highly offensive nature of the 
publication). Again, Epstein agreed to enter into a confidentiality agreement and, if required by 
this court, to redact full names from any document filed with the Court. 
8. 
Next, the language of Fla. Stat. §92.56 makes it clear that the statute only applies 
criminal proceedings brought by the State of Florida, not civil proceedings. 
As set forth by the 
Office of Attorney General, Fla. Stat. §92.56 and Fla. Stat. §794.024 "were created by the Crime 
Victims Protection Act" See 2003 WL 22971082 (Fla. A.G.). Even though Fla. Stat. §92.56 
only applies to criminal proceedings, subsection (2) thereof allows for the accused to apply for 
an order of disclosure to prepare a defense in a criminal proceeding. 
9. 
In addition, Plaintiffs cite to Fed.R.Evid. 412. The Advisory Committee Notes to 
Rule 412, Fed.R.Evid, makes clear that the procedures to determine admissibility of an alleged 
victim's/plaintiffs sexual conduct or activity in civil cases does not apply to discovery of such 
information. Rather, discoverability of such information is governed by Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., 
pursuant to which the scope of discovery is broad. Rule 412, entitled "Sex Offense Cases; 
Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition," provides 
in relevant part - 
(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.--The following evidence is not admissible in any 
civil ... proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in 
subdivisions (b) and (c): 
(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual 
behavior. 
EFTA00182773

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 9 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 9 
(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition. 
(b) Exceptions.-
(2) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual 
predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under 
these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any 
victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim's reputation is 
admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim. 
(c) Procedure to determine admissibility.--
(1) A party intending to offer evidence under subdivision (b) must—
(A) file a written motion at least 14 days before trial specifically describing the 
evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for good cause 
requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and 
(B) serve the motion on all parties and notify the alleged victim or, when 
appropriate, the alleged victim's guardian or representative. 
(2) Before admitting evidence under this rule the court must conduct a hearing in 
camera and afford the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. The motion, 
related papers, and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal 
unless the court orders otherwise. 
In confirming that Rule 412 does not control the discoverability of such information, the 
Advisory Committee Notes (1994 Amendments) state - 
The procedures set forth in subdivision (c) do not apply to discovery of a victim's 
past sexual conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be 
governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, 
however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to 
protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensure confidentiality. Courts 
should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the party 
seeking discovery makes a showing that the evidence sought to be discovered 
would be relevant under the facts and theories of the particular case, and cannot 
be obtained except through discovery. In an action for sexual harassment, for 
instance, while some evidence of the alleged victim's sexual behavior and/or 
predisposition in the workplace may perhaps be relevant, non-work place conduct will 
EFTA00182774

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 10 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 10 
usually be irrelevant. Cf. Burns v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d 959, 
962-63 (8th Cir. 1993) (posing for a nude magazine outside work hours is irrelevant to 
issue of unwelcomeness of sexual advances at work). Confidentiality orders should be 
presumptively granted as well. 
(Emphasis added). 
In accordance with Rule 412 and Rule 26, Epstein seeks discovery of Plaintiffs' physical, 
emotional and psychological history. We are not at the admissibility phase, which Rule 412 
addresses. We are at the discovery phase, and identification of the Plaintiffs is required in order 
to properly litigate and defend the claims against Epstein. Defendant has no other means of 
obtaining any information about the Plaintiffs' without being permitted to identify Plaintiffs in 
third party subpoenas and in discovery. Counsel for 
recognized this conundrum and 
agreed to identifying 
and other attorneys in the state court cases and in one of the federal 
matters have agreed to serve subpoenas with full indentifying information as long as the 
documents do not disclose the name in the court file. See Exhibit "A". 
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mr. Epstein, requests this court allow it to identify Plaintiffs 
in the style of this case and that Defendant be permitted to identify Plaintiffs in discovery an for 
such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. 
Certificate of Service 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was de ronica y filed with the 
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document i being served this 
day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by 
CM/ECF on this 
day of  
June 
 2009. 
EFTA00182775

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 11 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 11 
Respectfully 
By: 
ROBER'i. 
R., ESQ. 
Florida Bar No 
MICHAISUI. PLIC.B, ESQ. 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
ch, FL 33401 
Phone 
Fax 
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 
EFTA00182776

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 12 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 12 
Certificate of Service 
Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein 
Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRAJJOHNSON 
Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 
Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 
18205 Biscayne Boulevard 
Suite 2218 
Miami, FL 33160 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nat 
08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-
80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 
Richard Horace Willits, Esq. 
Richard H. Willits, P.A. 
2290 101h Avenue North 
Suite 404 
Lake Worth, FL 33461 
Fax: 
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 
Fax: 
ounse 
Brad Edwards, Esq. 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard 
Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
Phone: 
Fax: 
Counsel or P ainti in Related Case No. 08-
80893 
Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 South 1400 E, Room 101 
Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112 
ounse 
ainti f Jane Doe 
Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 
Garcia Law Finn, P.A. 
224 Datura Street, Suite 900 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
CounselO"
 or P ainti in elated 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 
LIMM 
EFTA00182777

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 
Document 149 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 
Page 13 of 13 
Doe 101 v. Epstein 
Page 13 
Bruce Reinhart, Esq. 
Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 
250 S. Australian Avenue 
Suite 1400 
West P 
each, FL 33401 
Fax: 
Counsel for Defendan 
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 
Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. 
Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Fax: 
Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-
08804 
Counsel or 1: 1 ainti s in Related Cases Nos. 
09-80591 and 09-80656 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
ach, FL 33401-5012 
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 
EFTA00182778

0q/05/2009 10:00 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
on 
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 
Attorneys 
of Low 
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET 
TO: 
Esq. 
FAX NUMBER: 
FROM: 
Brodley J. Edwards, Esq. -Susan Stirling 
M
I
 
DATE: 
June 5, 2009 
RE: 
• 
v. Epstein 
Our File No. 09-22784 
MESSAGE: 
Marie, as you probably know. t he Palm Beach Post filed a 
separate Motion to unseal the NPA. We noticed that the Post 
did not notice you personally, so I have enclosed a courtesy 
copy of that Motion and Notice. I hope this finds you well. 
•Please have your assistant let Susan know that you got this 
fax. I understand you are in a new office. 
# OF PAGES 11 
(including cover sheet) 
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE DESIGNATED NUMBER OF PAGES• OR IF YOU EXPERIENCE 
ANY PROBLEM WITH THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CALL OUR FAX 
OPERATOR AT 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT 
IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL 
AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. 
IF THE READER OF THIS 
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE 
FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED 
THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS 
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE 
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT 
THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 
Reply To: Las Otos City Centre • 401 East Las Olas Botdevard • Suite 1650 • Fon Lauderdale. Florio 33301 Telephone: 
FORT LAUDERDALE • 0OCA RATON • TAMPA • TALLAHASSEE • NEW YORK CITY • LOS ANGELES 
• Fax: (954)527.04363 
www. r r a-1 a w. c o m 
EFTA00182779

08/05/2009 10:00 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT *OLE 
9)002 
26-04-'09 15:18 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-997 P001/003 F-849 
THOMAS [ 0£1CFRO 
BRALOW 
400 14. Ashley DrivesSuite I 100aTampa. FL 33602 
813-984-3060 (Phone)•813-984-3010 (Fax) 
Toll Free: 866-395-7100 
facsimile transmittal 
To: 
R. Alexander Acosta, Eiq.
Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. 
Michael McAuliffe, Esq. 
Jack Alan Coldberger, Esq. 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 
William J. Berger, Esq. 
From: 
»minne K. Shullman, Esq. 
Re: 
State v. J. Epsteln 
Cc: 
Marilyn Judicial Assistant to Judge 
Colbath 
Fax: 
Date: 
06/04/2009 
Pesu: 
6 
Urgent 
For reviewll 
Pia= comment 
f"Please reply U 
Fleet* soe attached Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access 
Meese recycle13 
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMGNic
This electronic messago transminden contains information from iho Iaw fimt of Thomas, LoCitero • Sido* Pt. and is confidemiel or 
pnylleged. The information h intaated to be for the use ofthe individual or entity named above. If yö° lue un the trueneed lahna& he awarc 
ies( any disclosurc, eopyina. diSnibution or 
fthecontentoefih$Infonnnionisprohibited.Ifyouhaverecoiredthiaelecxonietrmmiaion 
In arror, plus° notiy as by tetephone 
immediately. Thmikyou for your coopotallort 
IRS Cirailat 230 Diodosore. To the «MM Mis contsponderce esanuins Central tax "Ovieg such advice wae ne* intendcdto he tued.ane «anoi 
he usea by any taxpaycr. Tor Ote painon of 0) avo id Ms hanttiin antia the Immo' Pennut Code or (I) promoting, marketing, or 
moommending to anolher yarty any cransaction or mene. addrossed beroin. I( yoti would liki us to preparo wrincn Ox Syke dimigned to provido 
penany 'noloon" ota* oontact us and we wllt ne heppy ro discum Cia ranta with you UI tio04, demil 
confidential 
EFTA00182780

08/05/2000 10:00 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
QD003 
• 
06-04-'09 15:19 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-997 P002/003 F-849 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
Plaintiff; 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Defendant. 
Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 
2008-9381CF-AXX 
NOTICE OF HEARING 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post 
will call up for hearing its Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access before the Honorable 
Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Hwy., Room 11F, West Palm 
Beach on June 10, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. 
Time reserved: 10 Minutes 
THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL 
Anna K. Shullman 
Florida Bar No.: 
James B. Lake 
Florida Bar No.: 
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100 
P.O. Box 2602 (33601) 
Tampa, FLEW 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post 
EFTA00182781

06/05/2009 10:00 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
Qb004 
06-04-'09 15:19 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 
8139843070 
T-997 P003/003 F-849 
State' Epstein 
Case No. 2006-CF9454 & 2008-9381CF 
Notice of Hearing on Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 
via 34S. Mail; ifFeCsgnile; :1 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States 
Attorney's Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 
33401; Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North 
Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; William J. Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN 
ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 
1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3394; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 
LA,Ze. 
S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 on thi  7 
 day of June 2 i 09. 
cc: 
Judicial Assistant (Via Fax and U.S. Mail) 
Esquire Court Reporting 
2 
Atto 
EFTA00182782

06/05/2009 10:01 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
005
06-01-'09 15:35 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-989 P001/007 F-845 
THOMAS LOCICERO
BRALOW 
400 N. As le nnveoSuite 11 IT 
Ft. 33602 
(Phone 
(Fax) 
Toll Free: 
facsimile transmittal 
• •••••••• ••••••••••••••• • 
To: 
R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. 
Fax: 
Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. 
Michael McAuliffe, Esq, 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
Brad ley J. Edwards, Esq. 
William J. Berger, Esq. 
From: 
Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. 
Date: 
06/01/2009 
Re: 
State v. J. Epstein 
Pages: 
6 
Urgent U 
For review U 
I Please comment U 
Please see attached Motion to intervene and Petition for Access 
I Please reply U 
1 Please recycle K 
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT 
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Thomas. LoCicero & Bralow Pl. end is oanflthintial or 
privileged. The information Is Intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware 
that my disclosure, copying• distribution or uae of the contents of this information is prohlbasa. If you nava received this electronic transmission 
In error. please nobly us by telephone (913)984.3060 immediately. Thank you for your cooperation 
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure. To the mescal this ecuresprindaneti contains federal tax advice. such advice was not intended to be uactk and cannot 
be used by any taxscrytr, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (i) promoting, marketing, or 
recommending to another prim any transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like us to prepare written tax advice designed to pros/Ids 
penalty protective, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss the mater with you in more doiail 
confidential 
EFTA00182783

00/05/2009 10:01 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
Qhooe 
06-01-'09 15:35 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER0 
8139843070 
T-989 P002/007 F-845 
THOMAS 
June 1,2009 
LOCICFRO
BRALOW 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL 
The Honorable Jeffrey Colbath 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit-Palm Beach 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Main Judicial Complex 
205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Tampa 
400 N. AM* Dr Sin 1100. lampt FL33602 
P, 
pm 
602 
011 
Vs 
Ft. Laudordele 
101 N.E. INN Ave.. Stc. 1500 
toll tr 
Now York Clly 
220 E. 42nd Sc. 10th Floor 
www.Oclawliny eme 
De 
Direct Dial:NOB 
Deanna.Shullmanf000lawerm.com 
Reply To Tampa 
Re: 
Dear Judge Colbath: 
Enclosed is a courtesy copy of non-party Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Palm 
Beach Post's (the "Post") Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access to certain court records in 
this case. It is our understanding that Bradley Edwards and William Berger of Rothstein 
Rosenfeldt Adler have filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as =11 and that 
a 
motion is set for hearing on June 10, 2009. The Post requests an opportunity to be heard 
on the issue of access to these records at that time. 
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
with any questions or comments. 
Sincerely, 
THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL 
liesAAA-i(94,4th 
Deanna K. Shullman 
cc: 
Counsel of Record 
EFTA00182784

06/05/2009 10:01 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
%007 
06-01-'09 15:36 FROM-THOMAS & L0CICER3 
8139843070 
T-989 P003/007 F-845 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
STATE OF FLORIDA 
vs. 
Case Nos.: 2006-CF9454-AXX & 
2008-9381U-AND( 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE 
AND PETITION FOR ACCESS 
Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (the "Post") moves to 
Intervene in this action for the limited purpose of seeking access to documents filed under seal. 
The documents relate directly to the Defendant's guilty plea and sentence. Thus, the sealed 
documents go to the heart of the disposition of this cam:. But in requesting that Judge Pucillo 
seal these documents, the parties failed to comply with Florida's strict procedural and substantive 
requirements for sealing judicial records. In addition, continued sealing of these documents is 
pointless, because these documents have been discussed repeatedly in open court records. For all 
of these reasons, the documents must be unsealed. As grounds for this Motion, the Post states: 
L 
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. 
As a member of the news media, the Post has a right to intervene in criminal 
proceedings for the limited purpose of seeking access to proceedings and records. See Barron v. 
Florida Freedom Newspapers. Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (news media have standing 
to challenge any closure order); Miami Herald Publ'a Co. v. Lewis 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) 
(news media must be given an opportunity to be heard on question of closure). 
EFTA00182785

08/05/2009 10:01 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
e008 
06-01-'09 15:36 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
T-989 P004/007 F-845 
3. 
The particular documents under seal in this case are a non-prosecution agreement 
that was docketed on July 2, 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. Together, 
these documents apparently restrict any federal prosecution of the Defendant for offenses related 
to the conduct to which he pleaded guilty in this case. Judge Pucillo accepted the agreement for 
filing during a bench conference on June 30, 2008. The agreement, Judge Pucillo found, was "a 
significant inducement in accepting this plea." Such agreements and related documents typically 
are public record. See Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 17.2d 1462, 
1465 (9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"); United  States v. 
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). 
4. 
The Florida Constitution provides that judicial branch records generally must be 
open for public inspection. Se& Art. I, § 24(a), Ma. Const. Closure of such records is allowed 
only under narrow circumstances, such as to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, 
impartial and orderly administration of justice," or to protect a compelling governmental interest. 
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A). Additionally, closure must be effective and no broader 
than necessary to accomplish the desired purpose, and is lawful only if no less restrictive 
measures will accomplish that purpose. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2. 420(c)(9)(B) & (C); Lewis, 
426 So. 24 at 3. 
5. 
In this case, the non-prosecution agreement and, later, the addendum were sealed 
without any of the requisite findings. Rather, it appears from the record, the documents were 
sealed merely because the Defendant's counsel represented to Judge Pucillo that the non-
prosecution agreement "is a confidential document." See Plea Conference Transcript page 38 
2 
EFTA00182786

06/0S/2000 10:01 FAX 
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELT ADLE 
06-01-'09 15:36 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 
8139843070 
liboop 
1-989 F005/007 F-845 
(June 30, 2008). Such a representation falls well short of demonstrating a compelling interest, a 
genuine necessity, narrow tailoring, and that no less restrictive measures will suffice. 
Consequently, the sealing was improper and ought to be set aside. 
6. 
In addition, at this time good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of 
their public significance. Since the Defendant pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for 
prostitution, he has been named in at least 12 civil lawsuits that — like the charges in this case — 
allege he brought and paid teenage girls to come his home for sex and/or "massages."' At least 
11 cases are pending. In another lawsuit, one of the Defendant's accusers has alleged that 
federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding the disposition of possible charges 
against the Defendant? State prosecutors also have been criticized: The Palm Beach Police 
Chief has faulted the State Attorney's handing of then cases as "highly unusual" and called for 
the State Attorney's disqualification. Consequently, this case — and particularly the Defendant's 
agreements with prosecutors — are of considerable public interest and concern. 
7. 
The Defendant's non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors also was 
important to Judge Pucillo. As she noted in the June 2008 plea conference, "I would view [the 
non-prosecution agreement] as a significant inducement in accepting this plea." hS e Plea 
Conference Transcript page 39. Florida law recognizes a strong-public right of access to 
documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. Ste Sarasota Herald Tribune. Div. 
See. eick Doe v. -intent, Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla. 2008). DQC No. 2 v. Epstein, 
Case No. 08.80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 3. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80232 (S.D. Fla. 2008); 
Doe No. 4. v. Epstein Case No. 08-80380 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-
80381 (S.D. Fla. 2008); 1.1.  v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008)- Doe v&pstein,
Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 7 v. Epstein, Case No. 08.80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); 
Doe No. 6 v, Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (SD. Fla. 2008); Doe II v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 
(S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 101 v. Epstein Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Doe No. 102 v. 
Epstein, Case No. 09.80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 v. Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. 
Fla. 2009). 
2 20 In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008). 
3 
EFTA00182787