EFTA00230786

cnf:8PaZgaxg4k-NWAPM§PN 
•.lido Ito. :MO 
ntered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 
CIVIL COVER SHEET 
'be44 tie IcoverslHerond she infomutIon contained herein neither replace nor supplement the flhing said servece of pleadings or other papers 
It 
I mks of coon. This form, approved by the Jadicia/ Con (nonce of ilse United Slaws in September 7974, is roamed De the use of the Crok 
lit civil code sheet (SEC INSTRUCTIONS on THC REVERSE or tat soar 
NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed 
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS 
DEFENDANTS 
U. 
5-67Pcs-
X , / r e: Jane Poe 
(b) Como) of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff  fi iiffn 
OE %KEPT IN U.S. PLAINT'S/ CASES) 
(e) Anomey's.n.  Num. Addina.•40 Telephone swam 
H 9,4 COCA
lf 
.f erri O gamkter 
/issota Yrs 
raze barecran centre-
bart 
Afiyivoni, Fe 
55 OZ° 
Ill Check Cooney Where mike Ansa Ise IAN e• DADS 
3 MONROE 3 IRON/ARO /PALM BEACH 3 MARTIN 
3 ST. CUM 7 INDIAN RIVER 7 OKEECHOBEE 
OWNLANDS 
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION men .6-x^ roar air oeso 
III. C TIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIESmiletrers Oat Du Sri mow 
for Incas Cans Oily) 
sod Om Ova IMOTEN4401 
U.S. thrmsmalt 
3 ) 
Tenni ONION 
PT? DEI 
PT? 
REP 
P1000414 
WS. Uovenia441 MM • P.m) 
CM/ 44 Yin tom 
3 
1
7 I 
Imam 
i• Feimmal Plea 
3 
4 
74 
LCCT 
FETAWD WI 0  D.C. 
JULY 7, 2008 
STEVEN M. tARIMORt 
CLERK O.S. COST. CT. 
S.D. OF FLA. • MIAMI 
County of Residence of Fiat Limed Defendant 
ON US. PLAINTS" CASES ON LE 
NOVO: IN LAND( 0 NDE MNA TION CASES. USE THE LOCATION Or THE TRACT 
LAND INVOLVED. 
7 
44
: US. 0•0444.444 
Coen Ow 
3 4 
Ontr•hy 
Oohing COLemnip *Trona le km WI 
ogCV 5073 (O MARRA 
ottAI-SO 
V. 
- - r 
neuthoss Iv '7 Ivs 6'04 
ebb 
nomMi 5m4 
3 
2 
3 
2 
Imorpe.4.411..., Inrcotel PIK. 
7 
1 
7 3 
...414 nom In Amon S...• 
Chine se Sobject ilf• 
7 
3 
) 
Tenn Milan 
/Maim Cowen 
7 
4 
3
C 
COI:Venn 
TORTS 
FORFEITURE/PENALLY 
BANKRUPTCY 
OTHER ETATel FS 
I 
) I IC Intone 
: en Main 
: 
IMP Mn An 
: 
140 Netion1114 linesmen 
' 
150 Retains of Onmaysnr• 
ll Y. Terromen th.11.4•4•1 
2 IS' 14 ed.W4 An 
• 151 R••••ny ifElitsi WO 
Shoc*. Loam 
III •• . VI IirmS1 
:' 111 Reentry al IlIarn 01901
origin ile• 0464A.1 
) NM Sum theldni Sin 
190 Oflift Montt 
2 I 93 Conroe Madan 1.1414114y 
2 196 Inilibut 
PERSONAL INJURY 
7 310 A rphm 
3 11 $ A mho. ?mint 
Tobin, 
3 310 nom*. Uhl • 
Studer 
3 )10 ltd4cii eenpinee.' 
Lonny 
7 340 Anne 
2 )4S Mina Mein. 
LIMA,' 
3 II• Mew VOOne 
3 155 Mew 'MIMI/ 
144.1•61 Lisbility 
3 160 Who, Pews, 
Nan 
PSISONAL INJURY 
3 
MT PIFS•44I Non: 
sea al opmcosee 
3 341 Pen46411.4447 . 
/mini 1.10111” 
3 )0 A nnwi Pen••61 
Ininer Prthfici 
1. In.107 
PERSONAL FRO EEEEE 
3 
I 77 Oiller Pisa 
3 
171 Trip n Lt4414 
7 
140 Otter rondo, 
Mem, peep 
3 
HI Prepary 0 map 
Imam 1.00411H 
a 410 A164.••• 
3 has 011ter re.. a DM 
1 
611 0.11041444,1•04040 
of Frew? II VW an 
3 AH Limn Lim 
3 640 A.R. & Tint 
3 4%0 ROMs lip. 
3 469 Onum64641 
smn(10910. 
3 09•01W 
3 a)) APIN•111 VSC i IT 
3 4)1 %V hbertml 
II USE 157 
3 MO in • 04•44.4olem in 
3 
410 A404.60 
) 
410 Bolo as Only 
5 es* Cowering 
3 
444 Depsnuis• 
7 
470 Rukti/a Milnon4 ad 
C•TIMIlltp.maion 
3 
4S0t smarm Creill 
7 
4•0 COM So To 
7 RIO SilecON Svnot 
3 ISO Seemiks twtotelder. 
LaMar 
3 
075CE/won ClIaleati 
.111.3C 14111 
3 MOIST, Su•mory Anima 
3 ttlApItylornAtft 
3 St) Bet took Smbilunrop An 
7 NM Emimantmil 51 wen 
7 MN 11.1461 Allem*, AV 
a us Inalgorn of 10,44464.4. An 
3 tit Ant..144144 Dewrain44.44 
Voila I mil 
* le"' 
3 
910 Ceisitolinny M Sow 
Sim in 
r PROPERTY MONTS 
3 1120 CM7011,41
3 IMO Poem 
3 Mt Tannin 
LARD* 
SOCIAL 114,<VRITY 
3 710 In Law Surn•M• 
An 
3 
TM 190010400. Senile. 
3 TM LaMfAullantAmen141 
It Dinlenn An 
5 TN RR 3 ** y law ATI 
7 7•00ther Lam Imgaina 
3 ill cola In lit.Senolm 
An 
3 wan* fossil) 
3 563 Simi Lon 0361 
2 14/ 01MCIIIWIT 140REB 
3 P64 SSID TIM Intl 
3 46) In140MM 
C 
REAL PROPERTY 
CIVIL RIGHTS 
PRISONS, PETITIONS 
IF RENAL TAX SUITS 
210 Lail roilnomiNi4 
llil Ilencloon 
Z/0 Inn Lent II CHI WIN 
NO Tees i• LMI 
245 Ter Finn. Unrilloy 
leo An hence Ater Deems,
3 441 belong 
3 442 Empl•yeen 
3 44111i 4Orit 
Accenonods....8 
3 444 V/44.1.4 
a t
A::: 
°S.W."' ' 
3 446 ArPer. .. 06.4W.04. 
Ono 
)(440 ono 0.0 Milli 
3 
3 
7 
3 
3. 
3 
510. mina Is V•eaw 
Sawrie 
Hahn. Coronet 
)130444n1 
MO 
P 
y 
MO Mardals ws a °tut 
140 Cbw4 assin 
411 Prom Conlin.. 
7070 Tani M.S.1146MT 
et DorrolaMI 
7 MI 1115 
Third Pally 
24 US(' MOO 
) 
•4464.4.•4 t.ta 
3 ,:nignsiir"
."
.
. 
461 14416.4 Connt..A loth 
3 Einalim 
3 4A4.1. 'Abe' inr e*I4*
V. ORIGIN 
)( I Digissal 
r• 
Protecting 
Appeal to District
tense • rot- ta Oar En ono 
Transferred from 
hidge from 
3 2 Removed tom 
3 3 RoEloS 
0 
4 Ranuated or 0 
5 amber &goo 
36 hlerodistriel 
0 
7 
. 
Stale Court 
(lee VI below) 
Reopened 
HP997D1 
Litigation 
Magnuale 
Menem 
VI. RELATED/RE-FILED 
CASE(S). 
a) Re-filed Case OYES ONO 
b) Related Cases OYES ONO 
544 Mammas 
men ***** • 
JUDGE 
DOCKET NUMBER 
VII 
OF ACTION 
Cite it. DS. CINI Statute tender Meech you ate Ming and Wet a Bnef Statement of Caw (Do not chef urlsdIctIonal volutes vales. 
4000nlin Cn)ne 1,/?)4;:si £l0* ger 
/8 USG f 577/ 
o.,0 
ph beio,/# al vie tnirt 
citerfrivcs 
C 
et CC 
eal 
her- 
old to" 
f c vie," 
LENGTH OF TRIAL 
dap est
I  
imated (for both sides to uy 
ea) 
VIII. REQUESTED IN 
Cl CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION 
DEMANDS 
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: 
COMPLAINT: 
UNDER F.R.CE 23 
JURY DEMAND: 
O Yes 3 No 
SHE 
0.BOVE 
BEST 
INFORMATI 
OF MY 
ON I
KNOWLEDGE
S TRUE & CORRECT TO 
SIONATZ 
 
way or 1/CCORO 
*Ars 
-- 7- Ce 
FOR OPTIC( Fig 
ONLY 
AMOUNT 35D, 
RECEIPT P 774{41031" 
104110 
EFTA00231186

e. LEGAL 
RECYCLED PAPER 
170, 
== 
TO REORDER CALL 954-10.9399 
ry 
EFTA00231187

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 26 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 
Page 1 of 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
IN RE: JANE DOES 1 AND 2, 
Petitioners. 
I 
ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' ore tenus motion seeking the 
production of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the 
Southern District of Florida ("USAO") and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). After consideration of the 
Motion, the arguments of the parties, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED. The USAO shall produce the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 
including any modifications and addenda thereto, in accordance with the following procedures: 
(a) 
The USAO shall produce a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, 
including any modifications and addenda thereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), to 
the attorneys for Petitioners. 
(b) 
Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms 
to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's 
counsel to be heard. 
(e) 
Before counsel for petitioners show the Agreement to their clients or discuss 
the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to petitioners, who must review 
and acknowledge their receipt of, and agreement to abide by, the terms of the Order. Counsel for 
petitioners must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. 
(d) 
If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of 
EFTA00231188

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 26 
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 
Page 2 of 2 
Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals request the opportunity to review the 
Agreement, then the USAO shall produce the Agreement to those individuals, I long as those 
individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party 
absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard 
(e) 
Prior to producing the documents to any other individuals who have been 
identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attomey(s) for those individuals, a copy 
of this Order must be provided to said individuals, who must review and acknowledge their receipt 
of, and agreement to abide by, the terns of this Order. Counsel for petitioners must promptly 
provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. 
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 
this 21" day of August, 2008. 
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 
Order. 
Dated: 
,e, 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
By signing below, I certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by the terms of this 
Signed by:  
Printed Name: 
2 
EFTA00231189

RECYCLED PAPER 
TO REORDER CALL 954446-9199 
CL.) 
EFTA00231190

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent 
VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their 
undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 
• 
("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided 
to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good 
cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement 
in its publicly-filed pleadings,.creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. 
Finally, the agreement should be unsPaled to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with 
others involved who have information related to the case. 
BACKGROUND 
As the court is aware, this action was brought by two crime victims (hereinafter referred 
to as "the victims") seeking protection of their rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 
U.S.C. § 3771. At the center of this action is an agreement between the United States and Jeffrey 
 
Epstein that (as described in earlier court pleadings publicly filed by the Government) involved 
EFTA00231191

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 2 of 8 
Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in 
exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — 
including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. 
At a hearing held on August 14, 2008, the court ordered the Government to produce to 
counsel for the victims the non-prosecution agreement. 
That production, however, was to be 
done under protective order in the first instance. The agreement has now been produced. At the 
earlier hearing, the court recognized that the victims' counsel might at a later date seek to have 
the sealing lifted. That date has now arrived. 
ARGUMENT 
As the court envisioned might well happen, counsel for the victims now believe that 
sealing of the agreement is no longer appropriate. The non-prosecution agreement should now 
be unsealed for three reasons. 
1. 
No Good Cause Has Been Shown for Sealing the Agreement. 
Having now reviewed the agreement, counsel for the victims can find no 
legitimate basis for the document to be sealed. Because it stands at the center of this litigation 
(as well as several related civil suits), the burden should fall on those who would keep the 
document sealed to show cause for doing,. No good cause has yet been shown. Cf United . 
States v. Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11* Cir. 2005) (to justify sealing of court records "a 
court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a reviewing 
court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered"). 
2. 
The Government Has Inaccurately Described the Agreement. 
In its publicly-filed pleadings in this case, the Government has inaccurately 
2 
EFTA00231192

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 3 of 8 
described the non-prosecution agreement, creating the false impression that it is more favorable 
to the victims than it actually is. Accordingly, the non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed 
that the true state of affairs is reflected in the court's file. 
In its response to the victims' petition, the Government states that the non-
prosecution agreement contains the following provision: 
Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an 
offense enumerated in Title 18, United states Code, Section 2255; 
will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she 
would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been hied federally and 
convicted of an enumerate offense. For purposes of implementing 
this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's 
attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name 
in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. 
Epstein. 
Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, 
including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the 
parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they 
would have been bad Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No 
more; no less. 
Govt's Resp. to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right at 4. The 
sworn declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling this matter also recounts the same 
language. See Declaration of 
in Support of United States' Response to 
Victims' Emergency Petition at 3-4. The sworn declaration also states that victims were told 
about this language in October 2007. See Declaration of 
at 4 ("In October 
2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions 
were discussed"). On July 9, 2008, the victims received notice from the Government that the 
above-described provision was negotiated on behalf of the victims for their protection and was 
3 
EFTA00231193

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 4 of 8 
thus contained in the non-prosecution agreement.1 
Having now reviewed the non-prosecution agreement, the Government's response 
to the victims' motion and the accompanying sworn declaration are simply untrue. The above-
quoted provision simply does not appear fn the agreement anywhere. It is true that the non-
prosecution agreement contains a provision bearing on the same subject 
However, this 
provision has a number of qualifying provisos that make it far less favorable to the victims than 
the above-described provision. (To avoid filing a separate, sealed pleading laying out the 
differences, counsel for the victims have simply described the differences in general terms. We 
trust that the Government, in its response, will agree that it has erroneously described the 
agreement to the court and the victims.) 
The Government should be required to correct its previously-filed pirwlings to 
accurately recount the non-prosecution agreement that it reached with Epstein. Moreover, the 
Government should also be required to state forthrightly whether through the last nine months, it 
gave the victims (like the court) inaccurate information about what the non-prosecution 
agreement entailed. But most important, because the current sealing of the non-prosecution 
agreement creates a false and deceptive appearance about the agreement that the Government has 
actually reached with Epstein, the agreement should be unsealed. 
Indeed, it should be noted that sealing of materials in this case appears to operate 
in a rather peculiar fashion. The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one 
provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but 
not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where it 
I The Government has recently provided a new notice to the victim; containing different language. 
4 
EFTA00231194

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 5 of 8 
has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclose. 
3. 
The Non-Prosecution Agreement Should be Unsealed To Facilitate Effective 
Renresemation of the Victims in this Action and Related Civil Actions. 
The sealing order bars the victims' counsel from "disclos[ing] the Agreement or 
its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for 
Epstein's counsel to be heard." Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at I. Victims' 
counsel have scrupulously abided by that restriction. Victims' counsel would, hoWever, now like 
to discuss the terms of the non-prosecution agreement with third parties in making a 
determination about how best to proceed in this action, including what remedies to seek for the 
violations of victims' rights that have occurred. Counsel, therefore, respectfully seek the "further 
court order" that the sealing order envisions. 
In particular, victims' counsel would like to discuss the agreement with other 
victims of Epstein and their attorneys to determine whether they were likewise provided with 
inaccurate information about the nature of the plea agreement. Victims' counsel would also like 
to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, 
including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal 
approaches. See httni/www.ncvli.ont/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block 
these forms of consultation, or perhaps require such burdensome non-disclosure obligations as to 
make the consultation difficult or impractical. Finally, victims' counsel would like to refer to the 
non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court. See Jane Doe 
v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-CIV-
80893-MARILWOFINSON. To €acilitate all these discussions, the non-prosecution agreement 
5 
EFTA00231195

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 6 of 8 
should be unsealed. 
NOTICE TO EPSTEIN 
It is possible that Jeffrey Epstein will object to the unsealing of the agreement. 
Accordingly, the court should provide notice of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. 
Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane 
Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-
CIY-80893-MARRA-JOMVSON. Although Epstein's counsel has not entered an appearance in 
this matter, as a courtesy to them, counsel for the victims' will provide a copy of this pleading at 
the address indicated in the related civil suit. 
CONCLUSION 
The non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed. 
DATED this 25th day of September 2008. 
Respectfully Submitted, 
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & 
ASSOCIATES, LLC 
By: 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Florida Bar No. 542075 
2028 Harrison Street 
Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
6 
EFTA00231196

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 7 of 8 
Paul G. Cassell 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Pro Hac Vice 
332 S. 1400 E. 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
Jay C. Howell, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Pro Hac Vice 
644 Cesery Boulevard 
Suite 250 
Jacksonville, Florida 32211 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
E-Mail: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 25, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 
SERVICE LIST 
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 
Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 
United States District Cowl, Southern District of Florida 
=ME 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
99 N.E. 4th Street 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
7 
EFTA00231197

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 8 of 8 
AUSA 
United States Attorneys Office 
500 South Australian Avenue 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner 
Florida Bar No. 542075 
I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that on September 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of 
the above and foregoing document is being provided by United States mail to: 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire 
Atterbtuty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South 
Suite 1400 
W 
Beech Florida 33401 
Michael R. Tein, Esquire 
Lewis Tein, P.L. 
3059 Grand Avenue 
Suite 340 
Coconut Grove. Florida 33133 
Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire 
Michael J. Pike, Esquire 
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP 
515 North Flagler Drive 
West Palm Beac Florida 33401 
s/ Brad Edwards 
Brad Edwards, Esquire 
Attorney for Petitioner
Florida Bar No. 542075 
8 
EFTA00231198

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 28-2 
Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 
Page 1 of 1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRAZIOHNSON 
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent 
ORDER TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-
Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of 
Florida and Jeffrey Epstein. After consideration of the Motion and the record, it is 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED and the Non-
Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of 
Florida and Jeffrey Epstein is hereby ordered to be unsealed. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 
day of 
, 2008. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 
EFTA00231199

RECYCLED PAPER 
TO REORDER CALL 954446-9399 
EFTA00231200

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 1 of 7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Mana/Jolinson 
JANE DOES #1 and #2 
Petitioners, 
v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO VICTIMS' MOTION 
TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to 
Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement, and states: 
I. 
THE MOTION TO UNSEAL SHOULD BE DENIED 
BECAUSE THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT HAS 
NEVER BEEN FILED UNDER SEAL IN THIS COURT. 
Petitioners have filed their motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement, 
claiming that no good cause exists for sealing it. As an initial matter, the motion should 
be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States 
Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United 
Slates, eitherunderseal or otherwiseOrr August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic 
hearing to discuss petitioners' request for a copy of the non-prosecution agreement. The 
United States advised the Court that the Agreement had a confidentiality provision, 
EFTA00231201

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 2 of 7 
which the United States was obligated to honor. The United States requested that, if the 
Agreement was to be produced to petitioners, it should be done pursuant to a protective 
order, to ensure that further dissemination of the Agreement would not occur. At that 
time, petitioners had no objection to such a procedure. 
On August 21, 2008, this Court entered its Order to Compel Production and 
Protective Order (DE 26). Subpart (b) of the Order provides that, "Petitioners and their 
attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further 
court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." 
(DE 26 at 1.) Presumably, petitioners' motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms 
of the Protective Order, to enable them to disclose the Agreement to third parties. 
Since the Agreement has not been filed under seal with this Court, the legal 
authority cited by petitioners regarding sealing of documents, United States'. 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 that the 
Agreement should remain confidential. They were free to do,, 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. 
`It is unclear whether the Petitioners themselves (as opposed to their attorneys) have 
actually reviewed the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Court's Order to Compel Production 
required petitioners' counsel to review and agree to the Protective Order and to do the same with 
2 
EFTA00231202

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 3 of 7 
In order to have standing, petitioners must show: (1) an injury in fact, meaning an 
injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent (2) a causal connection 
between the injury and the causal conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be 
redressed by a favorable decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising. Inc. v. City of 
Clearwater, Fla., 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 2003). Petitioners already have obtained 
access to the agreement,, they cannot claim a denial of access as an injury in fact. 
Their motion to unseal refers to their stated desire to confer with other victims of Epstein 
and their attorneys "to determine whether they were likewise provided with inaccurate 
information about the nature of the plea agreement." WE 28 at 5.) 
This asserted reason for needing to unseal the Agreement is baseless given that the 
Protective Order, at the Court's direction, specifically provides for a very simple 
procedure to allow other victims and their lawyers to see the Agreement. (See DE 26 at 
1-2, subpart (d).) MI that is required is for any victims and/or their attorneys to review 
and agree to the terms of the Protective Order, and to provide the signed acknowledgment 
of that agreement to the United States. 
Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal 
responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights 
Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend 
that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation . . ." (DE 28 at 
their clients. Copies of those signed acknowledgements to abide by the Protective Order were 
then to be provided "promptly" to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has 
provided a signed acknowledgement. 
3 
EFTA00231203

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 4 of 7 
5.) First, there is no sealing order. Second, the Protective Order does not prevent 
petitioners from consulting with anyone; it only prevents them from disclosing the 
Agreement. Petitioners fail to mention why it is necessary for the National Alliance of 
Victims' Rights Attorneys to have the Agreement in hand, in order to meaningfully 
consult with them. 
Petitioners also assert that they would like to be able to reference the Agreement 
"in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this Court." (DE 28 at 5.) Given that the 
suit names Jeffrey Epstein as a defendant and is pending before the same district judge, it 
seems that litigation regarding the production and use of the Agreement should occur in 
that case, where the true party in interest, Jeffrey Epstein, is present and represented by 
counsel, rather than in a suit that was originally filed in July as an "Emergency Petition" 
under the various victims' rights laws. 
IL 
THE GOVERNMENT ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE 
PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, AT THE TIME THE 
RESPONSES WERE FILED WITH THE COURT. 
Petitioners castigate the Government for inaccurately describing the non-
prosecution agreement. (DE 28 at 2-5.) They contend a particular provision cited by the 
Government does not appear in the copy of the Agreement produced to them. 
During the telephonic hearing on August 14, 2008, Government counsel advised 
the Court and petitioners' counsel that there was an ongoing dispute between the 
Government-and p 
 
o eys over what-cons
d the Agreement. Government 
counsel advised that, in its opinion, the Agreement had three parts. The first part was 
4 
EFTA00231204

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
Document 29 
Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 
Page 5 of 7 
executed in September 2007, the second part, an addendum, was executed in October 
2007, and the third part was a December 2007 letter from the United States Attorney to 
Epstein's attorneys, suggesting a further modification of the Agreement. The 
Government advised the Court that it believed that all three parts comprised the 
Agreement, while it appeared that Epstein's attorneys were contending the Agreement 
was comprised only of parts one and two. 
At the commencement of the instant litigation, in July 2008, the Government 
believed the Agreement was comprised of all three parts mentioned above. This belief 
was expressed in victim notification letters, including one sent to Jane Doe #1,2 the 
Government's July 9, 2008 response to the Emergency Petition for Enforcement of 
Victims Rights Act, as well as the Declaration of 
Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, which accompanied the Government's response. This belief continued until 
August 2008, when the Government advised Epstein's attorneys that the victims had 
2The victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, 
who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain. Thus, petitioners' repeated 
assertions that the Government made these errors intentionally and/or negligently are meritless. 
(See, e.a., DE 28 at 4-5 ("The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one 
provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but 
not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where it 
has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclose.") The Government seeks 
no "advantage" in this suit brought by the two victims. Furthermore, the petitioners' original 
emergency petition focused on their concern about the amount of jail time that Epstein would 
serve. The provision that they complain of now has no relation to jail time. Furthermore, 
petitioners aver that the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe #1 contained inaccurate 
information, but that disclosure was made before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did 
not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now-defunct proposed amendment to the 
Agreement. 
5 
EFTA00231205