Court Records
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 7
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-MarraMg
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
States, either under seal or otherwise. On 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,
EXHT1T
EFTA02744791
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 7
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 I.) 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 v. Ochoa-
Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11'' 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 so, and violated no law in
making such an agreement. Since the Agreement has become relevant to the instant
lawsuit, petitioners have been given access to it, upon the condition that it not be
disclosed further.' Petitioners have no legal right to disclose the Agreement to third
parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision.
'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
EFTA02744792
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 3 of 7
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: (I) 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, Ha. 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 2003). Petitioners already have obtained
access to the agreement, so 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." (DE 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).) All 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 has
provided a signed acknowledgement.
3
EFTA02744793
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 4 of 7
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.
H. 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 Epstein's attorneys over what constituted the Agreement. Government
counsel advised that, in its opinion, the Agreement had three parts. The first part was
4
EFTA02744794
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 5 of 7
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 A. Villafafia, 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.g., 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
EFTA02744795
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 7
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 6 of 7
demanded disclosure of the Agreement to them, and discussions ensued about what
constituted the Agreement. Epstein's attorneys then told the Government that Epstein
believed the Agreement consisted only of the first and second parts. These were the parts
disclosed to petitioners pursuant to the Protective Order in compliance with the Court's
order to compel production. The fact that an erroneous disclosure was inadvertently
made to one petitioner after Epstein had already entered his guilty plea, was sentenced,
and surrendered to begin serving his sentence does not create an injury where one did not
exist before.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court
deny Petitioners' Motion to Unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: s/ Dexter A. Lee
DEXTER A. LEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Fla. Bar No. 0936693
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132
([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
E-mail: [Email Redacted]
Attorney for Respondent
6
EFTA02744796
Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 7
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
s/ Dexter A. Lee
DEXTER A. LEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
SERVICE LIST
Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA.
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Brad Esq.,
The Law Offices of Brad
2028 Street, Suite 202
Hollywood, Florida 33020
([Phone Redacted]
Fax: ([Phone Redacted]
& Associates, LLC
7
EFTA02744797