2009 JUL-6 PM 2:58 FILED

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA

STATE,
vs.
EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E,
Defendant.

CASE NO: CO 2008CF009381AXX 006CF00 CIRCUIT CINE BALM BEACH COUNTY. FL HARON R. DOCK. CLERK 09 JUL 2 PM 3:40. FILED

NONACHFIED COMES NOW, Intervener, Intervener,

In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay its ruling on the production of the NPA In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay its ruling on the

agreement pending pending iew iew by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never

first place, a a improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has improper because this document is a public record until

been prope sealed. Furthermore, as Defendant EPSTEIN has failed to demonstrate that he is sealed. Furthermore, as Defendant EPSTEIN has failed to

likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal or describe how he will be harmed by this

disclosure, Intervener respectfully requests the Court deny their Motion.

# INTERVENER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY INTERVENER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW,

and and files this Response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's files this Response to Defendant

Motion to Stay, and states: to Stay, and states:

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3I0(a), a trial court has the discretion to enter a stay pending interlocutory review of a non-final order. The burden to satisfy the

requirements for a stay rests with the party requesting the stay. A trial court is not obligated, or

even encouraged, to enter such a stay as the Appellate Rules specifically provide, "In the absence

of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed

with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render

a final order disposing of the cause pending such review." Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (emphasis final order disposing of the cause pending such review." Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f)

added).

Defendants Defendants ask the Court to stay disclosure of a public document which was never ask the Court to stay disclosure of a public document which was

properly sealed. Factors to be considered by a court when deciding whether to enter a stay sealed. Factors to be considered by a court when deciding whether to enter

"include the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of

should a stay not be granted." Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d $89, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). a stay not be granted." Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d $89, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA

Defendants fail to adequately address these factors Defendants fail to adequately Tags address these factors their their motion. In fact, Defendant motion. In fact,

completely ignores the likelihood of success completely ignores the likelihood of success alysis. alysis. Likely this is because there is no Likely this is because there

likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would verse this court's ruling since the proper procedures that the Fourth District would verse this court's ruling since the proper

for sealing the NPA were never follow sealing the NPA were never follow

As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendant As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendant makes to this issue is in makes to this issue

paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defendant merely makes a broad assertion that there will be 3 of his motion. Here, Defendant merely makes a broad assertion that there

“irreparable “irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA." There is no explanation of who will be harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA." There is no explanation of who

harmed or what સિ or what arm will be caused. How can a public document which redacts the names of arm will be caused. How can a public document which redacts the
the minor ictims cause harm? This necessary question is never answered. Defendant's broad minor ictims cause harm? This necessary question is never answered. Defendant's

and vague assertion is insufficient to grant a stay. vague assertion is insufficient to grant a stay.

Finally, since there has been no showing by Defendant EPSTEIN that the proper procedure for sealing court documents were ever followed, the NP A is a public record.

Page 2 of 3

/ Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court DENY' Defendants'· Motion. to Stay the Proceedings.

## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 26 day of June, 2009 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.

NOT A CERTID COPY (561) 515-1401 (facsimile)

SPENCER T. KUVIN, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 089737.

Page 3 of 3
documents/doj-df56887123ff1d14.pdf
{}