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

CASE NO. 2008CF009381A
DIVISION W

STATE OF FLORIDA

v.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Defendant.
/

CO

CIRCUIT CRIMINAL PALM BEACH COUNTY T SHARON R. BOC 2009 JUN 25 PM 4:27

FILED

## EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE OF THE NON- MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE
PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN by

counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida s of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay to Rule 9.310, Florida s of Appellate

disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agre Non-Prosecution ACERTYFIR Agre ent ent and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") and Addendum
pending review, and states: states:

1. In the event the Court grants Nonparty the event the Court grants Nonparty Motion to Vacate Order

Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach

Petition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion

- HOTE Confidential EPSTEIN moves to stay the disclosure of the NPA pending review by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.

2. Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides in pertinent part, "...a party seeking to stay a final or non-fmal order pending review shall file a 66 motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify or deny such relief."

3. A stay pending review is warranted under the circumstances because of the irreparable harm that would be caused by disclosure of the NPA including, but not limited to, substantial injury to a party by disclosing matters protected by common law and privacy rights, substantial injury to a compelling government interest, substantial injury to innocent third parties and a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial and orderly administration of justice as set forth in the hearing record date June 25, 2009.

4. In Mariner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Baker, 739 $ 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), defendant Mariner filed a petition for writ of iorari after the trial court compelled it to produce certain incident reports. Mariner also moved for a stay pending review pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310. The trial court advised the parties CERTIFTO COPY that Mariner would be required to submit the incide reports to the court under seal as a prerequisite to a stay. Mariner refused to pro the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and posed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted

ON

Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudice. To the contrary, the records will be protected from disclosure during the entire course of the certiorari proceeding before this this court. No harm can be done if this court ultimately determines that the reports are protected by the work product privilege.

Id. at 610. at 610.

5. In the instant case the NP A is already filed under seal. Should the Court grant Nonparty- Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grant Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access and/or deny

2

EPSTEIN's .Motion to Make Court Records Confidential, EPSTEIN requests the Court exercise its discretion under Fla. R. App. Pro. 9.310(a) and enter a stay pending review by the 4th DCA.

6. No harm will be done if the NPA remains under seal pending appellate review. To the contrary, EPSTEIN will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not entered and the NPA is disclosed to the public.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, respectfully requests that if the Court grants Nonparty Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records, grants Palm Beach Post's Motion to Intervene and tition for Access and/or denies EPSTEIN's Motion to Make Court Records Cont ntial, the Court enter a stay pending review and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. LA CERTINED CORY of Service

WE HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Hand Delivery to JEFFREY SLOMAN, ESQ., United States Attorney's Office Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office - West Palm NOTA Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, SPENCER T. KUVIN, ESQ., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, and DEANNA K. SHULLMAN,

3

400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, this 25th

day of June, 2009.

BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
COLEMAN, LLP
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 842-2820 (561) 842-2820
(561) 515-3148 Fax (561) 515-3148 Fax
COPY
By: By:
Robert Robert D. Critton, Jr. D. Critton, Jr.
Florida Florida Bar #224162 Bar #224162
Michael Michael J. Pike J. Pike

Counsel Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)

A
NOT

Jack Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
CERTEIL 250 250 Australian Avenue South Australian Avenue South
Suite Suite 1400 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Fax: Fax: 561-835-8691 561-835-8691
Counsel Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
documents/doj-c6aeb3a2ff1f6634.pdf
{}