1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22222 2 2

23

24

25

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

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) )
vs. )
)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
)
Defendant.
)

) CASE NO. 2008CF009381AXX

ORIGINAL

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT. THE COURT.
PRESIDING: HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH DOOP COLBATH LM ARCH ARCH
SIRCUIT
BEACH
APPEARANCES: SIRCUIT CRIMINAL LM BEACH COUNT

ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
BARRY E. KRISCHER, ESQUIRE
State Attorney
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
By: BARBARA BURNS, ESQUIRE
Assistant State Attorney

2009 JUL-1 PM 3:30

FILED

& R

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
250 S Australian Ave Ste 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
And
ROBERT CRITTON, ESQUIRE
515 N Flagler Dr Ste 400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

NOT A

ON BEHALF OF THE PALM BEACH POST:
DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE
Thomas, LoCicero & Bralow
101 N. E. 3rd Avenue Ste 1500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENER:
WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE
BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE
225 NE Mizner Blvd Ste 675
Boca Raton, Florida 33432

SCANNED JUL - 6 2009

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
2 2 2 2 2 2

21

22

23

24

25

ON BEHALF OF [ ]
MOTION INTERVENER'S PLEADING:
SPENCER KUVIN, ESQUIRE
2925 PGA Blvd Ste 200
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY

June 25, 2009
Palm Beach County Courthouse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Beginning at 1:50 o'clock, p.m.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

222222222 20

21

23

24

25

BE IT REMEMBERED that the following proceedings were had in the above-entitled cause before the HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH, one of the judges of the aforesaid court, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, located in the City of West Palm Beach, State of Florida on June 25, 2009 beginning at 1:50 o'clock, p.m. with appearances as hereinbefore noted, to wit: THEREUPON:

THE COURT: Let me call up the case

of the state of Florida versus Jeffrey

Epstein. Let CERTIFIED COP announce

their appearances for the record.

Deanna Shullman of

Thomas LoCicero & Bralow on behalf of the

THE COURT: Ms. Shullman, nice to see you again, good morning.

NOT

MS. SHULLMAN: You too.

MR. GERBER: William J. Berger for

the intervener.

MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards also on

behalf of the

MR. KUVIN: Spencer Kuvin on behalf of., motion intervener's pleading.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

4

1

4

2 3 5 6 00 0

7

8

9

10 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2222

21

23

24

25

MR. GOLDBERGER: Good afternoon, Judge, Jack Goldberger and Robert Critton on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.

THE COURT: And I'm guessing that, Mr. Kuvin, if I grant the motion to unseal that which has been sealed, your motion to intervene will be moot.

MR. KUVIN: Will be.

THE COURT: I thought This is

what I'm thinking and we've got

more.

MS. BURNS: One more appearance,

excuse me, Barbara Burns on behalf

NOT A CERTIERED COPY
of the state of Florida, the state

attorney's office of the 15th Judicial

THE COURT: All right. Procedurally, I think the way that this came to us is that at the conclusion or at some point during a plea conference between the state of Florida and Mr. Epstein, the state and the defense hand an agreed order to Judge Puccillo.

MS. BURNS: Puccillo. THE COURT: And asked her to sign an

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

5

1 2 3 4

5

6700 or

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 22 2 2 1

23

24

25

MR. GOLDBERGER: Procedurally not

exactly correct, I don't know if you want

me to clarify that.

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY,

agreement to seal some portion of some documents, which she signed off on and now it is the intervener's and the Post's motion to unseal those documents; is that kind of procedurally where we are?

THE COURT: Please do. MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, this started during the course of a plea colloquy in Mr. Epstein's state proceeding before Judge Puccillo, who is a retired senior judge who was filling in for Judge McSorley on that day, who was the assigned to this division. It was a plea agreement with the state attorney's office and it is normal and consistent with any plea colloquy Judge Puccillo asked the defense whether there were any other promises or inducements for Mr. Epstein to enter into his plea agreement other than what was contained in the state standard plea agreement that we had. I felt obligated under the circumstances to alert

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

6

1

2

3 4 5 6 0 0

6700

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
56

16

17

18

19

20

: བ༔ 222222222 21

23

24

25

to the Court that there was a confidential agreement between Mr. Epstein's Mr. Epstein's attorneys and the United States attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida which would have been triggered upon the successful taking of the plea by Judge Puccillo.

In other words, if the plea accepted by Judge Puccillo, there's a confidential agreement between U.S. attorney's office and the defense that would be triggered and they would agree not to take some act ions against Mr. Epstein. NOT A CERTILED COPY I advised Judge Puccillo of that, and at she said she would like to see the matter sealed in the court file. I said fine, and then we later I then filed that document, and the clerk's office notified me and said we need an order sealing this, and we submitted an order to seal the document.

THE COURT: All right. Is there anybody here from the U.S. attorney's office? Has anybody notified them, or is there a dog in this fight or do they care?

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



7

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

22222 20

21

23

24

25

If they're a party to this confidential thing, wouldn't you think that they might be.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, they have been noticed. They have taken a position in parallel proceedings that this matter should remain confidential, and they have done that in federal court, believe that is their positi still.

MR. EDWARDS: I have been

in communication with the U.S. attorney's
CERTLIED CORY
office, and they are not taking a position

on this issue, which is why they're not in

What's going on in

NOT

court?

MR. GOLDBERGER: There are a number

of civil cases that are pending right now.

THE COURT: And they're talking about the same documents that are under seal here in our court?

MR. EDWARDS: Yes. MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, your Honor, and I will address that at the appropriate time what's going on here.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

[x]

8

THE COURT: All right. So thank you,

1 2 3 4 5 6200 0

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2 2 2 2 2 2

22

23

24

25

Mr. Goldberger for getting that

straightened out.

Judge, just to clarify

MR. GERBER:

one other point.

THE COURT:

Sure.

MR. GERBER: I think actually there's an additional step because Mr. Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein or Mr. Critton I believe filed motion, and I think that that will tell us who goes first today and who has the burden toć NOT A CERTIELLE CORY

This is and I'm thinking outloud that my take on that is that my eview of the file shows that the priate steps to seal these documents wasn't followed initially. I'm looking at it as it would be whoever's moving to have them sealed, it's their burden to prove the steps that you have to prove to get things sealed by the Court, and so that's -- I hinted last meeting that we all had together but that's where I'd go, so I'd shift the burden over to the federal government and to Mr. Epstein, that's what

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

9

1

2 3 4 5

6700 or

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 12222

23

24 $

25

THE COURT: Mr. Berger,

Mr. Edwards, that all right with you?

We agree.
NOT A CERNIED CORY
That's what my point

was, your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger, what do

MR. GOLDBERGER: That's fine, your

Honor, with the --> I'll wait until after

the proceeding.

I'm thinking. Let me ask first go over to the Post, Ms. Shullman, what are your thoughts on that procedure?

MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, I think that's the correct procedure here. I think Mr. Epstein's motion to make court records confidential tacitly admits what we suspected last time, which was that the initial closure of the documents was not done pursuant to the acceptable procedures.

THE COURT: All right. You may

proceed.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge, as I said to clarify the record, this matter started during the course of Mr. Epstein's plea

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

10

1 2 3

3

4 +

5 5

७
65

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14
229999

15

16

17

18
2222222222 12

19

20

21

23

24

25

NOT A CÉRIE TÉD CORY

colloquy in state court and just so that the record was clear that all inducements for Mr. Epstein's plea was on the record when Judge Puccillo asked me if there had been any promises made to Mr. Epstein, I think properly and ethically we told the Court that there was an agreed confidential agreement with the government that was in place that basically said we will not prosecute Mr. Epstein for federal offenses if the state plea agreement is accep ed by the Court and Mr. Epstein's entence is imposed.

The state proceeding was over at the I advised Judge Puccillo that, in we had gone through the plea colloquy and I simply was advising her of this other agreement. It was Judge Puccillo who then asked us to approach, and the Court has a copy of that transcript, I believe. It was Judge Puccillo that said I'd like to have that document sealed in the court file, and I acquiesced to that, I said that's fine. So, first, as a preliminary matter,

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

11

1 2 3 4 5 650 0

७

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14
21

15

16

17

18

19

20
2222222 2 2

21

23

24

25

it wasn't like we were coming into court on that day and asking to seal something, so it would have been presumptuous of me to file something to request to have something sealed when it came up during the course of the proceeding, and, in fact, the committee notes on the rule of judicial administration talk about that and say matters come up all the time during the course of hearings and the fact that something is not filed in advance does not necessarily taint the entire process, so we agreed to come forward and file our motion NOT A CERTEED COPY to seal afte the fact, because we didn't matter would be coming up. But having said that, Judge, this confidential agreement was not part of any state plea agreement, it's not part of the proceedings, it was ancillary to the state proceedings and it had nothing to do with the state proceedings. As an accommodation to Judge Puccillo, we filed it in the court file. Quite frankly, it's unnecessary, it doesn't need to be there, and the simplest approach would be to simply remove it from

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

12

1

2

3

4

5

69

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
222222

23

24

25

the court file at this point. We didn't have for it to be there. It's not part of the plea, it's not part of the state resolution of the case, and that would be the simple logical approach to that.

NOT

If the Court is inclined not do that or if the parties object to that, then I think we move onto some other very, very important issues in this case and for both. the intervenors in this case as well as the Palm Beach Post motion for access to this proceeding for rea CERTNED COP two very, very significant reasons, they are in the wrong place and ('re attempting to march up hill here, your Honor.

This matter needs to -- has to be litigated in federal court before Judge Marra who has already heard hearings on this matter. Now, at our last abbreviated hearing two weeks ago, I told you for the first time that there have been two hearings in front of Judge Marra on this very issue, whether this nonprosecution agreement and that's the matter that is sealed in your court file,

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

13

1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11
9322

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
2222222 12

23

24

25

whether this nonprosecution agreement

should be released to the plaintiffs for

their use.

Judge Marra heard two hearings on this matter and the court has those orders. And in the first hearing Judge Marra very, very, carefully balanced the confidentiality issues of the nonprosecution agreement, the intent of the parties as well of the rules of criminal procedure that I will talk about in a moment, with the laintiff's right to know what's going nd to have access to this NOT A CERTILED COPY agreement. And Judge Marra crafted an in the nature of a protective order and said, plaintiffs, you can have this nonprosecution agreement, you can use it, you can review it, you cannot give it to anyone else other than your clients, and if you want to use it or you want to give it to your clients, you need to tell them about this order that is not to be disclosed to anybody else. And these plaintiffs that are sitting here will tell you that from day one they have had this

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



14

1

2 3 4 5 6 500 2

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

nonprosecution agreement, they have it for their use, they know every clause that's in that nonprosecution agreement, and I suggest to the Court as to their motions why are we here; they have an agreement already.

They went back to Judge Marra sometime thereafter and asked the expand their use of the nonprosecution agreement, and they said, Judge Marra, we have the nonprosecutio agreement but we would like to be le to disclose that agreement to other sides, and Judge Marra NOT A CERTBED COPY in another carefully crafted order said, nuh-uh, you have not satisfied your burde you cannot disseminate this to anyone else, and the order that I have entered remains in place, but most significantly he said, you know what, this is without prejudice.

to

If you have some basis, you have some need that you have not briefed, you have not litigated with me yet concerning dissemination of nonprosecution agreement, come back to me and I'll review it for you.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 00 0 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2 2 2 2 1 23

24

25

And they have every right to do so, and they have not done so, and it is this motion to intervene that they filed in this court is simply an effort to skirt and to avoid and to go behind the order of Judge Marra that dealt with this issue already.

And I think just for the purpose of our hearing, we need to have the two orders of Judge Marra entered into the record of this proceeding. I know I gave copies to the Court, but I ve additional copies. MR. GOLDB Your Honor, I NOT A CHILD COR believe the is no objection from either of the

THE COURT: Thank you so much. Let's

go ahead and mark these as Defendant's

Exhibits No. 1 and 2 for identification

purposes. Anybody object to me taking

judicial notice of Judge Marra's order? By

hearing no objection, I'll go ahead and

take judicial notice of it.

MR. GOLDBERGER: So, your Honor, Judge Marra has dealt with this issue squarely, there's a procedure in place and

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



16

1

2

3

4

5 600 9 7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

these matters should be litigated in front of the district court judge that has already heard these matters.

THE COURT: Well, let's say that may be true as it relates to these individual plaintiffs in the federal litigation, what about the Post's and the press's media's right to take a look at these things?

NOT A CERTIELD CORY

MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, and this is the second reason why not only the plaintiffs but the Post appear to be marching up the wrong hill here. The Palm Beach Post' has filed a motion for access to uments and they certainly do have first amendment rights and no one would dispute that they have first amendment rights to access to public records, however, most significantly in this case is that the nonprosecution agreement which we gave the court permission to review two weeks ago and presumably the Court has had an opportunity to take a look at it, the nonprosecution agreement talks about and relates to a grand jury matter that is

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



17

1 2 3

4567

8
00 0

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22222221

23

24

25

absolutely 100 percent protected from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Six. I have a copy of that rule for the Court.

THE COURT: Let me take a look of that, please.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Give us one moment,

your Honor, we have it here some here.

MR. KUVIN: Your Honor just briefly

while they're looking on behalf of the

plaintiff I just anted to point out on

my client motion CERTIFIED COE intervene, we are not

party to the federal action. She only has

a state cour claim. She's not bound by

any federal court order, she is not with

the federal court on their claim, so as to

that issue, my client stands here that

synonymous with the Post.

NOT NOT

THE COURT: Thank you for pointing

that that out to me.

MR. GOLDBERGER: We'll have it for you in one moment, your Honor.

Your Honor, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Six is a rule that deals with grand jury proceedings, and it confers in

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

18

1

2

3

4

5 6 ∞ o 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

21
22222222

23

24

25

the federal system secrecy of all grand jury matters and it's pretty clear in this case that the nonprosecution agreement specifically talks about a grand jury investigation of Mr. Epstein, there's specific reference to a grand jury investigation in the nonprosecution agreement.

The rule does not prevent us from

telling the Court that there was a grand

jury investigation of Mr Epstein, but what
CERTIFTED COPY
it prevents us from what it prevents

this Court from doing, I believe, is

disclosing content of the grand jury

tion, and the agreement itself is

to the grand jury

investigation of Mr. Epstein.

NOT

However, all is not lost for the Palm Beach Post and the intervenors, for that matter. The rule has a specific procedure that allows you to go to the district court where the grand jury is convened, in this case it would be in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Marra and that is under Rule 6E, your Honor, I think it's 6E

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

19

1

2 3 4 5 6 500 a

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

22222 18

19

222 22 2 2 20

21

22

23

24

25

3E actually. It says: In limited circumstances the Court may authorize disclosure of grand jury matters under request made in connection with the judicial proceeding, so and the rule -- goes onto clearly say, that request must be filed in the district where the grand jury is proceeding.

So the first --

Beach Post may have first amendment rights

to access but those first amendment rights

cannot circumvent the federally protected

secrecy of gran jury proceedings and

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY that's what the Post is doing by making

this request before this Court.

This matter has been sealed for almost a year now, 11 months and some days and the Palm Beach Post has not filed anything in this matter until most recently, and their remedy is to go into the federal court and invoke the process of Rule Six and asked Judge Marra to make a limited disclosure of the nonprosecution agreement and the grand jury matters that are contained therein. Who knows whether

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6700 0

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

he will do it, but that's where this battle need to be fought.

As a matter of comity, your Honor, this Court should defer to Judge Marra because, A, he has already ruled on the disclosure of the nonpros agreement, but even more importantly, the supremacy clause requires you to defer to the federal laws of criminal procedure that say these matters should be protected and should not be disclosed unless the district court says so.

NOT A CERTIFIED COR

If the urt is going to go on and wants to go the issues that would be if it were not dealing with a grand jury proceeding, obviously there's a test that the Court must then use under the Rules of Judicial Administration and it says matters can be sealed but they should be sealed if there's a compelling government interest or if the sealing is important to the administration of justice. There's a couple other criteria, but the ones obviously that would apply in this case are the compelling government

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

21

1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

62222222 20

21

23

24

25

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you

Honor.

THE COURT: go over to the

other parties and we'll get back to

Mr. Goldberger and his client. Post, who

wants to go fir
NOT A CERTIED COPY
MS. Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Edwards.

MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, inasmuch as

Mr. Epstein is relying on Judge Marra's

order to support the argument that the

nonprosecution agreement needs to remain

sealed, I'd like to address that if you are

inclined to be persuaded by that argument

interest, and the importance to the
administration of justice.

Again, we are dealing with a secret grand jury matter. We cannot circumvent that secrecy by asking the Court to invoke its unsealing power.

at all.

The orders that have now been moved

into evidence are in case No. 80736, and just to put that order in context in

SUSAN WIGGINS, R. P. R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

22

1

2

3

4 5 6 7

6700

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2222221

23

24

25

actuality, the order says specifically

puts it back on this Court and confers

authority on this Court over this

particular document, when in the second

page of the February 12th, 2009 order, it's

misdated 2009 but it's a 2009 order, and

the last two sentences read: If and when

petitioners petitioners have a specific tangible need petitioners have have a a specific specific tangible tangible
COR COR
to to be relieved of the restrictions, they to be be relieved relieved of of the the restrictions, restrictions,

should should should file an appropriate file file an an appropriate appropriate motion, motion, motion, which we

believe believe believe we have done we we have have done done this this this case, if a case, case,

specific specific specific tangle need arises in the civil tangle tangle need need arises arises in in the the

cases, which ar in circuit court in Palm cases, cases, which which ar ar in in circuit circuit court court in in
CERTIEND CERTIEND
Beach Beach Beach Count Count Count then then then relief should be sought relief relief should should be be

there there and notice to all parties, so to give there and and notice notice to to all all parties, parties, so so

the the Court context for that order, there was the Court Court context context for for that that order, order,

a a a state court plea taken June 30th, 2008, state state court court plea plea taken taken June June 30th, 30th,
A A
where where where Mr. Epstein pled guilty to the state Mr. Mr. Epstein Epstein pled pled guilty guilty to to the the

court cases as it related to two victims. court court cases cases as as it it related related to to two two

NOT NOT

Now, parallel to that, there was an Now, Now, parallel parallel to to that, that, there there

investigation investigation in federal court where the investigation in in federal federal court court where where

United States attorney's office and the FBI

had more than 30 victims of sex abuse of

Mr. Epstein's and they were working with

these girls and their cases. Now, several

SUSAN WIGGINS, R. P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

23

1

- 2 3 4 5 65

7
6200 or

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

of those girls came to me and said, hey, we're worried that there's a secret deal going on between Epstein and the U.S. attorney's office, so I filed an emergency petition against the U.S. attorney's office asking the federal court to intervene and get in the middle of this and not let this deal go forward without meaningf ly conferring with these girls ecause I was alleging it violated the Crimes Victim's Rights Act; these girls have a right to be heard. That emerg ncy motion was filed July 7th, 2008, and I have that for the Court, and 'd like to enter that into

NOT A CERTEND COR

THE COURT: We'll mark that as

Exhibit No. 1.

MR. EDWARDS: And an emergency hearing was held four days later in front of Judge Marra, who was randomly assigned to this case at the time the plea was taken and the prosecution agreement was sealed. Judge Marra had nothing to do with the agreement, with Epstein, he didn't know anything about it.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2222221

23

24

25

NOT A CERTELLE COPY

So four days later now we're in front of him and the United States attorney's office says for the first time, sorry, girls, you are too late, the deal has already been done as to all of your federal cases and it resulted in the nonprosecution agreement that is attached in the state court case. Judge Marra turned to us and said, what is your remedy.

At that point in time I said we don't know because we don't know what protections are inside that agı ement, so we want you to unseal it, hat's where the motion for protective order came about where he gave us the So we can look at it and mine what remedy, if any, was Once we had that agreement under the caveat that we were not able to disseminate to third parties and reviewed it and saw there is very little protection for the girls, we asked to unseal it completely, so that we can talk to third parties, to victim's rights groups and get some insight as to what our possible remedy would be.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

25

1 2 3 4 5

6700 or

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
222222

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

And so our reason for wanting him to unseal it at that time was we want to be able to talk to other people, and that's where this order from February 12th, 2009, came in, and he denied that motion to unseal it for three reasons.

First First First and foremost, and and foremost, foremost, this this this

nonprosecution agreement was not sealed in nonprosecution nonprosecution agreement agreement was was not not sealed sealed
CORY CORY

my my my Court, you are talking to the wrong Court, Court, you you are are talking talking to to the the wrong wrong

judge, you need to go back, so we're judge, judge, you you need need to to go go back, back, so so we're we're

getting the back and forth here and it's getting getting the the back back and and forth forth here here and and

not not not in my court, in in my my court, court, can't mess with some can't can't mess mess with with some some

other other judge's other judge's judge's Obviously, there was Obviously, Obviously, there there
CERTRIED CERTRIED
a hearing held and that document was sealed a a hearing hearing held held and and that that document document was was

I'm not privy for those I'm I'm not not privy privy for for those those

so I'm not going to override so so I'm I'm not not going going to to override override

whatever whatever that judge was thinking when they whatever that that judge judge was was thinking thinking when when
A A
sealed sealed sealed that document. that that document. document.

NOT NOT

Second, your reason is you just want Second, Second, your your reason reason is is you you just just

to talk to other people about them, and if to to talk talk to to other other people people about about them, them, and and

I'm going to override some other judge's I'm I'm going going to to override override some some other other judge's judge's

order, I need to have a more compelling

reason than you just want to talk to people

about.

Third, if and when a specific need

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

26

1

2

3

4

5

6700 or

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22222221

23

24

25

arises in any of the civil cases, which by the time this order was coming about they were stacking up in state and federal court against Mr. Epstein, petition that court, petition the appropriate court, and he implies that appropriate court is this court where it was initially sealed, which we've done in this case.

This court has none of the problems that Judge Marra had in that it was sealed in this courtroom. We have noticed NOT A CERTILTED COPY

Mr. Epstein to be eard at this hearing, which is one of the requirements that Judge Marra laced on us, and a specific It has been sealed for year now, correct, Mr. Goldberger is correct, but the specific need is arising because we are in the middle of discovery. And this document is, as Mr. Goldberger said, a great inducement to Mr. Epstein pleaing guilty to sex crimes in state court, and to ultimately being labeled a sex offender, and the only document that pertains to my clients, my client as a victim of Mr. Epstein's sex crime, so at

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



[x]

27

1

2

3

4

55 6 N 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the very least, we should be allowed to ask people in deposition and do discovery about how this document came about. There is a need here.

THE COURT: I don't quite get -- I

don't think it's relevant to what my task

is here, but I don't get how it's relevant

in the civil cases what the federal the civil cases what the federal

government did or didn't do with regard to government did or didn't CO do with

prosecuting Mr. Epstein. prosecuting Mr. Epstein. I I don't get that, don't

but I don't know that I don't know that need to. need to.

MR. EDWARDS: MR. EDWARDS: The standard for The standard

discovery discovery is is reasonably calculated to reasonably
CERTIFIED
lead lead to discovery of admissible evidence to discovery of admissible

and without going in depth we do have without going in depth we do

A
NOT

MR. MR. GERBER: Your Honor, can I GERBER: Your Honor, can --

MR. EDWARDS: And with respect to the

grand jury argument, you've seen the

document, it's only page five and six that

it's it's even referred to.

THE COURT: All right. Let me turn it over to -- does the Post want to speak? MS. SHULLMAN: I do, but I think he wants to go first so whenever.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

28

1

2

3 4 5 6 7

00 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

NOT

THE COURT: I haven't considered your

motion to intervene yet.

MR. KUVIN: I don't believe it was an
objection. When it was filed, there was no
objection by Mr. Goldberger or Mr. Critton.

THE COURT: Are you going to advocate by motion to intervene or are you going to be jumping into the merits of the sealing?

MR. KUVIN: I'll jump right into the

merits, I'm not going to duplicate anything

that was just raised anything that the

press is going to CERTIFIED COP I have an

individual interest.

All right. Go ahead

Mr.

MR. KUVIN: Very briefly, your Honor. I represent who has filed only a state court action, she is not under the federal jurisdiction of Judge Marra, she does not subject herself to the federal jurisdiction of Judge Marra, she was never provided an opportunity to brief any issues before Judge Marra with respect to that order that was entered by Judge Marra or either order. In addition, what's also very important is

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



29

1

2 3 4 5 6 00 0

6700

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

222222222 20

21

23

24

25

she has never seen this document, so she

does not know what is in the contents of

the order, so the issue is raised by

Mr. Goldberger about the girls are able to

see the document and evaluate how they

might need to evaluate this document does

not apply to my client because she has not apply

never seen it and, frankly, without never seen it and, frankly, without
COP
subjecting herself voluntarily to the subjecting herself voluntarily to

jurisdiction of Judge Marra, which she jurisdiction of Judge Marra, which

chooses chooses not to do, then she cannot get this not to do, then she cannot

document, otherwise document, otherwise she she would have to go to would have

federal federal court, court, ubmit herself to the ubmit herself to the
CERTIFIED
jurisdiction jurisdiction of the federal court to then of the federal court to

see a state court document, which does not see a state court document, which

make any sense because if it is a state make any sense because if it is a

court court document in state court, as document in state court, as
A
previously stated under Judge Marra's previously stated under Judge Marra's

order, order, it is within your purview and your it is within your purview and

jurisdiction jurisdiction to rule on a state court to rule on a state court

document. document.

NOT

Finally, with respect to why the document may be relevant, the contents of that document speak to the issues of whether or not Mr. Epstein can or cannot

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

30

1

2

3

4

5 6 ∞ or 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

2 3 4 5

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 2222 2

21

22

2 2 2 2

23

24

25

assert his fifth amendment right against self incrimination, and we believe on a good faith believe that on the contents of that document speak to the issues of whether or not he can or cannot deny the claims that have been brought against him both in state and federal court. In other words, whether or not he must, fact, admit that he molested these 14 year old girls, so, therefore, the content of that document is paramount as to the issues in CERTIFIED COPY the civil proceed gs that are currently pending in state court which is why we would like that document.

Okay. Thank you. Thank

Ms. Shullman from the

Post.

NOT

MS. SHULLMAN: Thank you, your Honor. I feel a little bit like I have stepped into the twilight zone here, so I'd like to address a couple of the things we've addressed and get us to what we are really here to do today.

THE COURT: I don't know if you are referring specifically to the courtroom or

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



31

the convoluted situation that brings us to

the courtroom.

1 2 3 4 5 620

7

6∞ o

8

9

10

11

12
22

13

14

15

16

17

122022

18

19

21

22

2 2 2 2 2 12

23

24

25

MS. SHULLMAN: Just this whole federal state situation. There is no hill for the public and the press to march up in Judge Marra's court as Mr. Edwards pointed out, Judge Marra has specifically held the agreement was not filed in this case under seal or otherwise, so were I to march into Judge Marra's courtroom and do my whole public access spiel he would say take it to you, your Honor, because it's not a record in my court. It is a record here, NOT A CERNIED CORY and in the state court as we talked about we were here, there's a presumption of openness. The burden is on Mr. Epstein to overcome that presumption. While he filed a very brief memorandum after our last hearing, which identified for interest, he has by no means met the test of either establishing those interest or establishing the remainder of that test which would be that closures no broader than necessary ineffective no other reasonable alternatives, so if I could, I'd

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
2 2 2 2 2 2

22

23

24

25

like to sort of focus us back to the inquiry we're here to make today in this court, and that is whether your Honor is going to provide public access to two records that are, I think, indisputably in your Honor's court file in this court's file.

It's a plea agreement and an

addendum; those are historically and

typically open records.

NOT A CERTIFIED COR

Mr. Goldberger entioned that the plea agreement was sort of incidentally filed in this ourt file, and that it was sort of an Sterthought that happened. He never came into court intending that it even be part of the court file, but Judge Pucillo specifically said, this is a significant inducement to accepting the plea in my court. This agreement that you have with federal prosecutors is significantly the reason why you're entering this plea before me. And she took those records into the court file presumably because they are significant to this litigation. Even if there was an

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
2222

20

21

22

ཊུ སླུ ཀླུ $

23

24

25

incidental filing, which cannot possibly be the case here, there is no mechanism in Florida law to call a Mulligan and to pull it out of the court file. As you know, the Floridians have a constitutional right of access, there's no mechanism in that law to just say, oopsy, let's take it out of the file, so they have to meet their burden and they have to show under Rule 2.420 that one of those interests is satisfied. They have identified four here. have not heard them discuss them any great length. But I will go through them quickly.

NOT A CERTED COR

The imminent threat to the fair, imparti orderly administration of or to protect a compelling government interest. As your Honor is aware, the federal government is not here today. I have spoken with the state attorney's office who has indicated that their only interest is in protecting to the extent necessary because I've not seen these documents the identity of the victims of these crimes.

The Post in its motion to intervene

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

34

1 2

3

4

55 6 ∞ 0 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

22222 19

20

21

22
22

23

24

25

NOT

has already set forth that we have no

objection to redacting the victim's names

if, in fact, that is required because we

haven't seen the agreement. To avoid

substantial injury to innocent third

parties, again, absolutely no showing on

that that test. I have no burden at this point, test. I have no burden at this

but I will simply state that the law in but I will simply state that the law
CORY
Florida Florida is clear that Mr. Epstein doesn't is clear that Mr. Epstein

have standing to assert that interest. have standing to assert that interest.

And, finally, something else I heard And, finally, something else I

nothing about to void substantial injury nothing about to void substantial

to to a party whic I guess, presumably would a party whic I guess, presumably
CERTIFIED
be be Mr. Epstein by disclosure of matters Mr. Epstein by disclosure of matters

protected by a privacy right not generally protected by a privacy right not

inherent inherent in this specific type of in this specific type of

Again, Again, I have not heard any I have not heard
A
attempt attempt to meet the burden on that issue, to meet the burden on that

however, however, Florida law is equally clear that Florida law is equally clear

participants in crimes lose their privacy participants in crimes lose their

interest in the matters and facts and interest in the matters and facts and

circumstances of the commission of those

crimes, so Mr. Epstein surely cannot

establish that there is a separate privacy

interest not inherent in a criminal

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



[x]

35

1

2

3

4

5 6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

2 9 9 14

16

17

18

19

20

21
2222222 1

23

24

25

prosecution regarding the molestation of
young girls.

The circumstances under which closure

is allowed in Florida are exceedingly

narrow. We first -- and before we do

anything else have to find that one of

those those interests is met here, that it exists interests is met here, that it

and and that the movant has met its burden in that the movant has met its burden
CORY.

demonstrating that it's significant enough demonstrating that it's significant

to to require the court to consider closure. require the court to consider

That's That's not the end of not the end of And, of And,

course, I have not yet heard anything else course, I have not yet heard anything

about about that seco that seco half half of the test which of the test
CERTIER
talks talks about the idea that closure is no about the idea that closure is

broader broader than necessary to protect that than necessary to protect that

interest interest and that it would be effective and and that it would be effective

NOT

that there are no other alternatives. that there are no other alternatives.
A
In In speaking of the federal litigation speaking of the federal

there there are instances when both Mr. Epstein's are instances when both Mr.

lawyers lawyers and the federal prosecutors have and the federal prosecutors

placed portions of the agreement into the placed portions of the agreement into

public court file. There are thus

attempts to seal those records in the

federal litigation have been unsuccessful,

so part of this agreement the cat is

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

36

1

2

3

4

6

50 6 N∞ σ 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

5628222222

20

21

23

24

25

NOT A CERTITED COR

have public interest from the perspective of the police chief questioning the state attorney's office about whether it's doing its job. We have public interest that's spurned by the idea that some of the victims in the federal prosecution -- in the federal court claimed they weren't aware of it, we just heard Mr. Edwards talk about the fact that his clients weren't aware of the agreement unless it all went down, so we have a

already out of the bag. But there is also an enormous public interest in what's going on here, apart from the idea that this man is accused of having many, many victims who were all young children which, of course, in itself creates a lot of public concern, the chief of police at the time sent a letter to the state prosecutors and said, what are you guys doing, how are you handling this, this is highly unusual; I don't like what I'm seeing here. And even went so far as to state attorney's office, should you all step away from this case.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

37

1

- 2 3 4 5 650

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22222222

23

24

25

significant public interest about how everybody in this litigation is doing their job. There is nothing more fundamentally important than the ability of the public and the press to observe how its government, all branches of its government, do its job.

There are multiple, as Mr. Edwards also mentioned, multiple civil lawsuits that have spurned as a result of Mr. Epstein's conduct, and, again, the public has an interest in what's going on in civil litiga ion matters. NOT A CERTIELD COPY this matter involves a major public interest from a lot of There is no basis for closure that has been asserted here. It's a heavy burden to meet. We start with the idea that openness is the right thing to do but there is essentially no purpose served at this point by keeping these agreements

sealed in this case.

Unless your Honor has any questions, I think that's it.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you so very

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



38

1

2

3

4

5 6 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
1222222

20

23

24

25

much. Ms. Burns, on behalf of the state of Florida, anything you'd like to add or advocate?

MS. BURNS: If I may, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. BURNS: Good afternoon, your your

Honor. Honor.

THE THE COURT: COURT: Good afternoon Good afternoon COPY

MS. MS. BURNS: BURNS: Your Honor, the State is Your Honor, the State

not not here to take a position on whether or here to take a position on whether

not this court should not this court should continue continue to

seal the records or unseal the records. seal the records or unseal the records. We

are are here merely here merely to uphold the state laws to uphold the state
CERTIFIED
which which requi: requi: all of us as members of the all of us as members of

judicial system to protect the rights of judicial system to protect the rights

the the confidentiality of the victims. I do confidentiality of the victims. I

NOT

see two issues here, your Honor. see two issues here, your Honor.
A
One is if you decide to unseal the One is if you decide to unseal

records records based upon the arguments that have based upon the arguments that

been presented to you, then the State would been presented to you, then the State

ask that the court first do an incamera ask that the court first do an incamera

viewing, not just merely open up that

portion of the file for viewing by all

interested parties, first, that the Court

do an incamera viewing to make two

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



39 39 39

1 2 3 4

4

5

5 6

7

= ∞ a 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2222222 21

23

24

25

evaluations.

Number one, does the document, in fact, have a relationship to the criminal case in the state matter. And, number two, evaluate the right of public access versus the victim's right to confidentiality. If this Court does decide to unseal those records, then the State would ask that this Court before making the document public access, then make certain that in place is that the victim's identities are amended to initials if their ames are used.

does have a concern NOT A CERTIEND COP regarding the argument of the Federal Rule Six in that is this Court bound by a federal rule which perhaps has been made unenforcible by virtue of making it a part of the state file, so I think the Court also would need to address that issue before making its ruling.

THE COURT: All right, great. Thank

you so much.

MS. BURNS: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: One last chance for the federal government, they're not here and

SUSAN WIGGINS, R. P. R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

40 40 40

1

2

3

4

+ 5 65 00 0

6700

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I'll let rebuttal of any other

presentation, Mr. Goldberger, or,

Mr. Critton, you'd like to make.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, your

Honor. As to the last argument made by

Ms. Burns as to the applicability of

Federal Rule 6 of the Rules of Federal

Criminal Criminal Criminal Procedure it's something that we Procedure Procedure it's it's something something

learned in the law school that the learned learned in in the the law law school school COP COP that that the the

supremacy clause controls and to the extent supremacy supremacy clause clause controls controls and and to to the the

there's there's a conflict between the federal there's a a conflict conflict between between the the

doctrine doctrine doctrine and the state doctrine, the and and the the state state doctrine, doctrine, the the

supremacy clause supremacy supremacy clause clause requires the federal rule requires requires the the federal federal
CERTIFIED CERTIFIED
of law to apply and to control. And of of law law to to apply apply and and to to control. control. And And

certainly certainly certainly in in in this case you cannot use a this this case case you you cannot cannot

state state state procedure to circumvent a federal procedure procedure to to circumvent circumvent a a

rule rule of criminal procedure that confers rule of of criminal criminal procedure procedure that that
A A
secrecy to a grand jury proceeding. secrecy secrecy to to a a grand grand jury jury proceeding. proceeding.

NOT NOT

And And And the Palm Beach Post response to the the Palm Palm Beach Beach Post Post

the argument never made note of the grand the the argument argument never never made made note note of of the the

jury rule, they simply avoided that issue jury jury rule, rule, they they simply simply avoided avoided that that

and that in our mind is equally important

as the fact in the interest of comity this

Court should defer to the rulings of

Judge Marra already.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

41

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2222222 20

21

23

24

25

As to Mr. Kuvin's argument that he has a client that is in state court and is not in federal court and therefore he doesn't have a remedy in federal court. With all due respect to Mr. Kuvin, that's similarly wrong. Judge Marra's order specifically dealt with a class of individuals who were identified as victims of Mr. Epstein's conduct, and Judge Marra's order says that anyone who's been identified by the United States attorney's office as a victim has right to the nonprosecution agreement under the same rules.

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY

Just so the Court understands, I know we are talking like the Court understands everything about this case. There was a list of victims that was created at the time that the nonprosecution agreement was entered into and Mr. Kuvin's client is on that list. That list was created by the U.S. attorney's office. He has the same rights to the nonprosecution agreement as if he filed this case in federal court and he knows that we've told him that he has

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER



[x]

42

1

2

4

3 + 5 65

6700

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
2222220222

17

18

19

21
2 2 2 2 2 2

22

23

24

25

that access.

As to the fact that the nonprosecution agreement is presumably not filed in the federal case in our last hearing in front of Judge Marra on June 5th -- I'm sorry, June 12th, Mr. Edwards advised Judge Marra that he had, in fact, filed a nonprosecution agreement no one's surprise under seal in the federal file, so the nonprosecution agreement according to Mr. Edwards declaration at that hearing is contained in the federal court system

NOT A CERTIFIED CORY For a of those reasons, your Honor, and the easons that I previously indicated to the Court, we would ask the Court to defer to the federal court in this matter.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Here is what I'm planning on doing, so you know where I'm going on this. I'll make an oral announcement and I'll follow it up with a written order so that you all can have something to take to wherever you want to take it.

I find that the appropriate procedure

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

43

1

2

5

3 4 5 6 7 00 0

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22222222 1 21

23

24

25

NOT

to seal or close these documents has not

been met, so I'll deny the motion to seal

the documents. I'll grant the motion to

unseal them. I will take a look at the

documents. I will redact out of them

the -- what I'll do is, I'll leave the

originals intact sealed in the court file intact sealed in the court

to protect the names of any underage protect the names of any underage
COR.
victims. victims.

I will make copies of those. I'll I will make copies of those.

redact out the names leaving redact out the names leaving expose the

initials initials of any of the individuals. I'll of any of the individuals.

get that done that done I'll get my written order I'll get my written
CERTIFIED
out granting and denying the respective granting and denying the

opefully opefully by the end of today. If by the end of

tomorrow. tomorrow. I plan on releasing I plan on

the redacted versions probably Monday, so redacted versions probably Monday,

that those will be available for public

consumption on Monday.

MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, thank you. Thank you for the oral pronouncement. Your Honor, based on the Court's ruling, we do have a motion to stay disclosure of the nonprosecution agreement. The rules of appellate procedure require us to file that

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

[x]

44

1

2

3

4

5 6 N

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

220 222222 20

21

23

24

25 45

before, your Honor.

Your Honor, we do intend to take

certiorari on this to the Fourth District

Court.

THE COURT: That's why I figure

between the written rule and the disclosure

give you a chance to catch your breath and

do that. I guess you might want that. Is that. I guess you might want
COP
Monday 5 p.m. enough time for you to get Monday 5 p.m. enough time for you to

over to the DCA? to the DCA?

So I need to handle the

MR. GOLDBERGER: MR. GOLDBERGER: Actually, Actually, your

Honor, the Rule of Appellate Procedure Honor, the Rule of Appellate Procedure

maintains maintains juri juri Action with you on this Action with you on
CERIFIED
matter matter to entertain the motion to stay. to entertain the motion to

So I need to handle

to to stay? stay?

NOT A

MR. GOLDBERGER: MR. GOLDBERGER: Correct, your Honor. your

THE COURT: Do you want to argue that

now? Do you want to take a look at that,

catch your breath, come back and see me

Monday sometime; what's your pleasure?

MR. GOLDBERGER: We're ready to do it

now, your Honor. We're ready to do it now.

THE COURT: All right. Interveners,

your thoughts.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6700 or

8 8 8

or or 9 9 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 22222

21

23

24

25

MR. KUVIN: Matter of procedure point, I just want to make sure that the motion to intervene is, in fact, granted.

THE COURT: You're motion to intervene is granted. Do you have a written order for me to sign off on there?

MR. KUVIN: I can submit that MR. MR. KUVIN: KUVIN: I I can can

THE THE THE COURT: Why don't you atch your COURT: COURT: Why Why don't don't you you
COP COP
breath breath breath and come back tomorrow and I'll hear and and come come back back tomorrow tomorrow and and

argument. It will give me a chance to read argument. argument. It It will will give give me me a a chance chance

the motion, check out the rules, take a the the motion, motion, check check out out the the rules, rules,

look, got to get myself gassed up. Anybody look, look, got got to to get get myself myself gassed gassed up. up.

want to drop anything off for me to read want want to to drop drop anything anything off off for for me me to to
CERTED CERTED
before before the hearing, please do that. before the the hearing, hearing, please please do do that. that. Why

don't don't we do that tomorrow morning, and why don't we we do do that that tomorrow tomorrow morning, morning,

don't we reconvene here tomorrow at 1:30 on don't don't we we reconvene reconvene here here tomorrow tomorrow at at

NOT NOT

the the the motion to stay. motion motion to to stay. stay.
A A
MR. MR. MR. GOLDBERGER: GOLDBERGER: GOLDBERGER: That's fine. That's That's fine. fine.

THE THE THE COURT: COURT: COURT: How does your schedule How How does does your your

look? look? look?

MR. GERBER: MR. MR. GERBER: GERBER: Your Honor, is it Your Your Honor, Honor, is is it it

possible to have it a little later, perhaps

an hour later tomorrow?

THE COURT: 2:30.

MR. GERBER: If possible.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

46

1

2 3 4 5 6

6 50 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22222 21

23

24

25

THE COURT: How about a little later

than that still, let me take a look at our official calendaring system here.

MR. CRITTON: Judge Colbath, I'm gone tomorrow, I'm going to Gainesville at one or 12:30-ish. I told my wife I would be home at one. My daughter's birthday, 21, she's having a party, I plan to be there. Can we do it tomorrow morning any time, it would be great.

THE COURT: Tomorrow morning is ugly.

This isn't going take long.

MS. BURNS This is a five-minute

motion.
NOT A CERTIFIED COP
Why don't we do this,

MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, I'm not

going to be able to get my kids to school

if I have to be here at 8:15. My husband

is in California right now.

MR. GOLDBERGER: I don't mean to jump

in. I wonder if we can do some of this

telephonically.

MS. SHULLMAN: Yes, I can appear by phone or I can have one of my partners.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

47

1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
2222222

21

23

24

25

THE COURT: In the morning what would

be a good start time for you?

MS. SHULLMAN: Nine would be getter.

I can't drop them off before eight.

THE COURT: It's going to be brief

argument, let's do it 9:00 tomorrow

morning; morning; 9:00 work for you? 9:00 work for you?

MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. MR. CRITTON: Yes, CORY sir.

MR. MR. GOLDBERGER: GOLDBERGER: Just Just very briefly, very

the Court is going to look at the the Court is going to look at the

nonprosecution agreement and do some nonprosecution agreement and do some

redacting, I belie redacting, I belie I just need to I just need to

advise advise the cour in addition to Mr. Epstein the cour in addition to Mr.
CHETIETED
and perhaps victims mention the and perhaps victims mention the

nonprose ation agreement, there are third nonprose ation agreement, there are

parties who the Court needs to look about parties who the Court needs to look

redacting redacting their names also, and that's their names also, and that's
A
contained contained in the nonprosecution agreement. in the nonprosecution

NOT

In other words, there are other In other words, there are other

people beside Mr. Epstein and Mr. Victims people beside Mr. Epstein and Mr.

whose whose names are mentioned in the names are mentioned in the

nonprosecution agreement, and I would ask

the Court to look at those names also for

the purpose of redacting.

THE COURT: I'll like a look.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

48

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 00 0

6700

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1
19

20

21

22

2 2 2 2 2 23

24

25

MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, those are not names of victims, those are co-conspirators as listed in the agreement and we would object to any redaction of those names. I don't think there's any standing to ask for that.

THE COURT: I'll take a look. All

right. See you all tomorrow morning at

nine. If you want to send anything to me

later this afternoon or tomorrow morning

before we take the bench, I'm happy to

receive it. good afternoon.

(Procee gs concluded.)

NOT A CERTTED COP

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2222 222
23

24

25

## CERTIFICATE

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.

I, SUSAN S. WIGGINS, R.P.R. Official

Court Reporter for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Court Reporter for the Fifteenth Judicial

Criminal Criminal Division, in and for Palm Beach Division, in and for Palm COPY Beach County,
Florida; do hereby certify that I was authorized Florida; do hereby certify that I was authorized

to and did report the foregoing proceedings before to and did report the foregoing proceedings

the Court at the time and place aforesaid; and the Court at the time and place aforesaid; and

that that the preceding pages the preceding pages numbered from 1 to 48, numbered from 1 to

inclusive, inclusive, represent represent true true and accurate and accurate
CERTIFIED
transcription of my steno notes taken at said transcription of my steno notes taken at said

proceedings. proceedings.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

affixed my official signature this 29th day of affixed my official signature this 29th day of

NOT

Brian O'Wiggins
SUSAN S. WIGGINS, R.P.R.

SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
documents/doj-7df6af9e9fe44f2d.pdf
{}