Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 oppose Jeffrey Epstein's motion for a protective confidentiality order, arguing that the court has already ruled on the matter and that public interest warrants transparency. The document details the legal history of the case, emphasizing the importance of public access to court proceedings and the lack of confidentiality in the correspondence between Epstein's attorneys and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The response highlights Epstein's attempts to prevent public disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement and related correspondence, which the victims argue is of significant public concern due to Epstein's connections and the nature of the crimes.
documents/EFTA00209236.pdf
{}