EpsteinProject.org

Court records

006_19

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 2




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                             NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON

 JANE DOE, a/k/a
 JANE DOE NO. 1,

        Plaintiff,

 v.

 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY
 ROBSON, and SARAH
 KELLEN,

       Defendants.
 __________________________/

                            ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

        THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen’s

 Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 25, 2008. Defendants seek to file their Motion to Stay

 under seal.1 The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully

 advised in the premises.

        As the Court has explained in a related case, Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80119 (S.D. Fla.

 Aug. 4, 2008), the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that “proceedings in the

 United States District Court are public and Court filings are matters of public record.” S.D. Fla.

 L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law

 right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S.

 589, 597 (1978). “The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other


        1
         The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed
 under seal) must be filed with the Clerk’s Office in West Palm Beach, Florida.

                                                  1
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 2 of 2




 forms of access, it may interfere with the administration of justice and hence may have to be

 curtailed.” Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir.1983). This right of access creates

 a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which “must be balanced against any

 com

[…]

Open in the archive