EpsteinProject.org

Court records

010-10_1

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 1:17-mc-00025-RWS   Document 10-10   Filed 06/30/16   Page 1 of 17




                     EXHIBIT J
       Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM  DocumentDocument 10-10
                                326 Entered     FiledDocket
                                            on FLSD   06/30/16   Page 2 of
                                                            04/15/2015     17 1 of 16
                                                                        Page



                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                    CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM

   JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,

          Petitioners,

   vs.

   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

          Respondent.

   ______________________________/

         ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

          This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein’s Unopposed Motion for a

   Supplemental Protective Order. (DE 261). The once-unopposed motion is now opposed by

   Petitioners (DE 298) and prospective intervenors the Palm Beach Post and Palm Beach Daily

   News (the Media) (DE 305).1 Considering the positions of the parties and intervenors, the Court

   concludes that the proposed supplemental protective order should not issue.

                                            I. Background

          This is a case against the United States for allegedly violating the Crime Victims’ Rights

   Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated

   victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution

   agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors have

   debated, and continue to debate, the discoverability and discloseability of correspondence

   documents that evidence just exactly what transpired between the Government, Epstein, and their

      

[…]

Open in the archive