EpsteinProject.org

Court records

010-11_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 10-11   Filed 06/30/16   Page 1 of 6




                    EXHIBIT K
       Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM  DocumentDocument 10-11
                                255 Entered     FiledDocket
                                            on FLSD   06/30/16   Page 2 of
                                                            09/22/2014     6 1 of 5
                                                                        Page



                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                     NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA

  JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,

         Plaintiffs,

  vs.

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Defendant.
  ______________________________________/

             ORDER ON THE INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
                           CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Intervenors’ Motion for a Protective

  Confidentiality Order (DE 247). This matter is fully briefed and is now ripe for review. The Court

  has carefully considered the briefs and is fully advised in the premises. For the reasons stated below,

  the Motion (DE 247) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

  I. Background

         This action is brought by the alleged victims (“victims” or “petitioners’) of sexual crimes

  committed by Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). The victims allege that the United States Attorney

  violated their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), and are seeking relief

  stemming from the alleged violations. This Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and

  granted petitioners’ motion to use correspondence between the Untied States Attorney’s Office and

  Epstein’ counsel to prove their case.1 The government and the victims are currently engaged in

  litigating whether the materials in question are protected from disclosure based upon various

       

[…]

Open in the archive