HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475.jpg

2. In order to protect the privacy interests of victims of sex crimes, the plain language of Civil Rights Law § 50-b prohibits production to the public of the appellate briefs, which would reveal the identities of many of defendant’s sex crime victims. To be sure, the statute provides for a matrow exception to the confidentiality requirement, permitting disclosure, by court order, of information for “good cause” and upon “notice to the victim... and the public officer ot employee charged with the duty of prosecuting the offense.” Civil Rights Law § 50-b(2)(b). We note that fhe prosecuting agencies for defendant’s underlying sex crimes are the federal and local prosecutot’s offices in Florida, where defendant was charged. By all appearances, the Post has yet to furnish the requisite notice to either the appropriate prosecuting agencies or to the victims themselves. And to the extent that the Post is unable to furnish notice to the victims, this Office, which was not the prosecuting agency, is not in a position to do so. 3. In any event, and in keeping with the People’s obligation under Civil Rights Law § 50-b to protect the privacy of the victims of sex crimes, we cannot agree to the wholesale production of the People’s appellate brief or even to a production of the People’s brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein’s victims.1 However, if this Court is inclined to grant the Post’s motion, we would not oppose producing a copy of the People’s brief, with substantial redactions necessary to protect the identities of the victims but keeping ' According to the Post’s filing, they have contacted defendant’s currerit counsel, who has reserved the right to oppose the disclosure of defendant’s appellate brief. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475