EFTA00221152.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07:1672008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80380-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action under seal.' The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. As stated in the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, "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 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 'All documents filed conventionally shall henceforth be filed directly with the Office of the Clerk in West Palm Beach, Florida. The parties shall not file documents conventionally in any other division of the Southern District of Florida. 1 EFTA00221152 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07x'16%2008 Page 2 of 3 a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States v. Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. Likewise, the Court may consider whether "the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Id. In his motion to seal, Defendant has made no argument as to why his Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action should not be made available to the public. Defendant states only that he wishes "[t]o avoid disclosure of confidential material." (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court finds this justification insufficient to justify keeping this document (filed ex parte) under seal. The Court is supported in this conclusion by its decision in a similar case, In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008), in which the Court unsealed, over the objection of the United States Attorney, documents containing similar information regarding Defendant's criminal plea agreement. Thus, any argument regarding confidentiality is vitiated by the fact that information regarding Defendant's criminal plea arrangement is already a matter of public record. See, e.g., Sally Apgar, Victims Object to Palm Beach Billionaire's Plea Deal in Underage Sex Case, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, July 12, 2008. Similarly, Defendant has not justified the necessity of filing his Notice ex parte. As such, Defendant's Motion to Seal shall be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 25 and 26 and make them available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. Defendant is further ORDERED to serve a copy of his Notice on Plaintiff within five (5) days of the date of 2 EFTA00221153 Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'16%2008 Page 3 of 3 entry of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 16ih day of July, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 3 EFTA00221154