EFTA02729730.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLED Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA I CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, I Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA'), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement in its publicly-filed pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with others involved who have information related to the case. BACKGROUND As the court is aware, this action was brought by two crime victims (hereinafter referred to as "the victims') seeking protection of their rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. At the center of this action is an agreement between the United Statesand Jeffrey Epstein that (as described in earlier court pleadings publicly filed by the Government) involved 1 U 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPITTENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332020 EFTA_00204746 EFTA02729730  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a hearing held on August 14, 2008, the court ordered the Government to produce to counsel for the victims the non-prosecution agreement. That production, however, was to be done under protective order in the first instance. The agreement has now been produced. At the earlier hearing, the court recognized that the victims' counsel might at a later date seek to have the sealing lifted. That date has now arrived. ARGUMENT As the court envisioned might well happen, counsel for the victims now believe that sealing of the agreement is no longer appropriate. The non-prosecution agreement should now be unsealed for three reasons. No Good Cause !lasBeen Shown for Sealing the Agreement. Having now reviewed the agreement, counsel for the victims can find no legitimate basis for the document to be sealed. Because it stands at the center of this litigation (as well as several related civil suits), the burden should fall on those who would keep the document sealed to show cause for doing so. No good cause has yet been shown. CI United States v. Ochoa-Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (Il l" Cir. 2005) (to justify sealing of court records "a court must articulate the overriding interest along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered"). 2. The Gy_a_nre intent Has Inaccurately Described the Agreement. In its publicly-filed pleadings in this case, the Government has inaccurately 2 U 09/12/2019 Page Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332021 EFTA_00204747 EFTA02729731  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 3 of 8 described the non-prosecution agreement, creating the false impression that it is more favorable to the victims than it actually is. Accordingly, the non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed so that the true state of affairs is rcflccted in the court's file. In its response to the victims' petition, the Government states that the non- prosecution agreement contains the following provision: Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violatior. of an offer.se enumerated in Title I8, United states Code, Section 2255; will have the same rights to proceed wider Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerate offense. For purposes of implementing fl this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. n Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, I I including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. Govt's Resp. to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Right at 4. The sworn declaration of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling this matter also recounts the same language. See Declaration of A. Marie Villafafla in Support of United States' Response to Victims' Emergency Petition at 3-4. The sworn declaration also states that victims were told U about this language in October 2007. See Declaration of A. Marie Villafafta at 4 ("In October u 2007, shortly after the agreement was signed, four victims were contacted and these provisions u were discussed"). On July 9, 2008, the victims received notice from the Government that the above-described provision was negotiated on behalf of the victims for their protection and was 3 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332022 EFTA_00204748 EFTA02729732  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 4 of 8 thus contained in the non-prosecution agreement! Having now reviewed the non-prosecution agreement, the Government's response to the victims' motion and the accompanying sworn declaration are simply untrue. The above- quoted provision simply does not appear In the agreement anywhere. It is true that the non- prosecution agreement contains a provision bearing on the same subject. However, this provision has a number of qualifying provisos that make it far less favorable to the victims than the above-described provision. (To avoid filing a separate, sealed pleading laying out the differences, counsel for the victims have simply described the differences in general terms. We trust that the Government, in its response, will agree that it has erroneously described the agreement to the court and the victims.) The Government should be required to correct its previously-filed pleadings to accurately recount the non-prosecution agreement that it reached with Epstein. Moreover, the Government should also be required to state forthrightly whether through the last nine months, it Il i gave the victims (like the court) inaccurate information about what the non -prosecution r agreement entailed. But most itnportant, because the current scaling of the non-prosecution agreement creates a false and deceptive appearance about the agreement that the Government has actually reached with Epstein, the agreement should be unsealed. Indeed, it should be noted that sealing of materials in this case appears to operate in a rather peculiar fashion. The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one Ut provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where it U 1 The Government has recently provided a new notice to the victims, containing different language. UI 4 • 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 U. CONFIDEN C TIAL SDNY_GM_00332023 EFTA_00204749 EFTA02729733  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 5 of 8 has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclos e. 3. The Non-Prosecution Agreement Should be Unsealed To Facilitate Effective Representation of the Victims in this Action and Related Civil Actions. The sealing order bars the victims' counsel from "disclo s[ing] the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, followi ng notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at I. Victims' counsel have scrupulously abided by that restriction. Victim s' counsel would, however, now like to discuss the terms of the non-prosecution agreem ent with third parties in making a determination about how best to proceed in this action, includi ng what remedies to seek for the violations of victims' rights that have occurred. Counsel, therefore, respectfully seek the "further court order" that the sealing order envisions. In particular, victims' counsel would like to discuss the agreement with other 1 victims of Epstein and their attorneys to determine whether they were likewise provided with inaccurate information about the nature of the plea agreem ent. Victims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Govern ment with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victim s' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www,ncvli.oreinavnit.htail. The sealing order would apparently blcck these forms of consultation, or perhaps require such burdensome non-disclosure obligations as to make the consultation difficult or impractical. Finally , victims' counsel would like to refer to the non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court. See Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southe rn District of Florida, Case No.: 08-CW- 80893-MARRA-JOHNSON. To facilitate all these discussions, the non-prosecution agreement 5 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 U CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332024 EFTA_00204750 EFTA02729734 Case 94.08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 6 of 8 should be unsealed. 13Q11. Ti2.141-Tral It Is possible that Jeffrey Epstein will object to the unsealing of the agreement. Accordingly, the court should provide notice of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southe rn District ofFlorida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON. Although Epstein's counse l has not entered an appearance in this matter, as a courtesy to them, counsel for the victims' will provide a copy of this pleading at the address indicated in the related civil suit CONCLUSION The non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed. DATED this gib day of September 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioners Florida Bar No. 542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimile: 954-924-1530 E-Mail: [email protected] 6 09/12/2019 Page4007 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332025 EFTA_0020475 1 EFTA02729735  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 7 of 8 1 Paul G. Cassell Attorney for Petitioners Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E Mail: [email protected] Jay C. Howell, Esquire Attorney for Petitioners Pro Hac Vice L 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Telephone: 904-680-1234 Facsimile: 904-680-1238 E-Mail: ittvf0iavhoweLcom CERTMICATF. AFSERVfrz I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 25, 2008, 11 document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I electronically Bled the foregoing SERVICE LIST U• Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Dexter A. Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street U. Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: 305.961-9320 Facsimile: 305-530-7139 .7 U. 09112/2019 l008 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 U CONFPa IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332026 EFTA_00204752 EFTA02729736  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 8 of 8 Ann Marie C. ViBefana, AUSA United States Attorneys Office 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 al Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire • Attorney for Petitioner • Florida Bar No. 542075 I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that on September 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document is being provided by United States mail to: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterbuxty, Goldberger & Weiss, PA. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ilutufallealawath&si Michael It Tein, Esquire Lewis Tein, Pt. 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 [email protected], Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttler & Coleman, LLP 515 North Elegies' Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 [email protected] [email protected] U Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar No. 542075 8 U 09/12/2019 l009 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 ll CONFIDENTIAL Pa SDNY_GM_00332027 EFTA_00204753 EFTA02729737  Case 9:08-ov-80736-KAM Document 28-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGRE E/MINE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the 1' Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein. After consideration of the Motion end the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petitioners' Motion is GRANTED and the Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein is hereby ordered to be unsealed. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of _, 2008. KENNETH A. MAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Copies ftunished to: all counsel of record 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 CONFPa IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332028 EFTA_00204754 EFTA02729738 I; Il U U U U LI U CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332029 EFT,00204755 EFTA02729739  Case 9:08-cv-80738-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-801736-Civ-Marra/Johnsoa I JANE DOES #1 and #2 Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO VICTIMS' MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement, and states: t! L THE MOTION TO UNSEAL SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN FILED UNDER SEAL IN THIS COURT. Petitioners have filed their motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement, U claiming that no good cause exists for sealing it. As an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing to discuss petitioners' request for a copy of the non-prosecution agreement. The United States advised the Court that the Agreement had a confidentiality provision, 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFPa IDEN IDE TIAL SDNY_GM_00332030 EFTA_00204756 EFTA02729740  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 2 of 7 which the United States was obligated to honor. The United States requested that, if the Agreement was to be produced to petitioners, it should be done pursuant to a protective order, to ensure that further dissemination of the Agreement would not occur. At that time, petitioners had no objection to such a procedure. On August 21, 2008, this Court entered its Order to Compel Production and Protective Order (DE 26). Subpart (b) of the Order provides that, "Petitioners and their attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." (DE 26 at 1.) Presumably, petitioners' motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms of the Protective Order, to enable them to disclose the Agreement to third parties. Since the Agreement has not been filed under seal with this Court, the legal authority cited by petitioners regarding sealing of documents United States v. Ochoa- Vasque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005), is inapposite. The parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that U Agreement should remain confidential. They were free to do so, and violated no law in the making such an agreement. Since the Agreement has become relevant to the instant lawsuit, petitioners have been given access to it, upon the condition that it not be disclosed further.' Petitioners have no legal right to disclose the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision. 'It is unclear whether the Petitioners themselves (as opposed to their attorneys) have actually reviewed the Non -Prosecution Agreement. The Court's Order to Compel Production required petitioners' counsel to review and agree to the Protective Order and to do the same with 2 0912,2019 Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 U CONFIDENTIAL SDNCGM_00332031 EFTA_00204757 EFTA02729741  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/20O8 Page 3 of 7 In order to have standing, petitioners must show: (1) an injury in fact, meaning an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent (2) a causal connection between the injury and the causal conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising. Inc. v. City of Clearwater. Fla. 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11h Cir. 2003). Petitioners already have obtained access to the agreement, so they cannot claim a denial of access as an injury in fact. Their motion to unseal refers to their stated desire to confer with other victims of Epstein and their attorneys "to determine whether they were likewise provided with inaccurate information about the nature of the plea agreement" (DE 28 at 5.) This asserted reason for needing to unseal the Agreement is baseless given that the Protective Order, at the Court's direction, specifically provides for a very simple procedure to allow other victims and their lawyers to see the Agreement (am DE 26 at 1-2, subpart (d).) All that is required is for any victims and/or their attorneys to review U and agree to the terms of the Protective Order, and to provide the signed acknowledgment of that agreement to the United States. U Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights U Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend U that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation . . ." (DE 28 at U their clients. Copies of those signed acknowledgements to abide by the Protective Older were then to be provided "promptly" to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has provided a signed acknowledgement. U 3 U 09112/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 I. U CONFPIDEN IDE TIAL SDNY_GM_00332032 EFTA 00204758 EFTA02729742  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 4 of 7 5.) First, there is no sealing order. Second, the Protective Order does not prevent petitioners from consulting with anyone; it only prevents them from disclosing the Agreement Petitioners fail to mention why it is necessary for the National Alliance of I Victims' Rights Attorneys to have the Agreement in hand, in order to meaningfully consult with them. Petitioners also assert that they would like to be able to reference the Agreement "in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this Court" (DE 28 at 5.) Given that the suit names Jeffrey Epstein as a defendant and is pending before the same district judge, it seems that litigation regarding the production and use of the Agreement should occur in that case, where the true party in interest, Jeffrey Epstein, is present and represented by counsel, rather than in a suit that was originally Sled in July as an "Emergency Petition" under the various victims' rights laws. IL THE GOVERNMENT ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, AT THE TIME THE RESPONSES WERE FILED WITH THE COURT. Petitioners castigate the Government for inaccurately describing the non- prosecution agreement (DB 28 at 2-5.) They contend a particular provision cited by the Government does not appear in the copy of the Agreement produced to them. During the telephonic hearing on August 14, 2008, Government counsel advised • the Court and petitioners' counsel that there was an ongoing dispute between the Government and Epstein's attorneys over what constituted the Agreement. Government counsel advised that, in its opinion, the Agreement had three parts. The first part was U 4 0911212019 Page4015 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 U CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332033 EFTA_00204759 EFTA02729743  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 5 of 7 executed in September 2007, the second part, an addendum, was executed in October 2007, and the third part was a December 2007 letter from the United States Attorney to Epstein's attorneys, suggesting a further modification of the Agreement. The Government advised the Court that it believed that all three parts comprised the Agreement, while it appeared that Epstein's attorneys were contending the Agreement was comprised only of parts one and two. At the commencement of the instant litigation, in July 2008, the Government believed the Agreement was comprised of all three parts mentioned above. This belief was expressed in victim notification letters, including one sent to Jane Doe #1,2 the Government's July 9, 2008 response to the Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Victims Rights Act, as well as the Declaration of A. Marie Villafaila, Assistant U.S. Attorney, which accompanied the Government's response. This belief continued until August 2008, when the Government advised Epstein's attorneys that the victims had 2 The victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain. Thus, petitioners' repeated assertions that the Government made these errors intentionally and/or negligently are meritless. (See, e.g. DE 28 at 4-5 ("The Government apparently feels free to disclose to the victims one provision in the non-prosecution agreement that it believes it is to its advantage to disclose, but not others. The Government should not be permitted to pick and choose, particularly where it has inaccurately described the provision that it has chosen to disclose.") The Government seeks no "advantage" in this suit brought by the two victims. Furthermore, the petitioners' original U emergency petition focused on their concern about the amount of jail time that Epstein would serve. The provision that they complain of now has no relation to jail time. Furthermore, petitioners aver that the October 2007 disclosure to Jane Doe p I contained inaccurate U information, but that disclosure was made before the December 2007 letter and, therefore, did not include anything related to the U.S. Attorney's now-defunct proposed amendment to the Agreement. U 5 U 00'122019 l016 Agency to Agency Roque: 19-411 U CONFPa IDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332034 EFTA 00204760 EFTA02729744  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2008 Page 6 of 7 demanded disclosure of the Agreement to them, and discussions ensued about what constituted the Agreement. Epstein's attorneys then told the Government that Epstein believed the Agreement consisted only of the first and second parts. These were the parts disclosed to petitioners pursuant to the Protective Order in compliance with the Court's order to compel production. The fact that an erroneous disclosure was inadvertently made to one petitioner after Epstein had already entered his guilty plea, was sentenced, and surrendered to begin serving his sentence does not create an injury where one did not exist before. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny Petitioners' Motion to Unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Respondent 6 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 CONFlate5mgNTIAL SDNY_GM_00332035 EFTA 00204761 EFTA02729745 n o oenuzaie CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00332036 EFT,00204762 EFTA02729746  Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIMS' REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO victims, MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COME NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and reply to the Government's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement. The victims have moved for a lifting of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and U the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victims cannot show any injury from the protective order. The Government's position is wrong for three reasons. First, the Government bears the burden of showiog some good cause for a protective order. It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. U Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has U made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing before the Court. To set the record straight, therefore, the victims U 09/12/2019