006.pdf
85.4 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order (order denying motion to seal)
File Size:
85.4 KB
Summary
This document is a court order from August 5, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied the defendants' motion to file documents under seal, ruling that the U.S. Attorney's objections and confidentiality clauses did not outweigh the public's right to access court records, ordering the clerk to unseal specific docket entries.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane Doe | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in the civil case against Epstein, Robson, and Kellen.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Defendant seeking to file a Motion to Stay under seal.
|
| Haley Robson | Defendant |
Named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
|
| Sarah Kellen | Defendant |
Defendant joining Epstein in the motion to file under seal.
|
| Kenneth A. Marra | Judge |
United States District Judge who signed the order.
|
| U.S. Attorney | Government Official |
Mentioned regarding a confidentiality clause in an agreement with Epstein.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of Florida |
The court issuing the order.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney's Office |
Referenced in relation to a non-prosecution agreement/confidentiality clause.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2008-07-25
Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen filed a Motion to File Under Seal.
Southern District of Florida
2008-08-05
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the Chambers where the order was signed and the Clerk's Office.
|
Relationships (3)
Listed as co-defendants and filed the motion together.
Listed as co-defendants in the case caption.
Mention of an agreement with a confidentiality clause between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney.
Key Quotes (4)
"Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED."Source
006.pdf
Quote #1
"However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney’s objections do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records."Source
006.pdf
Quote #2
"The details of the agreement contained in Defendants’ Motion have, in large part, already been unsealed and released to the public."Source
006.pdf
Quote #3
"Defendants state that they seek to file this document under seal 'to comply with the confidentiality clause' in the agreement between Defendant Epstein and the U.S. Attorney cited in his brief."Source
006.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,295 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE, a/k/a
JANE DOE NO. 1,
JANE DOE NO. 1,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY
ROBSON, and SARAH
KELLEN,
ROBSON, and SARAH
KELLEN,
Defendants.
__________________________/
__________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen’s
Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 25, 2008. Defendants seek to file their Motion to Stay
under seal.¹ The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises.
Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 25, 2008. Defendants seek to file their Motion to Stay
under seal.¹ The Court has carefully considered the motion and the record and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises.
As the Court has explained in a related case, Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-80119 (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 4, 2008), the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that “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
Aug. 4, 2008), the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida state that “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
__________________
¹The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed
under seal) must be filed with the Clerk’s Office in West Palm Beach, Florida.
¹The parties are reminded that all documents filed conventionally (including those filed
under seal) must be filed with the Clerk’s Office in West Palm Beach, Florida.
1
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2008 Page 2 of 2
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
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.
curtailed.” Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir.1983). This right of access creates
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, Defendants state that they seek to file this document under seal “to
comply with the confidentiality clause” in the agreement between Defendant Epstein and the U.S.
Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney’s
objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D.
Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney’s objections
do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the
agreement contained in Defendants’ Motion have, in large part, already been unsealed and
released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal.
comply with the confidentiality clause” in the agreement between Defendant Epstein and the U.S.
Attorney cited in his brief. (Def. Mot. 2.) The Court is familiar with the U.S. Attorney’s
objections to unsealing any part of the agreement, see In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D.
Fla. July 11, 2008). However, as the Court has previously held, the U.S. Attorney’s objections
do not outweigh the public interest in having access to court records. Further, the details of the
agreement contained in Defendants’ Motion have, in large part, already been unsealed and
released to the public. The Court finds no justification to keep these documents under seal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to File
Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 4 and 5 and make them
available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time.
Under Seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL docket entries 4 and 5 and make them
available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 5th day of August, 2008.
Florida, this 5th day of August, 2008.
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: all counsel of record
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document