Event Details

This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Maxwell's criminal scheme, advocating for the redaction of victims' names while opposing similar protection for third-party enablers. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and several civil cases, asserting that transparency and accountability necessitate the release of information concerning individuals involved in sex trafficking.

This legal document is a filing on behalf of victims in the Epstein/Maxwell case, respectfully requesting the Court to implement specific protective measures before unsealing grand jury materials. The requests include requiring the government to confer with victims' counsel, judicial in-camera review of the materials, and pre-release review by victims' counsel to propose redactions. The filing argues these safeguards are essential to protect the survivors' safety, privacy, and dignity from further trauma, especially given recent events concerning Ms. Maxwell.

This document is page 7 of 27 from a legal filing, specifically Document 804 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 6, 2025. The page itself is a divider page labeled "Tab 2". A Bates number in the footer (DOJ-OGR-00015102) indicates its production by the Department of Justice.

This document is page 22 of 27 from a court filing, specifically Document 804 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 6, 2025. The page itself is a divider page labeled "Tab 5" and includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number in the footer.

This document is a divider page, labeled 'Tab 3', from a legal filing. It is page 13 of 27 of Document 804, filed on August 6, 2025, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The page includes a Bates number from the Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR-00015108).

This document is a legal filing (page 4 of an internal document, page 11 of the court filing) arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts with specific conditions. The filing argues that while victim identities (such as Ms. Farmer) must be redacted to protect their privacy and psychological wellbeing, the Court should not 'rubber stamp' redactions for third-party affiliates of Epstein and Maxwell who have not been charged, suggesting such broad redactions would resemble a cover-up. It cites multiple legal precedents regarding privacy interests in sexual abuse cases, including *Giuffre v. Maxwell* and *Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase Bank*.