058.pdf
155 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (intervener's response to motion to stay)
File Size:
155 KB
Summary
This document is a legal response filed on behalf of an unnamed Intervener opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay the release of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that the NPA is a public record that was never properly sealed and that Epstein failed to demonstrate the necessary 'irreparable harm' or 'likelihood of success' required to grant a stay. The document was filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County in July 2009.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey E. Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and the motion to stay.
|
| Spencer T. Kuvin | Attorney |
Attorney for the Intervener, signatory of the document from Leopold-Kuvin, P.A.
|
| Jack A. Goldberger | Attorney |
Attorney for Defendant (Epstein), recipient of service.
|
| Bruce E. Reinhart | Attorney |
Attorney for Defendant (Epstein), recipient of service.
|
| Robert D. Critton, Jr. | Attorney |
Recipient of service.
|
| Michael J. Pike | Attorney |
Recipient of service.
|
| Sharon R. Bock | Clerk & Comptroller |
Palm Beach County Clerk filing stamp.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit |
Court where the case is filed (Palm Beach County, FL).
|
|
| Fourth DCA |
Fourth District Court of Appeal, referenced regarding pending review.
|
|
| Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. |
Law firm representing the Intervener.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
|
|
Location of attorneys' offices.
|
|
|
Location of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A.
|
Relationships (2)
Goldberger listed as attorney for Defendant in certificate of service.
Reinhart listed as attorney for Defendant in certificate of service.
Key Quotes (4)
"Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has been properly sealed."Source
058.pdf
Quote #1
"How can a public document which redacts the names of the minor victims cause harm?"Source
058.pdf
Quote #2
"Defendant merely makes a broad assertion that there will be 'irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA.'"Source
058.pdf
Quote #3
"Finally, since there has been no showing by Defendant EPSTEIN that the proper procedure for sealing court documents were ever followed, the NPA is a public record."Source
058.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,974 characters)
FILED
2009 JUL -6 PM 2:58
SHARON R. BOCK
CLERK & COMPTROLLER
PALM BEACH COUNTY
2009 JUL -6 PM 2:58
SHARON R. BOCK
CLERK & COMPTROLLER
PALM BEACH COUNTY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2006CF009454AXX
2008CF009381AXX
2008CF009381AXX
STATE,
vs.
EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E,
Defendant.
FILED
09 JUL -2 PM 3:40
SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK
CIRCUIT CIVIL 2
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
09 JUL -2 PM 3:40
SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK
CIRCUIT CIVIL 2
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL
INTERVENER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
COMES NOW, Intervener, [REDACTED] and files this Response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's
Motion to Stay, and states:
Motion to Stay, and states:
In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay its ruling on the production of the NPA
agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the
first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has
been properly sealed. Furthermore, as Defendant EPSTEIN has failed to demonstrate that he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal or describe how he will be harmed by this
disclosure, Intervener [REDACTED] respectfully requests the Court deny their Motion.
agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the
first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has
been properly sealed. Furthermore, as Defendant EPSTEIN has failed to demonstrate that he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal or describe how he will be harmed by this
disclosure, Intervener [REDACTED] respectfully requests the Court deny their Motion.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(a), a trial court has the discretion
to enter a stay pending interlocutory review of a non-final order. The burden to satisfy the
to enter a stay pending interlocutory review of a non-final order. The burden to satisfy the
[NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WATERMARK]
requirements for a stay rests with the party requesting the stay. A trial court is not obligated, or
even encouraged, to enter such a stay as the Appellate Rules specifically provide, "In the absence
of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed
with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render
a final order disposing of the cause pending such review." Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (emphasis
added).
even encouraged, to enter such a stay as the Appellate Rules specifically provide, "In the absence
of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed
with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render
a final order disposing of the cause pending such review." Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f) (emphasis
added).
Defendants ask the Court to stay disclosure of a public document which was never
properly sealed. Factors to be considered by a court when deciding whether to enter a stay
"include the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm
should a stay not be granted." Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Defendants fail to adequately address these factors in their motion. In fact, Defendant
completely ignores the likelihood of success analysis. Likely this is because there is no
likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse this court's ruling since the proper procedures
for sealing the NPA were never followed.
properly sealed. Factors to be considered by a court when deciding whether to enter a stay
"include the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, and the likelihood of harm
should a stay not be granted." Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Defendants fail to adequately address these factors in their motion. In fact, Defendant
completely ignores the likelihood of success analysis. Likely this is because there is no
likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse this court's ruling since the proper procedures
for sealing the NPA were never followed.
As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendant [REDACTED] makes to this issue is in
paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defendant merely makes a broad assertion that there will be
"irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA." There is no explanation of who will be
harmed or what harm will be caused. How can a public document which redacts the names of
the minor victims cause harm? This necessary question is never answered. Defendant's broad
and vague assertion is insufficient to grant a stay.
paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defendant merely makes a broad assertion that there will be
"irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of the NPA." There is no explanation of who will be
harmed or what harm will be caused. How can a public document which redacts the names of
the minor victims cause harm? This necessary question is never answered. Defendant's broad
and vague assertion is insufficient to grant a stay.
Finally, since there has been no showing by Defendant EPSTEIN that the proper
procedure for sealing court documents were ever followed, the NPA is a public record.
procedure for sealing court documents were ever followed, the NPA is a public record.
Page 2of 3
[NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WATERMARK]
[NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WATERMARK]
Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Stay the
Proceedings.
Proceedings.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S.
Mail, postage prepaid, this 26 day of June, 2009 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian
Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian
Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike,
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
Mail, postage prepaid, this 26 day of June, 2009 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian
Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian
Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike,
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A.
2925 PGA Boulevard
Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 515-1400
(561) 515-1401 (facsimile)
2925 PGA Boulevard
Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 515-1400
(561) 515-1401 (facsimile)
By: [Signature]
SPENCER T. KUVIN, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 089737
SPENCER T. KUVIN, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 089737
Page 3of 3
[NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WATERMARK]
[NOT A CERTIFIED COPY WATERMARK]
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document