The District Attorney’s position on appeal, however, was in stark contrast to what it argued in proceedings before the lower court, which was that Epstein “should be adjudicated a level one offender” (7.e., lowest risk) in spite of the damning evidence establishing that “defendant committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls.” /d. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240. The public has the right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office switched its legal position on appeal and what justifications it advanced in its brief to explain its initial request for lenient treatment of Epstein. Similarly, the briefing submitted by Epstein, which confronted the District Attorney’s arguments on appeal, may shed additional light on why the District Attorney changed course on appeal. Despite the obvious public interest in knowing this information, the briefs were filed wholly under seal pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law section 50-b — which protects the anonymity of sex abuse victims — and not a single word of either party’s briefs is available to the public. Since the District Attorney’s Office has made it clear that it will not release any portion of any of the appellate briefs filed in this action without clear instructions from this Court, the Post respectfully requests an order unsealing the briefs and directing the District Attorney to provide the Post with copies redacted only to the extent necessary to preserve the anonymity of victims. As a threshold matter, the Rules of this Court and the common law both guarantee the Post’s right to move this Court for an order unsealing court documents (POINT I, supra). And the Post easily demonstrates the “good cause” required to overcome sealing of documents under section 50-b. Simply put, the presumption of openness that governs judicial proceedings in this State is at its zenith because the documents sought by the Post are highly relevant to allegations of prosecutorial missteps and favoritism by the offi