entirety pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 50-b and could not be released — even with the names of victims redacted — without an order from this Court. /d. Nonetheless, the District Attorney’s Office stated in an email that it would “ot oppose” the Post’s motion requesting that a redacted brief be produced. /d. Ex. D. Counsel for the Post also contacted counsel for Epstein to ascertain his position on the disclosure of the appellate briefs. /d. On December 20, 2018, Mr. Epstein’s lawyer stated that he would not take a position until he had an opportunity to review the brief and reserved his right to oppose. Counsel for Epstein later informed counsel for the Post that “after consideration of your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain identities, we take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein.” /d. Ex. F. On December 21, 2019, the Post moved this Court for an order unsealing the appellate briefs and directing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to produce copies of the briefs with the names of victims redacted (the “December 21 Motion”). On January 2, 2019, counsel for the Post received an affirmation signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, dated December 28, 2018, which opposed the December 21 Motion. After telling the Post that it “will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief,” the District Attorney’s Office argued that the December 21 Motion should be denied on two grounds. First, the District Attorney’s office faulted the Post for supposedly failing to “furnish the requisite notice” to “the prosecuting agencies for defendant’s underlying sex crimes,” as required by section 50-b of the New York Civil Rights Act. fd. Ex. E92. According to the Manhattan District Attorney, the Post should have notified “the federal and local prosecutor’s offices in Florida, where defendant was charged” (and presumably not the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office). ! ' The Post firmly disputes the District