Second, Assistant District Attorney Friedman Agnifilo objected to unsealing any portion of the appellate briefs and wrote that “we cannot agree ... even to a production of the people’s brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein’s victims.” Jd. 43. She further noted, however, that “if this Court is inclined to grant the Post’s motion, we would not oppose producing a copy of the People’s brief, with substantial redactions necessary to protect the identities of the victims but keeping intact those portions of the brief that recount the procedural history of the SORA hearing.” Jd. Although the Post does not agree that section 50-b requires it to notify Florida prosecutors of its intention to move this Court to unseal briefs filed by the Manhattan District Attorney in a New York sex offenders proceeding, it nonetheless voluntarily withdrew the December 21 Motion on January 4, 2019 to moot the issue and bypass an easily avoidable procedural dispute. Counsel for the Post has contacted the Palm Beach State Attorney’s office and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (collectively, the “Florida Prosecutors”) to apprise them of its intention to refile this motion to unseal the appellate briefs with the names of victims redacted. /d. f{ 17-18. The Post will also serve the Florida Prosecutors with copies of this motion. Having mooted the procedural objection raised by the Manhattan District Attorney, the Post now refiles its motion respectfully requesting an order unsealing the appellate briefs and directing the District Attorney’s Office to provide the Post with copies — with the names of victims redacted — within seven days of the entry of its order. filed by New York prosecutors in a New York court as att of proceedings to register Epstein as a sex-offender in New York State. The statute requires a movant to furnish notice to “the public officer ... with the duty of prosecuting the offense.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §50-b. Here,