ARGUMENT Despite the Manhattan District Attorney’s apparent opposition to releasing any of portion of the appellate briefs, good cause exists to unseal briefs with victims’ names redacted because the handling of Epstein’s designation as a sex offender by New York prosecutors — including the appellate arguments regarding that designation — are of paramount public concern and should be open to public scrutiny. I. THE POST HAS THE RIGHT TO MOVE THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING THE APPELLATE BRIEFING As a threshold matter, the Practice Rules of this Court permit non-parties (like the Post) to submit “[a]pplications for sealing and unsealing documents . .. by motion.” 22 NYCRR § 1250.1(e)(3). The Post’s right to petition this Court for an order unsealing the appellate briefs is further buttressed by the rule that “affected members of the media should be given the opportunity to be heard” before a Court takes the drastic step of sealing court proceedings, filings or dockets. In re Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 125 A.D.2d 34, 38, 512 N.Y.S.2d 266, 269 (3d Dep’t 1987), aff'd on other grounds, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 525 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1988). See also Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 501, 835 N.Y.S.2d 595, 597 (2d Dep’t 2007) (“{P]rior to issuance of an order to seal judicial documents, the court is obligated, where possible, to afford news media an opportunity to be heard.”) (citing Inre Herald Co. v. Weisenberg, 59 N.Y.2d 378, 383, 465 N.Y.S.2d 862, 864 (1983)); Maxim, Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 43 N.Y.S.3d 313 (1st Dep’t 2016) (reversing order denying motion of press entities to intervene for purpose of seeking access to filed motion papers and other court records). In addition to guaranteeing the Post’s right to move this Court to unseal documents, New York law also requires this Court to make “specific findings to support its determination” before 11 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016498