Epstein Data Wiki

NYP Holdings, Inc.

Properties2
tagsentity, new-york, press, unsealing, appellate-division-first-department, sora, davis-wright-tremaine
aliasesNYP Holdings, New York Post (NYP Holdings, Inc.), Non-party movant NYP Holdings, Inc.

29 min read

CompanyNYP Holdings, Inc., publisher of the New York Post1
Where it appears as an actorNon-party movant in People v. Epstein, App. Div. No. 6081, on appeal from New York County Index No. 30129/10 (Pickholz, J.)1; non-party correspondent in No. 15 Civ. 7433 (S.D.N.Y.)2
CounselDavis Wright Tremaine LLP: Robert D. Balin and John M. Browning in the state matter13; Eric J. Feder on the federal letter2
What it asked forAn order unsealing the briefs the parties filed on Epstein’s sex-offender risk-level appeal, with the names of victims redacted, and an order directing the District Attorney to hand the redacted briefs to its counsel within seven days3
First motionFiled December 21, 2018, returnable December 31, 2018; stamped received by the First Department that day1
The objectionAffirmation in Response to Motion of Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, December 28, 2018: the Post had not given the notice section 50-b requires, and the offices entitled to it were in Florida456
WithdrawalJanuary 4, 2019, by hand-delivered letter, without prejudice and with an express reservation of the right to refile; stamped filed the same day7
RefiledJanuary 11, 2019, returnable January 21, 2019, after notice to the Palm Beach County State Attorney and to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida89
Second objectionAn Affirmation in Response filed by Assistant District Attorney Hilary Hassler, January 18, 2019, on the same notice ground, as identified and quoted in the Post’s own later affirmation; that response is not itself among the documents cited here10
Last filing recorded hereSupplemental affirmation of March 12, 2019, saying the objections had been mooted and no prosecutor or victim had objected1112
DispositionThe searches set out below did not return an order of the Appellate Division on either motion

NYP Holdings, Inc., the publisher of the New York Post, twice went to a court as a non-party to ask for access to sealed Epstein material, and the released files carry the paperwork of both. The larger of the two is a motion in the Appellate Division, First Department, filed on December 21, 2018, for an order unsealing the briefs that Jeffrey Epstein and the New York County District Attorney’s Office had filed under seal on Epstein’s 2011 sex-offender risk-level appeal.13 Two weeks later the company withdrew it.7

The withdrawal is not the end of the sequence, and reading it as an abandonment gets the file backwards. The letter withdrawing the motion says on its face that the withdrawal is without prejudice, that the Post “expressly reserves the right to refile the motion,” and that it will refile “next week.”7 It did: the same motion went back in on January 11, 2019, with the notice the District Attorney’s Office had said was missing.89 The Office objected again on the same ground, this time through a different Assistant District Attorney, and the last paper in the sequence is the Post’s supplemental affirmation of March 12, 2019 saying it had done everything it could and that nobody but the Manhattan District Attorney was objecting.101112 What happened after that is not established by any document cited here.

For the federal and Palm Beach unsealing decisions, and for the judges who granted and refused them, see Unsealing decisions in the Epstein proceedings. That page does not carry this application, which was made in a New York state appeal. For the underlying risk-level hearing and the appeal itself, see Ruth Pickholz.

What the Post asked for, and on what ground

The notice of motion is a single sheet. It gives the movant as “non-party movant NYP Holdings, Inc.,” names the supporting affirmation of John M. Browning sworn to on December 21, 2018, and sets the return date at the Appellate Division Courthouse for December 31, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. It is signed for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP by Robert D. Balin and John M. Browning, and the copy read here carries the First Department’s stamp reading RECEIVED, DEC 21 2018.1 Service went by overnight mail to Epstein’s counsel in Boston and to the District Attorney of New York County at One Hogan Place.13

The memorandum of law states the application under 22 NYCRR § 1250.1(e)(3), the rule allowing applications for sealing and unsealing to be made by motion, and asks for an order unsealing the parties’ appellate briefs.3 Its stated object is narrow and it is about a prosecutor rather than about Epstein: the Post “seeks to unseal court documents that will shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office initially sought lenient treatment” of Epstein, and “[t]he 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.”314 The briefs, it says, “are not available to the public because they were filed under seal pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law section 50-b,” the statute that keeps the identities of victims of sex offenses confidential and that also allows disclosure by court order on a showing of good cause.1415

On the protection of the people the statute exists for, the motion took the same position throughout. It asked the court “to direct the District Attorney’s Office to redact the names of those victims” before any brief was handed over, and its conclusion repeats that the order sought is one for copies “with the names of victims redacted.”1416 A footnote adds that the Post could not give notice to anyone whose name was sealed, since it did not know who they were, and submitted that a prosecuting office should give that notice.17

The memorandum also records what the Post had already tried. On December 4, 2018 a Post reporter asked Danny Frost, Director of Communications for District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., for a copy of the People’s appellate brief and said the names of victims could be redacted first; the request was refused on the ground that the brief was sealed in its entirety and could be released only on an order of the court.18 The same official then wrote, in words the affirmation quotes with the emphasis of the original, “[i]f the Post petitions the court, and the court asks the People for our position, we will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief.”19 Epstein’s counsel, reached on December 20, would not take a position until he had seen the papers and reserved his right to oppose.20

December 28: the District Attorney’s Office answers

The Office’s answer came in an Affirmation in Response to Motion signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, of counsel to District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., dated at New York on December 28, 2018 and carrying a calendar date of December 31, 2018. It is signed above the typed name.46

Its first point is the one the Post withdrew over. Section 50-b, the affirmation says, permits disclosure by court order for “good cause” and upon “notice to the victim… and the public officer or employee charged with the duty of prosecuting the offense.” It then draws the consequence: “We note that the prosecuting agencies for defendant’s underlying sex crimes are the federal and local prosecutor’s offices in Florida, where defendant was charged. By all appearances, the Post has yet to furnish the requisite notice to either the appropriate prosecuting agencies or to the victims themselves. And to the extent that the Post is unable to furnish notice to the victims, this Office, which was not the prosecuting agency, is not in a position to do so.”5

Its second point contradicts what Frost had written earlier in the month. “[W]e cannot agree to the wholesale production of the People’s appellate brief or even to a production of the People’s brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein’s victims.” A concession follows in the next sentence: “However, 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, the portion of the brief that is seemingly of interest to the Post.”56

On January 2, 2019, according to the affirmation the Post later filed, Browning spoke to Friedman Agnifilo about the response. He records that she “told me that there had been a miscommunication by Mr. Frost and that the District Attorney’s Office did oppose the December 21 Motion,” and that in the Office’s view the Post should give notice to the Florida prosecutors; she afterwards identified the Florida agency as the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office.21

January 4: the withdrawal

Two days later Balin hand-delivered a two-page letter to the Clerk of the Appellate Division. The copy read here carries the court’s stamp: FILED, JAN 4 2019, SUP COURT APP. DIV. FIRST DEPT.7

The letter withdraws the December 21 motion under 22 NYCRR § 1250.2 and quotes the rule it relies on: “Withdrawal of Motion. A moving party may file a written request to withdraw a motion at any time prior to its determination.” It states that the Post “hereby withdraws its pending motion without prejudice and expressly reserves the right to refile the motion.”7

It then gives its own reason, which is the reason the District Attorney’s affirmation supplies and not a different one. The Post “intends to refile its motion for an order unsealing the briefs (with appropriate redactions), but has withdrawn its pending motion in response to an affidavit submitted by the office of the Manhattan District Attorney on December 28, 2018. That affidavit asserts that the Post was required, but failed, to provide notice of the unsealing motion to ‘prosecutor’s offices in Florida’ before proceeding with its motion.” The Post did not concede the point: it “firmly believes that it satisfied its obligations by serving the Manhattan District Attorney’s office with a copy of its unsealing motion,” and withdrew because it “wishes to avoid and moot any dispute with the District Attorney’s office over whether the notice requirements of the relevant statute were met.” The last sentence commits it to refiling “next week” and to serving the Florida prosecutors when it does.7 The letter is signed by Balin and copied by email to the Assistant District Attorney and to Epstein’s counsel.22

January 6: Epstein does not oppose

Two days after the withdrawal was filed, counsel for Epstein filed a Response to Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs, dated January 6, 2019 and signed for Troutman Sanders LLP by Bennet J. Moskowitz and by Martin G. Weinberg. It is four lines long. Epstein “does not oppose NYP Holding, Inc’s request to unseal the appellate briefs in the above-captioned matter subject to the proposed redactions of any alleged victim identities, see Post Memorandum at 14, so that the unsealing is consistent with N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b.”23 The page reference is to the conclusion of the December memorandum, the page on which the Post asked for redaction of victims’ names.16

The same position had reached the Post’s counsel three days earlier by email. Browning’s later affirmation quotes it: “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.”24 The man whose brief was under seal did not object to its release. The prosecutor’s office did.

January 11: the same motion again

The refiled papers are a near-copy of the December set with the notice problem cured. The notice of motion is dated January 11, 2019, returnable January 21, and is again signed by Balin and Browning.825 The supporting affirmation, dated the same day, carries eleven new paragraphs recounting the December motion, the District Attorney’s affirmation, the January 2 conversation, the January 3 email from Epstein’s counsel and the January 4 withdrawal, each annexed as an exhibit.21249 Two paragraphs record what the Post did about Florida: on January 10 it was told by the office of State Attorney David Aronberg where to send the motion, and on January 10 and 11 it spoke to Special Counsel to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, who directed it to send the papers to her and hard copies to an Assistant United States Attorney.9 Service went to Epstein’s counsel, to the Assistant District Attorney, to the State Attorney in West Palm Beach and to the Assistant United States Attorney in Miami.26

The refiled memorandum runs to seventeen pages against the December version’s fifteen, adds N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b(2)(b) to the rule under which the motion is brought, and recites the December sequence including the reversal: “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.”2728 Its answer on notice to victims is that the Post cannot notify people it cannot identify, and that “either the Manhattan District Attorney or the Florida Prosecutors should provide notice promptly,” since requiring the Post to do it “without any ability to discover who those victims are” would defeat the provision of section 50-b that lets “any person” apply for good cause.29

January 18 to March 12: the second objection, and the notice given

The District Attorney’s Office answered again. The Post’s supplemental affirmation identifies that answer as an Affirmation in Response to Non-Party Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs, dated January 18, 2019 and filed by Assistant District Attorney Hilary Hassler; the answer itself is not among the documents cited here, and what follows is the Post’s account of it.10 On that account the Office again “faulted the Post for failing to ‘furnish the requisite notice to either the appropriate prosecuting agencies or to the victims themselves,’” and asserted that “the prosecuting agencies … [must] be given an opportunity to be heard” before the motion could be granted.10

The supplemental affirmation, dated March 12, 2019, sets out what had happened in the seven weeks since. The Post had notified and served both Florida offices before filing, and neither had ever objected.11 On January 30 Hassler repeated on the telephone that the Post was required to notify Epstein’s victims before its motion could be granted, “even though the Post does not know who those victims were.”11 On January 31 the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office said its access department was handling the matter and would call back; no call came.11 The same day a staff attorney in the Southern District of Florida said his office had taken no position and was unsure whether it could notify victims on the Post’s behalf.12

On February 5, 2019 that attorney sent an email to three lawyers who then represented Epstein’s victims in various proceedings, attaching the Post’s motion papers and giving the Post’s counsel’s contact details. A month later he confirmed that he had notified them, that no substantive response had come back from the lawyers or from anyone they represented, and that the United States took no position on the motion.12 The affirmation ends with the Post’s own characterisation of the exercise: it “has been forced to jump through unnecessary procedural hoops,” and “the Manhattan DA is the only party to object.”30 Service was to Epstein’s counsel, the Assistant District Attorney, the State Attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney.31

What the record does not show

No order of the Appellate Division granting or denying either motion was returned by the searches described below, and nothing on this page should be read as a statement about how the court disposed of the application or about the present state of that file. The last dated act recorded here is the Post’s filing of March 12, 2019, under four months before Epstein’s arrest in the Southern District of New York.

The papers also contain two internal dating problems, both in the Post’s own documents, and neither is resolved by anything cited here. The supplemental affirmation identifies the refiled supporting affirmation as “dated January 15, 2019,” where the refiled affirmation, the notice of motion and the memorandum in the release are all dated January 11, 2019.1089 And the refiled memorandum’s own date line prints “January 11, 2018,” a year earlier than the notice of motion its counsel signed the same day.29

2017: the same company, in a federal court, asking to be heard first

Nineteen months before the Appellate Division motion, Davis Wright Tremaine wrote to a judge of the Southern District of New York on behalf of NYP Holdings, Inc. and Daily News, L.P. about the civil action numbered 15 Civ. 7433, in which Ghislaine Maxwell was the defendant. The letter is dated May 4, 2017 on its face and was filed on the docket that day; its running head on the later pages reads May 3.2 The plaintiff’s name is blacked out in the caption of the copy read here and is not supplied.

The letter is not a motion. It says the newspapers write in advance of a pre-trial conference because “the confidentiality practices in this case to date raise concerns that the parties may seek to try some or all of this case behind closed doors,” and asks that if any party seeks to close a part of the trial or to seal trial exhibits, the newspapers “be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to oppose any such closure or sealing.”2 It observes that the court had the previous day refused a motion to unseal the summary judgment papers, that the redacted portion of the summary judgment opinion “comprises the entire ‘Facts’ section, nearly two-thirds of the 76-page opinion,” and that a joint pre-trial statement had been filed “completely redacted, save the contact information for the parties’ attorneys.”32 It closes by offering to make “a formal motion to intervene, if the Court determines that such a motion is necessary or proper.”33 A party intervening in the same case joined the request the same day.34

The unsealing decisions in that litigation, including the ones this letter reacts to, are at Unsealing decisions in the Epstein proceedings and Redacted filings.

The two briefs

Both of the documents the Post asked the First Department to unseal are in the released files. The Brief for Defendant-Appellant was filed for Epstein by Kirkland & Ellis LLP; the Brief for Respondent was filed for the People by the District Attorney of New York County, with two Assistant District Attorneys of counsel.3536 The People’s brief carries on its cover the legend that put it out of the Post’s reach: “Pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, the identities of the victims, who are the victims of sex offenses, shall be confidential, and this document shall not be made available for public inspection.”36

Passages of both briefs are quoted at Ruth Pickholz. Nothing further is taken from either of them here, and no page of the People’s brief other than its cover is cited on this page.

Two things this page does not carry

The trademark action against Steven Hoffenberg. An earlier version of this page gave the company’s 2014 trademark litigation against Hoffenberg a section and eight timeline rows, all of them resting on one document: a letter written for Epstein’s counsel to a publisher’s lawyer, summarising the allegations of a complaint that is not itself among the released files. That document is a draft. Its date line reads “August ___, 2016” on the first page and again in the running head, and beneath “Sincerely,” there is a gap and then the typed name, with nothing written on it.37 Whether it was ever sent is an open question, and the accepted page that owns it, the Patterson book, records it as a draft. A corporate history built on an unsigned draft letter written by an adversary’s lawyer, characterising a pleading nobody here has read, is an allegation at two removes reported as a corporate act. The draft and the book correspondence it belongs to are held there and at Paul Hoffman.

The copyright line on archived printouts. Press printouts across the release carry the New York Post’s copyright notice in a footer, because that is what a printed web page carries. A site footer is not a relationship between this company and anybody, and nothing on this page rests on one.

The search run for this page

The released files were searched for “NYP Holdings”, “Unseal Appellate Briefs”, “Non-Party Motion to Unseal”, “Affirmation in Response to Non-Party Motion”, “Davis Wright Tremaine”, “John M. Browning”, “Karen Friedman Agnifilo”, “Hilary Hassler”, “wholesale production of the People”, “requisite notice”, “prosecuting agencies”, “1250.2”, the index number 30129/10 and the appellate number 6081, and for combinations of the appellate number with “unseal”, “granted” and “denied”. Every document cited below was read in full, and every quotation and every signature block on this page was checked against the page image.

Documents

DocumentDescription
EFTA00806708Notice of Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs, December 21, 2018, with the First Department’s received stamp, and the affidavit of service on Epstein’s counsel and the District Attorney
EFTA00798522Affirmation of John M. Browning in support, December 21, 2018, with the three newspaper articles annexed as Exhibits A to C
EFTA00805348Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs, December 21, 2018
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016474 to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016477Affirmation in Response to Motion of Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, December 28, 2018, signed
EFTA00794227The letter of January 4, 2019 withdrawing the motion, hand delivered, with the court’s filed stamp
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016482 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016483A second copy of that letter, annexed to the refiled motion as Exhibit G
EFTA00801681Response to Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs for Epstein, January 6, 2019, stating that he does not oppose
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016421 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016422Signature page and affidavit of service of the refiled notice of motion, January 11, 2019. The caption page that precedes them has no page image on the site
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016424 to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016427Affirmation of John M. Browning in support of the refiled motion, January 11, 2019
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016484 to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016504Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion by NYP Holdings, Inc. to Unseal Appellate Briefs, the refiled version
EFTA00798561Supplemental Affirmation of John M. Browning, March 12, 2019, and its affidavit of service
EFTA02804681Davis Wright Tremaine letter for NYP Holdings, Inc. and Daily News, L.P. to the Southern District of New York, filed May 4, 2017
EFTA02804685An intervenor’s joinder to that letter, the same day
EFTA00603264Appellant’s Brief, one of the two documents the motion sought
EFTA00792500Brief for Respondent, the other; its cover carries the section 50-b sealing legend

Timeline

DateEvent
May 4, 2017Counsel for NYP Holdings, Inc. and Daily News, L.P. ask a federal judge for advance notice of any closure or sealing at trial in No. 15 Civ. 74332
December 4, 2018A Post reporter asks the District Attorney’s Office for its appellate brief with victims’ names redacted, and is refused; the Office writes that it “will not oppose” a petition to the court19
December 20, 2018Epstein’s counsel reserves his right to oppose20
December 21, 2018The motion to unseal is filed and stamped received; service on Epstein’s counsel and the District Attorney113
December 28, 2018Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo signs the Affirmation in Response to Motion6
January 2, 2019She tells the Post’s counsel that the earlier position was a miscommunication and that the Office does oppose21
January 3, 2019Epstein’s counsel writes that he takes no position24
January 4, 2019The Post withdraws the motion without prejudice, stating its reason and its intention to refile7
January 6, 2019Epstein files a response stating that he does not oppose the unsealing23
January 10 and 11, 2019The Post gives notice to the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office and to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida9
January 11, 2019The motion is refiled, returnable January 21825
January 18, 2019Assistant District Attorney Hilary Hassler files the Office’s response, again on notice10
January 30 and 31, 2019She repeats the position by telephone; neither Florida office objects11
February 5, 2019An Assistant United States Attorney emails three lawyers acting for victims, enclosing the Post’s motion papers12
March 12, 2019The Post files its supplemental affirmation, saying the objections are mooted and only the Manhattan District Attorney objects1130

Unsealing decisions in the Epstein proceedings; Ruth Pickholz; Epstein’s New York cases; Redacted filings; The Patterson book; Paul Hoffman; Julie K. Brown; Brad Edwards; Paul G. Cassell.

Footnotes

  1. “Notice of Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein, App. Div. No. 6081 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t), on appeal from New York County Index No. 30129/10, dated New York, December 21, 2018, signed for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00806708 p.1. Read at the page image; the clerk’s stamp reads RECEIVED, DEC 21 2018, SUP COURT APP. DIV. FIRST DEPT. The telephone, facsimile and email lines on p.2 are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  2. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP to a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of non-parties NYP Holdings, Inc. and Daily News, L.P., in No. 15 Civ. 7433, Document 898, filed May 4, 2017. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02804681 p.1. Read at the page image; the plaintiff’s name is blacked out in the caption of this copy and is not supplied here, the letter’s own date line reads May 4, 2017 and its running head on later pages reads May 3, 2017, and the firm’s telephone, facsimile and email lines are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, December 21, 2018. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 pp.1 and 5. Read at the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. “Affirmation in Response to Motion”, People v. Epstein, N.Y. Co. Ind. No. 30129/10, calendar date December 31, 2018, of Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Assistant District Attorney, of counsel to Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney of New York County, paragraph 1. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016474 p.1. Read at the page image. The cover sheet is at https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016477 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  5. The same affirmation, paragraphs 2 and 3. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475 p.1. Read at the page image; the ellipsis inside the quotation from Civil Rights Law § 50-b(2)(b) is the affirmation’s own. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. The signature page, dated New York, December 28, 2018, signed above the typed name. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016476 p.1. Read at the page image. The telephone line beneath the signature is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Robert D. Balin, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, to the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, January 4, 2019, hand delivered, “Re: Motion to Unseal Briefs (with Names of Victims Redacted) in People v. Epstein, N.Y. Co. Index No. 30129/10 (Appellate Division No. 6081)”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00794227 p.1. Read at the page image; the court’s stamp reads FILED, JAN 4 2019, SUP COURT APP. DIV. FIRST DEPT. The machine reading of this page garbles the signatory’s surname and the appellate number; both are taken from the image. The letterhead prints an email address, which is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  8. “Notice of Motion by NYP Holdings, Inc. to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, dated New York, January 11, 2019, returnable January 21, 2019, on the affirmation of John M. Browning sworn to on January 11, 2019. The first page of that notice, which is the page carrying the caption and the return date, has no page image on the site and is read here from the machine text alone; the signature page, which does render, is cited next and confirms the date and the signatures. Every other quotation taken from the refiled package on this page is cited to a page identifier that renders, and each was checked at the image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  9. The same affirmation, paragraphs 15 to 17 and the date line. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016427 p.1. The email address given in paragraph 16 for the Florida state attorney’s office is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  10. “Supplemental Affirmation of John M. Browning in Further Support of Motion to Unseal”, March 12, 2019, paragraphs 2 and 3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798561 pp.1 and 2. Read at the page image; the bracketed “[must]” and the ellipsis in the quotation from the District Attorney’s response are the affirmation’s own. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  11. The same affirmation, paragraphs 4 to 6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798561 p.2. Read at the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  12. The same affirmation, paragraphs 7 to 10. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798561 p.3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  13. Affidavit of service sworn December 21, 2018, recording service by overnight mail on counsel for Epstein at Boston and on the District Attorney, New York County, at One Hogan Place. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00806708 pp.3 and 4. ↩ ↩2

  14. The preliminary statement. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 pp.5 and 6. Read at the page image. The memorandum’s own sentence recording the District Attorney’s stated position reads “it do not oppose” in the print; that sentence is not quoted on this page, and the office’s words are taken from the affirmation instead. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. The statute and the good-cause exception as the memorandum states them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 p.8. ↩

  16. The request for redaction and the conclusion, printed pp.9 and 14 of the memorandum. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 pp.13 and 18. Read at the page image. ↩ ↩2

  17. Footnote 3 of the memorandum, printed p.14. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 p.18. ↩

  18. The account of the December 4 request and refusal, printed p.8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00805348 p.12. Read at the page image; the emphasis in “will not oppose” is in the print. ↩

  19. “Affirmation of John M. Browning in Support of Motion to Unseal”, sworn December 21, 2018, paragraphs 6 to 8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798522 pp.1 and 2. Read at the page image; the caption is on p.1 and the quoted paragraphs on p.2. ↩ ↩2

  20. The same affirmation, paragraphs 9 and 10. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798522 pp.2 and 3. ↩ ↩2

  21. “Affirmation of John M. Browning in Support of Motion to Unseal”, January 11, 2019, paragraphs 11 to 13. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016426 p.1. Read at the page image. Its first page is at https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016424 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  22. The signature and copy lines of the same letter. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00794227 p.2. Read at the page image; it is signed above the typed name, and the copy line prints the Assistant District Attorney’s surname as “Agnifino”, which is the letter’s own error, her signed affirmation spelling it Agnifilo. ↩

  23. “Response to Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, App. Div. No. 6081, dated January 6, 2019, signed for Troutman Sanders LLP by Bennet J. Moskowitz and by Martin G. Weinberg. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00801681 p.1. Read at the page image; the telephone and facsimile lines in both signature blocks are blacked out, and the print reads “NYP Holding, Inc’s” and “Jeffery Epstein”. ↩ ↩2

  24. The same affirmation, paragraph 14. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016426 p.1. Read at the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. The signature page of the refiled notice of motion, dated New York, January 11, 2019 and signed. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016421 p.1. Read at the page image; the telephone, facsimile and email lines are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2

  26. Affidavit of service for the refiled motion, recording service on counsel for Epstein, the Assistant District Attorney at One Hogan Place, the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit at West Palm Beach and an Assistant United States Attorney at Miami. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016422 p.1. Read at the image on 2026-09-14. The sheet is headed AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE under App. Div. No. 6081, folioed 3, and the service date printed in the body reads January 14, 2018 — “On January 14, 2018, I served a true and correct copy of the annexed by mail in the custody of Federal Express directed to the following:” over John Browning’s name. It carries no jurat, no signature and no notary block, and its Dated: New York, New York line is followed by nothing: the date beneath it is blank. An earlier version of this footnote said the jurat reads January 11, 2019. There is no jurat on this sheet at all, and that claim is withdrawn rather than moved to another sheet. The January 11, 2019 date line this page does rely on is the one at 25 and 9, on HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016421 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016427; those two sheets were read for this page by their own footnotes and were not re-opened by this pass. The sheet’s footer reads 4848-4442-5859v.1 3930033-000039. ↩

  27. “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion by NYP Holdings, Inc. to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, the refiled version, cover and preliminary statement. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016484 p.1; https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016488 p.1. ↩

  28. The refiled memorandum’s account of the December sequence, printed p.9. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496 p.1. Its date line for the December motion prints the year as 2019, which the notice of motion and the affirmation both give as 2018. ↩

  29. The refiled memorandum’s argument on notice to victims, its conclusion and its date line, printed p.17. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016504 p.1. Read at the page image; the date line prints “January 11, 2018”. ↩ ↩2

  30. The same affirmation, paragraphs 11 and 12. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798561 pp.3 and 4. ↩ ↩2

  31. Affidavit of service sworn March 15, 2019 for the supplemental affirmation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798561 pp.5 and 6. ↩

  32. The same letter, on the scope of the redactions then in place. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02804681 pp.2 and 3. Read at the page image; p.3 carries a redaction over a name in a cited article title, and nothing under it is used. ↩

  33. The closing of the same letter. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02804681 p.4. ↩

  34. Joinder to Document 898 filed the same day for an intervenor in the same action, Document 899. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02804685 p.1. ↩

  35. “Appellant’s Brief”, People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t), filed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP; cover page only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00603264 p.1. The cover prints two counsel email addresses and the firm’s telephone and facsimile, none of which is reproduced. No other page of this document is cited on this page. ↩

  36. “Brief for Respondent”, the same appeal, for Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York County, with Gina Mignola and Deborah L. Morse, Assistant District Attorneys, of counsel; cover page only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00792500 p.1. Read at the page image; the sealing legend is printed at the head of the cover. No other page of this document is cited on this page. ↩ ↩2

  37. Charles Michael, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, to Eric Rayman, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP, undated draft, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583735 pp.1 and 3. Read at the page image: the date line reads “August ___, 2016” on p.1 and in the running head on p.3, and the space above the typed name at the close is empty. The letterhead and the copy line carry blacked-out contact details and one email address, none of which is reproduced. ↩

Backlinks