Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-16639House OversightOther

Request to Unseal Appellate Briefs in Epstein Case Citing Public Interest

The passage merely argues for the unsealing of existing court documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and the Manhattan District Attorney's office. It does not provide new factual leads, specific transac Petitioner seeks court order to unseal appellate briefs concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Cites New York Civil Rights Law § 50‑b as basis for disclosure. Claims the Manhattan DA's office showed undue defer

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #016499
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely argues for the unsealing of existing court documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and the Manhattan District Attorney's office. It does not provide new factual leads, specific transac Petitioner seeks court order to unseal appellate briefs concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Cites New York Civil Rights Law § 50‑b as basis for disclosure. Claims the Manhattan DA's office showed undue defer

Tags

civil-rights-lawjeffrey-epsteincourt-recordsunsealingpublic-records-requestmanhattan-district-attorneylegal-exposurehouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
limiting public access to judicial records or proceedings. Daily News, L.P. v. Wiley, 126 A.D.3d 511, 515, 6 N.Y.S.3d 19, 24 (1st Dep’t 2015) (before sealing records, courts “must adhere strictly to the procedures set forth in the controlling case law including affording a full opportunity by any interested members of the press to be heard, and making specific findings to support its determination .... [T]rial court[s]... cannot... seal evidence and transcripts merely because the parties are consenting to same and the case has obtained notoriety.”). Therefore, in the unlikely event that this Court declines to grant the Post’s motion to unseal, either in part or in toto, the Post respectfully requests that this Court issue a written order setting forth the grounds for its decision. Il. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO UNSEAL THE APPELLATE BRIEFS The appellate briefs should be disclosed because they are highly relevant to the public’s understanding of whether the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney ~ whose fundamental mission is to protect the people of this State — initially showed undue deference to a dangerous pedophile, who is unusually rich and well-connected. New York Civil Rights Law section 50-b permits courts to disclose court documents relating to the commission of a sexual offense whenever a showing is made that “good cause exists for disclosure.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-b. See also 22 NYCCR § 1250.1(e)(3) (permitting the “unsealing [of] court records . . . upon good cause shown”). Good cause clearly exists for disclosing the appellate briefs because they contain a full explanation for why the District Attorney’s Office argued before the lower court that Epstein should be registered as a level one sex offender before changing position on appeal. See Epsiein, 89 A.D. at 571, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 241. The appellate briefs may also shed light on the extent of “the evidence . . . that [Epstein] committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls,” which the District 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone3930033
Phone811-3721

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.