Datasets:
File size: 2,330 Bytes
af43568 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 | ---
title: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475)"
source: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)"
sourceUrl: "https://www.justice.gov/epstein"
date: "2026-01-01"
category: "House Oversight"
eftaNumber: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475"
ocrPages: 1
ocrChars: 1765
ocrElapsed: 0.0
parseTier: "external-legacy"
engine: "engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)"
externalSource: "greg-ep-nov-12"
externalLicense: "not granted"
externalCredit: "ep-nov-12.greg.technology"
externalUrl: "https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology"
---
In order to protect the privacy interests of victims of sex crimes, the plain
language of Civil Rights Law § 50-b prohibits production to the public of the appellate briefs,
which would reveal the identities of many of defendant's sex crime victims. To be sure, the
statute provides for a narrow exception to the confidentiality requirement, permitting
disclosure, by court order, of information for "good cause" and upon "notice to the victim...
and the public officer oi employee charged with the duty of prosecuting the offense." Civil
Rights Law § 50-b(2)(b). We note that the prosecuting agencies for defendant's underlying
sex crimes are the federal and local prosecutor's offices in Flotida, where defendant was
charged. By all appearances, the Post has yet to furish 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.
3.
In any event, and in keeping with the People's obligation under Civil Rights
Law § 50-b to protect the privacy of the victims of sex crimes, we 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.' 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
'According to the Post's filing, they have contacted defendant's current counsel, who has
reserved the right to oppose the disclosure of defendant's appellate brief.
2
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016475
|