A federal judge in Florida has granted the Trump administration’s motion to unseal grand jury transcripts from the initial federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein in the mid-2000s. The order also grants the government’s request to modify any protective orders in place that would inhibit public disclosure.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith – a Trump appointee – determined that the language of the recently-enacted Epstein Transparency Act “overrides” federal rules prohibiting the public disclosure of grand jury materials.
“The Act applies to unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,” Smith wrote in an order Friday. “Consequently, the later-enacted and specific language of the Act trumps Rule 6’s prohibition on disclosure. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that United States’ Expedited Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts and Modify Protective Order…is GRANTED.”
Smith is one of three federal judges asked by the DOJ to unseal grand jury materials in cases involving Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Smith is the first to rule. Two judges in New York are expected to issue their decisions next week.
This is the second time the DOJ has gone to those courts asking for the grand jury materials to be unsealed. Those earlier attempts – before the Epstein Transparency Act was passed, requiring the disclosure of materials related to Epstein’s cases within 30 days with certain exceptions — were rejected by each court.
Smith’s order does not address redactions to the records to protect the privacy interests of Epstein’s victims. It will be up to the DOJ to make those redactions, as administration officials have promised to do before disclosing records to the public.
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida used two separate grand juries during their initial probes in the mid-2000s of Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking of minors. Neither grand jury was asked to indict Epstein, and there was never a federal criminal prosecution of Epstein in Florida. Instead, Epstein and federal prosecutors negotiated a non-prosecution agreement which resulted in Epstein’s guilty pleas in state court.
Witnesses express concerns about privacy in New York cases
In the New York cases, the courts have received input and objections from witnesses, victims and others expressing concerns about personal privacy, redaction of victim information and the potential impacts the court’s rulings could have on public disclosure of the Epstein files.
Annie Farmer – a witness who testified against Maxwell at her criminal trial in 2021 – urged the judges to make “abundantly clear” that any decision they make about the DOJ’s motions “does not affect the Department of Justice’s ability to release documents subject to the [Epstein] Transparency Act,” including materials contained in the 300 gigabytes of data the government has said it has in its possession.
“While Ms. Farmer remains hopeful that the instant motions reflect a bona fide desire by the Government to provide greater transparency into Epstein’s crimes, she is wary of the possibility that any denial of the motions may be used by others as a pretext or excuse for continuing to withhold crucial information concerning Epstein’s crimes,” wrote Sigrid McCawley, counsel for Farmer and other Epstein and Maxwell accusers.
The Epstein Transparency Act contains a number of exceptions that could allow the DOJ to withhold or redact certain records, including records that could result in victim identification or a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” There is also an exception for records related to any “active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.”
The DOJ faces a Dec. 19 deadline to comply with the law’s provisions.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer – who will decide the DOJ’s motion on the Maxwell docket – also received letters from attorneys for two men; one a potential witness at the Maxwell trial who wasn’t called and another whose name had been contained in court files in civil litigation against Maxwell but who had successfully argued for his name to be redacted when those records were unsealed.
“I submit that all personally identifiable information regarding my client is within the ambit of the Act’s permitted withholdings and that this information must be redacted pursuant to the Act, because that disclosure without redaction would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of my client’s personal privacy,” wrote Avrom Robin, an attorney for the witness who wasn’t called.
The attorneys for both men argued that the language of the Epstein Transparency Act contains no specific mention of grand jury materials and that the government’s motion to unseal those records should be denied. Absent such a ruling, they argue that the names of their clients should be redacted or remain under seal.
The Department of Justice has been ordered by the courts to respond to the concerns raised in the letters by Monday.
