EPSTEIN
page 5 / 14 . OCR, unverified
also Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(d).
Copies of those motions are attached hereto as Exhibits I and 2.
Case 9:25-mc-80920-RLR Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2025 Page 3 of 14
Because the only judicial proceedings giving rise to this petition are located in the Southern
District of New York, "the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the
petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper." Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(e)(3)(G). The underlying matters have been litigated in the Southern District of New York, but
no similar action exists in the Southern District of Florida. The Southern District of New York can
better assess the need for the release of transcripts resulting from those historic cases and the scope
of necessary redactions based upon information already disseminated through the trial and public
docket. Cf Douglas Oil Co. of Ca. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211,212 (1979) ("[T]he better
practice would have been for the [petitioned] Court, after making a written evaluation of the need
for continued grand jury secrecy and a determination that the limited evidence before it showed
that disclosure might be appropriate, to send the requested materials to the [] Court where the civil
cases were pending."); Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(G) ("If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it
must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written
evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy.''). Judicial efficiency counsels in favor of
transferring this petition to the Southern District of New York so that one court may consider all
the related materials and issue consistent rulings.
B.
This Investigation Constitutes a Special Circumstance Justifying Disclosure
Consistent with its petition, the government recognizes that Eleventh Circuit precedent
holds that no exception outside those expressly enumerated under Criminal Rule 6(e)(3) authorizes
a court to publicly disclose grand jury materials. See Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, I 229
( I Ith Cir. 2020) ( en bane). The government also recognizes that, in this circuit, only an en bane
decision or the Supreme Court may overrule that decision. See generally Scott v. United States,
890 F.3d 1239. 1257 (discussing prior-panel-precedent rule).
Case 9:25-mc-80920-RLR Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2025 Page 4 of 14
That said, decisions from other circuits support public disclosure of grand jury materials
under "special circumstances," including when a matter possesses historical interest by the public.
See In re Biaggi. 478 F.2d 489, 494 (2d Cir. 1973) (affirming release of grand jury witness
testimony based on the "special circumstances" of the case); In re Craig, 13 I F.3d 99, I 02 (2d Cir.
1997) ("[W]e hold today that there is nothing ... that prohibits historical interest, on its own, from
justifying release of grand-jury material in an appropriate case."); Carlson v. United States, 837
F.3d 753, 766-67 (7th Cir. 2016) ("While [the court's] inherent supervisory authority is limited to
'preserving or enhancing the traditional functioning' of the grand jury, that includes the power to
unseal grand jury materials in circumstances not addressed by Rule 6( e )(3 )(E). ") ( cleaned up).
The Second Circuit's decision in In re Biaggi demonstrates that public interest in an
investigation might constitute a special circumstance justifying public disclosure. There, the
district court ordered the public disclosure of a political candidate's grand jury testimony given
less than two years earlier. In re Biaggi, 4 78 F.2d at 490. The events preceding the district court's
order included press coverage on how the candidate allegedly responded to questions during his
testimony. See id. at 490-91. That coverage eventually led to a television broadcast during which
the candidate announced that he would request to have his testimony reviewed by the court to
determine whether he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to questions about his
personal finances and assets. Id. at 491. Contrary to that more limited request, the U.S. Attorney
moved for disclosure of all the candidate's testimony, which the district court ultimately ordered.
Id. at 49 I. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order because the candidate's more
limited request "was framed .. . in such a manner as to create a false impression in light of the
publicity that had given rise to it." Id. at 494. Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that the district
court did not abuse its discretion considering the "special circumstances" of the case. See id.
Case 9:25-mc-80920-RLR Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2025 Page 5 of 14
Similar to the U.S. Attorney's request in In re Biaggi, the governmenfs position here is
that the public's strong interest in this historical investigation into Jeffrey Epstein constitutes a
special circumstance justifying the public disclosure of grand jury materials. The public's interest