U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman has issued a ruling that denies the U.S. Justice Department’s motion to unseal 70 pages of grand jury materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. In his 14-page decision, Berman described the request as a ‘diversion’ from the broader set of documents in the government’s possession, which include over 100,000 pages. This decision comes after the White House publicly criticized the judge’s ruling, highlighting the potential for greater transparency in the Epstein Files. The materials at the center of the motion include a 56-page transcript of an FBI agent’s presentation from June 18, 2019, a 14-page transcript of a follow-up presentation on July 2, along with a PowerPoint exhibit and a call log. These documents were compiled during an investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes.
Berman emphasized the safety and privacy concerns raised by victims’ rights lawyers, who argued that releasing the materials could jeopardize the identities of more than 1,000 victims in the case. While 23 victims testified before the court after Epstein’s death in 2019, the majority of victims remain undisclosed. The judge noted that the public interest in the case is not sufficient to override these safety concerns, citing the government’s existing access to the broader Epstein Files. The ruling aligns with a prior decision by Judge Paul Engelmayer in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former lover, who was convicted in 2021 for her role in trafficking teen girls. In that case, Engelmayer ruled that the grand jury was not part of the investigation and did not include firsthand witness testimony.
Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, has an ongoing appeal and has stated her willingness to participate in interviews with federal prosecutors and Congress. Epstein, who died in a federal jail cell in 2019, left behind a legacy of legal and ethical controversy, with his brother disputing the official suicide ruling. The ongoing litigation surrounding the Epstein Files highlights the tension between public curiosity and the protection of victims’ identities in high-profile criminal cases. As the legal battles continue, the balance of transparency, privacy, and justice remains a focal point of the proceedings.