Why were some of Epstein’s clients names still redacted from the released court files?

Question

Jeffrey Einstein’s court records have now largely been unsealed. But some of the names still remain redacted. Why did those people get to keep their names from getting released?

Answer 1

Because they were victims

Or, people who, if identified, would identify victims.

The judge said a handful of names should remain blacked out in the documents because they would identify people who were sexually abused.

Answer 2

Firstly, the court, as far as I can tell, does not use "clients" to describe anyone, because that's not a relevant label for the issue being litigated and not a characterization that has, at least in this context, any legal significance that is different from how the term is used in common speech. The court firstly would need to differentiate the interests of the parties and non-parties, and balance that with the interest of the public, for whom access to judicial documents have been a recognized common law right since effectively the founding of the United States and certainly prior to that under jurisdictions that follow the common law. It is certainly established today by a plethora of court decisions, including by the Supreme Court, but because it is a right that by its nature affects the right of others, must be balanced. Everyone would love to have bright-line rules to go by, but this is a particularly complicated matter that require a case by case examination of each person involved in the litigation and redactions made that pertains to them. The sheer volume of documents generated by the case means that the release is being conducted on a rolling basis and one should not simply assume that this is the final state of unsealing. This has been referenced repeatedly but seems to not have gotten prominent coverage by the news, but the news also routinely as almost a matter of spiting the attorneys statutory maximum sentences that for all intents and purposes will never actually be imposed, and have a lot of trouble with how to treat testimony and documents submitted in an adversarial system as something other than gospel coming from the government's side. So, don't trust, verify, and luckily, The docket is available for all to review, sans paywall, thanks to the Free Law Project. (Side note and full disclosure: I seem to be the only named sponsor of their project on Github, go figure, since I'm definitely not the only person who answers questions here and on StackOverflow).

The docket is a bit of a mess, and at some point every party or non-party had some reason to keep something redacted basically. After about three years of back and forth between the parties in question and non-parties intervening, the basic method by which unsealing would proceed was established pretty much the week COVID shut down the country, and it is both authoritative and surprisingly easy to read an should be considered the procedural framework. Everything that came afterwards are the objections that needed to be addressed, slowly, bit by bit, that have taken up much of the last 3+ years. By earky 2023, this is the master list of the remaining redacted personages as submitted jointly by the parties alongside arguments if any of their views, By mid December, the court's decision on each redacted person that is still left, which serves s the basis for the latest round, is more or less concrete and thorough. The actual release of documentation will proceed. You can see the rationale for each yet-unnamed individual, and the docket itself has plenty relating to those who made arguments prior to these lists being made. Broadly speaking, almost everyone whose testimony would be sealed were minors whose stories were not reported by journalists, as well as employees who were effectively bystanders who had little leverage to do much, those who are identified mistakenly and were never a party of the actual allegations, or are deceased. The list is the state of unredactions prior to the latest rounds and you can easily figure out who is left by cross referencing the docket with the references contained in the pdf order. The reason for why any are marked as allowed to remain as redacted is stated and where possible, properly cited as well in terms of law.

As for why GatewayPundit tried to intervene 7 years late? I don't know, since non-sports punditry doesn't interest me all that much and their argument seems to be "we are not familiar with how much work the court puts in to follow the law" which is I suppose the appellate version of an affirmative defense in criminal law. An affirmative defense is essentially a "I did it, but..." defense and one learns very quickly that juries seldom pay attention past the "I did it" part. The 2nd Circuit takedown of their pleading to ignorance is also contained in the docket. Without that frolic, it's likely that this would have happened a year ago, but better late than never.

You don't have to agree with the law, but at least it is an on-the-record explanation that can be referenced. This is not the only case that arises out of the Epstein affair but as the dump comes out of this particular docket, well, this is the primary source. And it's not unusual for different people, lawyers included, to come up with a different outcome when applying a balancing test. That is a feature of such tests, and in lieu of a better system, it's what the courts use.