Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002368A
JEFFREY W. BABIN,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002357A
JOSEPH M. DANIELS,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002349A
JOHN DEORA,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 2019-MM-002412A
v
CRAIG FIRING,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 2019-MM-002401A
v.
TIMOTHY R. GOERING,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002352A
JOHN PAUL HAVENS,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002346A
ROBERT KRAFT,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002348A
ROBERT KRAFT,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
MINGFU LU,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002416A
JUSTO M. NARANJO,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002356A
JAMES G. PORTER,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002347A
MARTIN SEGAL,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002405A
JOHN OLIVER VOIROL,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
Case No. 2019-MM-002354A
JONATHAN SCOTT WEISS,
Defendant.
______________________________/
STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant.
______________________________/
The Defendants in the above-captioned matters, all of which arise out of the same
investigation, hereby jointly move this Honorable Court to enter a protective order in these
related matters, which will preclude any party from copying or permitting, facilitating, making, or
granting any public access to the evidence gathered during the investigation at issue, including
any video-evidence related thereto, pending further order of the Court. In support thereof, the
1. The State of Florida has filed misdemeanor charges against all of the Defendants in the
above-captioned actions. More specifically, the State has charged each Defendant with
2. These misdemeanor charges were filed in or about February 2019, and all arose out of a
law enforcement investigation concerning the Orchids of Asia Day Spa, located at 103 S. U.S.
Highway 1, Suite C2, in the Jupiter Square Plaza (the “Spa”). According to law enforcement, that
investigation began in or about October 2018 and was led by the Town of Jupiter Police
investigations.
3. Evidence collected during the course of that investigation (collectively, the “Materials”)
includes video-recordings made by a set of hidden cameras (the “Videos”), which were installed
by law enforcement inside the Spa on or about January 17, 2019, pursuant to a warrant issued by
this Court on or about January 15, 2019. Certain Videos depict the Defendants engaged in
4. The Materials are exempt from public disclosure because they constitute “[a]ctive
which are “exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.” Fla. Stat. §
5. First, all the Materials meet the definition of criminal intelligence and/or investigative
information, as set out by statute. See Fla. Sta. § 119.011(3)(a) (“‘Criminal intelligence
6. Second, none of the Materials have been produced in discovery to any of the
Intervenors, and so the Materials still qualify as confidential and exempt. See Fla. Stat.
119.011(3)(c)(5); WESH Television, Inc. v. Freeman, 691 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
(noting that “information gathered by the state in its investigation against a criminal defendant
. . . is not open to the public until the state gives or is required to give it to the defendant”).
7. Third, because the Defendants’ cases remain pending, the Materials remain “active,”
and therefore confidential and exempt. See Fla. Stat. § 119.011(3)(d)2 (stating, in part, that
“criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information shall be considered ‘active’ while
8. Furthermore, although the Defendants dispute the position of the prosecutors that there
may be a “victim” of any offense at issue in these cases, that mere possibility provides an
additional basis for maintaining the confidentiality of the Materials. See Fla. Stat. §
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should enter the concurrently-filed Proposed
Protective Order, and thereby safeguard the confidentiality of these Materials, and in particular
Respectfully submitted,
FOR ROBERT KRAFT
William Burck
Alex Spiro
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000
Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the
Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served via E-Service upon the