https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-judge-orders-documents-naming-jeffrey-epsteins-associates/story?id=105779882

Answers resolve to YES if the documents are revealed, and subject of the answer is named.

Answers resolve to NO if subjects of the answers are not named in the documents OR if redactions to documents omit explicit references to them.

Resolves to N/A if the documents are not revealed for some reason, or if there are duplicates (please carefully review answers before adding new ones).

Since the judge set the reveal date for Jan 1st, this market will close on that date unless the deadline is extended, at which point, the close date will also be moved.

EDIT: I should also mention that answers will not resolve to YES unless they are implicated of being associated with Epstein's criminal activity in some way, and not being a victim of Epstein. This should be obvious, but I'm stating it in writing before someone brings it up.

EDIT 2: I have come across the PDF of collected documents, which is something I am able to work with. Because of this, I'm fairly confident I can close the market and start resolving answers. Since clarification has been requested, I will add it to this description. My criteria for judging whether someone is "implicated" are as follows:

1. Did someone on this list regularly associate themselves with Epstein after his 2008 conviction? This would include anyone who is referenced in the unsealed documents having direct dealings with Epstein, and have been implied to have enabled his criminal activity in some way.

2. Is there some document where someone is making a concrete accusation that a named person is involved in Epstein's criminal activity, or otherwise participated in criminal activity? This is what I'm goin to focus on first.

Note that it is possible that nobody in the answers is present in these documents in this way, and since I phrased the question the way I did, if I can't satisfy the above criteria using the documentation provided by the court, I will resolve to NO.

Note: When resolving YES or NO on someone who is mentioned in the documents, I will provide my reasoning about why I'm resolving one way or the other in the comments. If I do not do this, it's because the person in question is not mentioned in the documents.

I hope this seems fair to everyone. I will be closing this question again as of now. Thanks again to everyone who answered!