Two anonymous individuals have filed court documents to keep details related to Jeffrey Epstein (pictured in an arrest photo from 2006) from ever becoming public, citing privacy concerns

Two anonymous individuals are fighting to keep details related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex crime scandal from ever becoming public, citing their own privacy concerns.

The details they want to remain private are contained in documents that were part of a lawsuit brought by alleged sex slave Virginia L. Giuffre (now Roberts) against Epstein-friend Ghislaine Maxwell, who Giuffre has accused of aiding Epstein, 66, in sex trafficking.

That lawsuit was settled in May of 2017, but now an appeals court has indicated it would make filings from the case with lurid details about Epstein's sex acts, and those of others, public, after the trial court judge refused to do so.

Maxwell and two others going only by 'John Doe' and 'J. Doe' argue that keeping the documents sealed, or at least covering up names and personal information of other people not named as a party in the lawsuit, is necessary to protect people 'whose privacy and reputations may be jeopardized,' according to court documents obtained by DailyMail.com.

Giuffre, however, argues the documents 'should be immediately unsealed,' stating that '[m]ost of the materials do nothing more than demonstrate her [Maxwell's] role as a lynchpin in an international sex trafficking organization.'

Giuffre is joined by three other parties in arguing for the release of the documents, including the Miami Herald.

The documents were filed in alleged sex slave Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, a friend of Epstein's, which was settled in May of 2017. Virginia Giuffre (now Roberts) is pictured holding a photo of herself at age 16, when she says Palm Beach multimillionaire Epstein began abusing her sexually

Giuffre is pictured in 2011, three years after Epstein took a plea deal

Epstein had a Palm Beach, Florida, mansion and has been accused by alleged victims of bringing at least 40 underage girls for what turned into sexual encounters.

Authorities said he had female fixers who would look for suitable girls, some local and others recruited from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world.

Epstein took a controversial plea deal in 2008 which allowed him to avoid federal charges by pleading guilty to a lesser, single state charge of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.

He served 13 months in custody, paid financial settlements to victims and registered as a sex offender.

Now, Giuffre is fighting to unseal documents which she said 'prove the truth' that she was sex trafficked by Epstein with the help of Maxwell.

Giuffre's attorney has said documents, which are part of a motion for summary judgment in her 2017 settled lawsuit against Epstein's alleged right-hand woman, are focused solely on Maxwell, and not on other individuals, so privacy concerns are not an issue.

A motion for summary judgment is a motion for the court to decide a case before a trial ever begins. It generally will include what one party considers to be the facts of the case, and the other party will have a chance to respond with his or her own version of the truth.

'The summary judgment filings focused solely on whether Ms. Maxwell was an essential co-conspirator in Epstein's international sex trafficking organization,' the filing read.

'It may be "embarrassing" for Ms. Maxwell to have the world know the scope of her involvement in the trafficking of underage girls intentionally for sexual purposes. But her involvement in a criminal enterprise does not remotely approach legitimate ground for sealing.'

Ghislaine Maxwell (left), and now two people referred to as 'John Doe' and 'J. Doe' are arguing the documents should remain under seal to protect the privacy of people who have not been implicated in Epstein's (right) alleged sex crimes publicly, up to this point

Giuffre argues that all personally identifying information of anyone besides Maxwell can be removed from the documents before they are made public.

Former federal prosecutor Nick Lewin on behalf of a 'John Doe,' and Washington-based gender equality attorney Kerrie Campbell on behalf of a 'J. Doe,' have now joined Maxwell in fighting to keep whatever is stated in those documents a secret.

According to Lewin, US District Court Judge Robert Sweet, who presided over the lawsuit, described the documents as including 'a range of allegations of sexual acts involving Plaintiff [Giuffre] and non-parties to this litigation, some famous, some not,' as well as 'the identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff or who allegedly facilitated such act[s].'

Sweet said about the case, 'This defamation action from its inception in September 2015 to its settlement in May 2017 has been bitterly contested and difficult to administer because of the truth or falsity of the allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent, some private.'

Lewin is now arguing that to make the documents public as a whole 'will almost certainly disclose... allegations that may be the product of false statements or, perhaps, simply mistake, confusion, or failing memories of events alleged to have occurred over a decade and half ago.'

Campbell said her client, J. Doe, is 'objecting to public disclosure of specific content pertaining to Doe to protect compelling personal privacy interests.'

The filing was initially kept private by Judge Sweet with the understanding that they would become public at the time of trial, according to Giuffre's attorney.

But there never was, and never will be a trial, because the lawsuit settled in May of 2017.

It was three other parties seeking to make the documents public that resulted in Judge Sweet ruling they should remain private, Politico reported.

Harvard law professor and former Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who is now a prominent Trump defender, along with filmmaker and far-right social media personality Mike Cernovich, and the Miami Herald, each asked the judge to unseal the filings.

Dershowitz said he wanted the records made public to discredit allegations made by two women that he had sex with them at Epstein’s direction, which Dershowitz has denied.

Cernovich argued for the release because he said the continued secrecy has undermined efforts to expose sexual trafficking by the wealthiest Americans.

The Miami Herald asked the judge to make all records pertaining to the case public for inclusion in reporting on Epstein, which was published without the documents last year.

After Judge Sweet denied all three requests, a panel of three judges on New York's US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments in favor of unlocking whatever secrets were contained within the files.

That appellate court indicated that it would make the documents public soon, and set a deadline of Tuesday for anyone to come forward with specific reasons as to why the documents should remain under seal.

Giuffre has stated that redacting information like names, social security numbers and the like of third parties would not be difficult and so it should not be an argument against releasing the documents.

'Ms. Giuffre wants the summary judgment materials unsealed to demonstrate that she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to their powerful friends, both in this country and overseas,' Giuffre's filing reads.

'Indeed, Ms. Giuffre continues to suffer prejudice from every day that Ms. Maxwell succeeds in delaying that disclosure.'

Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit brought by alleged victims of Epstein, US District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in February that federal prosecutors in Florida violated the rights of victims by secretly reaching a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein related to the accusations that he sexually abusing dozens of underage girls.

The plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein agreed to back in 2008 saved the accused child rapist from having to register as a sex offender in 31 of 50 states.

The Washington Post reports that the victim who Epstein admitted to soliciting for prostitution was not the 14-year-old girl who first reported the millionaire money manager, but rather another girl, 16, whose age was left blank on court documents.

That victim's age means that Epstein did not have to register as a sex offender in states like New Mexico, where he owns a 7,600-acre property called Zorro Ranch, and allows him to be classified as a low risk offender in the US Virgin Islands, which is currently his primary residence.

Marra said in a 33-page decision that victims of Epstein should have been consulted under federal law about the deal. Marra stopped short of invalidating the non-prosecution agreement but asked prosecutors and victims' lawyers to recommend how to move forward.

'While the government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the (agreement) with Epstein's attorneys, scant information was shared with victims,' Marra wrote. 'Instead, the victims were told to be '"patient" while the investigation proceeded.'

The law, Marra added, 'lends itself to only one interpretation; namely, that victims should be notified of significant events resulting in resolution of their case without a trial.'

'They were cutting a plea deal. It wasn’t a prosecution,' said attorney Spencer Kuvin, who represented the 14-year-old girl who alerted police.

'They had a grab bag of 40 girls to choose from.'

He then revealed that he and his client believed they had been the victim referenced in the plea deal.

'It’s unbelievably upsetting,' said Kuvin. 'The rug has been swiped out from under the one girl who was brave enough to come forward and break this thing.'

Epstein reached the deal in 2008 with then-Miami US Attorney Alexander Acosta's office to end the federal probe that could have landed him in prison for life. Epstein instead pleaded guilty to lesser state charges, spent 13 months in prison, registered as a sex offender and paid financial settlements to alleged victims.

Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit brought by victims of Epstein, US District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in February that federal prosecutors in Florida violated the rights of victims by secretly reaching a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein related to the accusations that he sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. Epstein reached the deal in 2008 with then-Miami US Attorney Alexander Acosta's office to end the federal probe that could have landed him in prison for life. Epstein instead pleaded guilty to lesser state charges, spent 13 months in prison, paid financial settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender. Acosta (right), is now President Donald Trump's (left) labor secretary

Acosta, now President Donald Trump's labor secretary, has defended the deal as appropriate given what prosecutors knew and could prove at the time, especially with many victims allegedly reluctant to testify. Marra said in his ruling he was not passing judgment on whether the deal should have been struck, only that victims' rights were violated.

Bradley Edwards, attorney for two of the alleged victims who brought the lawsuit, said the decision should mean the non-prosecution agreement is thrown out - possibly exposing Epstein to federal charges once again. The agreement also granted immunity to anyone who assisted Epstein in finding the underage girls or concealing the abuse.

'Rather than work to correct the injustices done to the victims, the government spent 10 years defending its own improper conduct,' Edwards said in an email.

'It is time for the government to work with the victims, and not against them, to hold everyone who committed these crimes accountable.'

The Miami US attorney's office declined comment at the time of the ruling on February 21. The Justice Department, however, recently opened a separate investigation into the handling of the Epstein case to determine whether prosecutors committed professional misconduct.

US Senator Ben Sasse, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee, said in a prepared statement that the Justice Department should reopen its non-prosecution agreement so Epstein and anyone else who abused these children are held accountable.

'Jeffrey Epstein is a monster and his victims deserve justice,' Sasse said. 'I'm relieved that the court agrees that it was wrong to hide this child rapist's pathetically soft deal from his victims, in violation of federal law. The fact that it's taken this long to get this far is heartbreaking and infuriating.'

Earlier in February, the Labor Department run by Acosta issued a statement saying the secretary welcomes the Justice Department probe.

Before the scandal initially broke in the late 2000s, Epstein was friends with Trump and had visited his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump at the time told interviewers that Epstein was 'a great guy.' Epstein (left) and Trump (right) are pictured at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida in 1997

Records also show former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's jet more than two dozen times on various philanthropic trips. Neither Trump nor Clinton have been implicated in any wrongdoing. Clinton is pictured delivering a speech in Washington DC on September 13, 2000

'For more than a decade, this prosecution has been reviewed in great detail by newspaper articles, television reports, books, and congressional testimony,' the statement said, adding that 'the actions taken were in accordance with department practices, procedures, and the law.'

Marra ordered on March 13 that the US Justice Department and the victims' attorneys decide by May 10 how they want to proceed with the case.

Marra had initially set a March 8 deadline but agreed to move it back after federal prosecutors in Atlanta took over the case.

Before the scandal initially broke in the late 2000s, Epstein was friends with Trump and had visited his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump at the time told interviewers that Epstein was 'a great guy.'

Records also show former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's jet more than two dozen times on various philanthropic trips. Neither Trump nor Clinton have been implicated in any wrongdoing.