I don't think the filing referenced is available on line at the moment, although it does appear to be in the hands of a great number of journalists: main stream and major social media.
The document, if I am understanding it properly, is actually the prosecution's response to a defense motion filed to suppress evidence. So I presume everything we have learned or heard again (some info was in charging documents) is the subject of a defense motion filed motion to suppress. Defense probably was arguing that the information is not really relevant to the charged crimes, but rather just prior bad acts that are about character. IANAL, but I believe prosecutors can't use ad hominem arguments against the person they are accusing. They can't say, "He did ____, so why wouldn't he commit this crime?" Instead, prosecutors have to show that the information actually proves the crimes for which he is going to trial directly.
For example, contacts with sex workers can't be used to show how depraved he is, but they might be allowed as evidence to show that this is how he killed any of the 7 women he is on trial for murdering.
So I think there might be two documents we have not seen. A motion to suppress evidence from the defense, and the reply from the prosecution. That's a hint as to which side is using media leaks now.
MOO