Extraction Summary

7
People
5
Organizations
7
Locations
4
Events
7
Relationships
1
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court document (motion for extension of time)
File Size: 139 KB
Summary

This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.

People (7)

Name Role Context
JANE DOE No. 102 Plaintiff
Plaintiff in the case Doe 102 v. Epstein
JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant
Defendant in the case Doe 102 v. Epstein
Robert D. Critton Jr. Attorney for Defendant
Signed the motion and listed as counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Robert C. Josefsberg Counsel for Plaintiff
Listed on the Service List
Katherine W. Ezell Counsel for Plaintiff
Listed on the Service List
Jack Alan Goldberger Counsel for Defendant
Listed on the Service List
MICHAEL J. PIKE Counsel for Defendant
Listed as counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Court where the case is filed
Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA
Law firm whose 'implosion' is cited as a reason for the extension
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Law firm representing the Plaintiff
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Law firm representing the Defendant (listed on Service List)
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
Law firm representing the Defendant (listed at the end of the document)

Timeline (4 events)

August 20, 2009
Defendant's response to the Complaint was originally due.
December 15, 2009
Requested new deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint.
December 2, 2009
Motion for Extension of Time filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
May 1, 2009
Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1].
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Locations (7)

Location Context
Location of the court
Address for Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Address for Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Address for BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
Address component for Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Address component for Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Address component for BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN

Relationships (7)

JANE DOE No. 102 Plaintiff vs. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Case filing 'JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant,'
Robert D. Critton Jr. Attorney-Client JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Attorney for Defendant
Robert C. Josefsberg Attorney-Client JANE DOE No. 102
Counsel for Plaintiff
Katherine W. Ezell Attorney-Client JANE DOE No. 102
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jack Alan Goldberger Attorney-Client JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
MICHAEL J. PIKE Attorney-Client JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Robert D. Critton Jr. Colleagues (same firm) MICHAEL J. PIKE
Both listed under BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN as counsel for Defendant

Key Quotes (1)

"The implosion of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm has raised certain questions for which defense counsel will request answers/information from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Rothstein scheme/scandal prior to final resolution."
Source
062.pdf
Quote #1

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,404 characters)

Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-80656-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE No. 102,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant,
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME IN WHICH SERVE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT
Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter “Epstein”), by and through his undersigned
attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which to respond to
Complaint dated, May 1, 2009 [DE 1]. Defendant seeks an extension until December
15, 2009, to file his response. As good cause in support of granting the motion,
Defendant states:
1. On May 1, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. Defendant’s response would
be due on August 20, 2009, as previously agreed upon.
2. The parties continue to work together to find a resolution in this case and are
close to a resolution. In addition, parties have agreed to numerous extensions while
negotiating a resolution.
3. The implosion of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm has raised certain
questions for which defense counsel will request answers/information from Plaintiff’s
counsel regarding the Rothstein scheme/scandal prior to final resolution.
Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 2 of 3
Doe 102 v. Epstein
Page 2
4. The requested extension is fair and reasonable under the circumstances as it will
provide time to allow the Defendant, EPSTEIN to fully and adequately respond.
5. As certified below, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff’s counsel is in not agreement with the requested extension.
WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
granting an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a response to Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
Local Rule 7.1 Statement
Counsel for the movant conferred by correspondence with counsel for the
Plaintiff and Counsel for Plaintiff is not in agreement with the requested extension until
December 15, 2009 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Robert D. Critton Jr., Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this 2nd day of December, 2009
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/02/2009 Page 3 of 3
Doe 102 v. Epstein
Page 3
305 358-2800
Fax: 305 358-2382
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
kezell@podhurst.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
jag@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully submitted,
By
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar # 017296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document