Jack Alan Goldberger
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Marc S. Nurik
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Christopher E. Knight
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Counsel for defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-03-23 | N/A | Videotaped Deposition of Bradley J. Edwards | 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boule... | View |
| 2009-11-09 | N/A | Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoviev's Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memorandum of L... | Southern District of Florid... | View |
| 2009-11-01 | N/A | Filing of Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoviev's Motion for Protective Order and Incorporated Memor... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Deposition scheduled but canceled due to an incident involving Jeffrey Epstein and the plaintiff. | Florida Science Foundation ... | View |
061.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The motion seeks to force Epstein to answer 23 specific Requests for Admission regarding his net worth (specifically if it exceeds $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of Caribbean property, and specific allegations of sexual battery, assault, and sex trafficking of minors. Epstein had previously refused to answer these questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
060.pdf
This is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The motion seeks a court order requiring Epstein to answer 16 specific requests for production of documents (including telephone records, photos, tax returns, and passport copies) or to provide a privilege log, as Epstein has refused to produce documents by asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's boilerplate objections are invalid, violate local rules requiring a privilege log, and that he must provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation for each request.
057.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591). Epstein's attorneys request an extension until August 21, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to a motion to dismiss, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension via telephone and correspondence.
053.pdf
Legal filing from June 12, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team withdraws seven specific arguments previously made in a Motion to Dismiss regarding the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, including arguments about the plaintiff's minority status and predicate offenses. The defense states it will now rely solely on arguments regarding count merger and subparagraph D.
045.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a 'No-Contact Order' against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate, Hayley Robson (who originally recruited the victims), has been harassing Jane Does 4 and 7 via text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by Epstein. The plaintiffs argue that a court order is necessary to prevent Epstein from contacting or harassing victims through third parties like Robson.
041.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on June 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes certificates of service to opposing counsel and a certificate of good standing for Lefkowitz from the District of Columbia court.
026.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on May 21, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:09-CV-80591-KAM). Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Michael D. Shumsky of Kirkland & Ellis LLP as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Jane Doe 101) and the defendant, along with their contact information.
025.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 21, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Local counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. requests the court to admit Jay P. Lefkowitz (of Kirkland & Ellis LLP) pro hac vice to represent Jeffrey Epstein. The document outlines Lefkowitz's qualifications, confirms payment of the admission fee, and provides service information for all counsel of record.
021.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 18, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers requested permission to exceed the standard 20-page limit for their upcoming motion to dismiss, citing complex legal issues regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §2255 and its applicability to the alleged conduct. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this request via telephone.
016.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on May 11, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys oppose the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously, arguing that Epstein's due process rights to conduct discovery—specifically issuance of third-party subpoenas to medical providers and employers—require the use of the plaintiff's legal name. The filing asserts that the plaintiff's privacy interests do not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings and Epstein's right to defend himself against allegations of sexual exploitation and coercion.
015.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on May 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally enter their appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing counsel for the Plaintiff (Jane Doe No. 101) and co-counsel for the Defendant.
012.pdf
Legal filing from May 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team accepts consolidation of multiple civil cases for depositions but opposes general consolidation for all discovery, arguing that individual cases have distinct facts and defenses that would be confused by a blanket consolidation. The document lists numerous related case numbers (e.g., 08-80119, 08-80381, 09-80469) and requests clarification on the court's previous orders regarding case management.
011.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 4, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's counsel requests an extension until May 26, 2009, to respond to the complaint filed on April 17, 2009. The reasons cited include the burden of other cases naming Epstein as a defendant and a conflicting state court trial scheduled for mid-May involving the defense counsel.
016.pdf
This document is a 'Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice' filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 24, 2010. It formally ends the lawsuit between Plaintiff 'C.L.' and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein following a settlement agreement. The document is signed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. (representing Epstein) and Spencer T. Kuvin (representing C.L.).
012.pdf
This document is an Emergency Motion filed on June 14, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team to quash a subpoena and prevent the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, scheduled for the following day. Epstein's lawyers argue that the subpoena issued by C.L.'s counsel (Spencer Kuvin) is premature under Rule 26(d) and that the cross-notice by Jane Doe's counsel (Brad Edwards) is invalid because discovery in the Jane Doe case had already concluded on May 31, 2010. The document includes the motion, a subpoena exhibit, and a cross-notice exhibit.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 11, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida (Case 10-80447) by Plaintiff C.L. requesting a 10-day extension to respond to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The extension was requested because Plaintiff's counsel, Spencer T. Kuvin, had a conflicting trial starting the same day in Palm Beach Civil Circuit Court. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing Epstein's legal team (Critton, Pike, Goldberger) and a proposed order for Judge Kenneth A. Marra to sign.
EFTA00013666.pdf
This document is a letter dated July 17, 2008, from the U.S. Department of Justice (Southern District of Florida) to Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Michael R. Tein. The U.S. Attorney's Office disputes the defense's claim that the federal criminal action is 'pending,' stating that under the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the investigation is suspended and motions to quash subpoenas should have been withdrawn. The letter warns that if Epstein claims the federal action is pending to stay civil proceedings, the DOJ will resume the motion to quash and analyze seized computer equipment.
DOJ-OGR-00030305.tif
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on September 17, 2009, detailing the cancellation of a deposition involving Jeffrey Epstein. The deposition was called off because Jeffrey Epstein made face-to-face contact with the plaintiff, Jane Doe 4, which her counsel, Adam Horowitz, stated intimidated her and violated a prior stipulation that Epstein would not be present. Defense counsel, Robert Critton, argued that Epstein was instructed to leave the building and planned to appear via Skype, and that the encounter would not have happened if the plaintiff and her counsel had arrived on time.
DOJ-OGR-00030292.tif
This document is a page from a legal filing, listing contact information for various attorneys and their respective clients in several related court cases. It details counsel for plaintiffs, including C.M.A., and counsel for defendants Sarah Kellen and Jeffrey Epstein, along with their law firms and contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00030279.tif
This document is a page from a court filing, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, dated September 17, 2009, listing multiple attorneys and their respective law firms, contact information, and the specific related cases they represent plaintiffs in. It details legal counsel for various plaintiffs, including 'Jane Doe' and 'C.M.A.', across several related case numbers, providing contact details for each attorney and their firm.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013481.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (Pages 1-4) of a videotaped deposition of Bradley J. Edwards, taken on March 23, 2010, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The case involves Jeffrey Epstein as the plaintiff against Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and L.M. Notable attendees included Jeffrey Epstein himself and his legal team, including Alan Dershowitz.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013479.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on June 28, 2010, in the case of Doe v. Epstein (Case No. 08-CIV-80893). It certifies that defense counsel Robert D. Critton, Jr. electronically served a preceding document to plaintiff's counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and co-defense counsel (Goldberger). The document lists the contact information for the attorneys involved, though specific email addresses or contact details have been redacted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013393.jpg
This document is a Service List, page 24 of a larger legal filing (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013393). It lists the names and addresses of four legal teams receiving service of the document, including Jack Alan Goldberger, a key defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, and attorneys from Fowler White Burnett, Marc S. Nurik's office, and Farmer, Jaffe, et al.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013361.jpg
This document is a legal service list (page 43) from a larger file marked with a House Oversight stamp. It lists the names and addresses of four legal teams involved in a case, including Jack Alan Goldberger, a known defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, as well as attorneys from Fowler White Burnett P.A., Marc S. Nurik, and Gary M. Farmer, Jr.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity