UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OrganizationRelationship Network
023.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections' filed on May 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.M.A. withdraws her objections to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to compel her to identify herself by her legal name in the case style and third-party subpoenas, though she maintains her objection to the case being dismissed sua sponte. The document lists numerous related cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys involved.
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.
019.pdf
This document is a consolidated court order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 14, 2009, covering multiple civil lawsuits (Jane Does, C.M.A., etc.) against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra requests the United States government provide its official position regarding Epstein's motion to stay these civil cases. Epstein argued that defending himself in these civil suits might violate his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO and subject him to criminal prosecution.
018.pdf
This document is a court order dated May 14, 2009, from the Southern District of Florida, consolidating eleven separate civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery and procedural motions. Judge Kenneth A. Marra designates 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein' as the lead case for filings and sets strict limits on depositions to prevent duplication, ruling that defendants and common witnesses may be deposed only once across all cases. The order aims to improve judicial economy and efficiency in handling the multiple lawsuits filed by various Jane Does and other plaintiffs.
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.
006.pdf
This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 28, 2009. It addresses ten separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs (Jane Does and C.M.A.). The order grants the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases for discovery purposes and grants a protective order limiting Epstein to a single deposition per plaintiff to prevent piecemeal depositions, while also ordering parties in remaining cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
005.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 20, 2009. The order directs counsel for Plaintiff 'Jane Do No. 101' and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to confer and file joint scheduling and discovery reports in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It outlines specific deadlines for these conferences and reports following the filing of an answer or motion.
002.pdf
Summons in a Civil Case issued on April 17, 2009, by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-80591 (Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein). The document summons Jeffrey Epstein, noted as being located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, to answer the complaint within 20 days. It lists Epstein's defense counsel (Spicer, Goldberger, Critton) and the plaintiff's attorneys (Josefsberg and Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A.).
017.pdf
Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice for Case No. 10-CV-80447 (C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida. The case was dismissed following a stipulation by the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms. The order was signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on June 24, 2010.
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.).
016-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80447). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case following a stipulation by the parties, denied all pending motions as moot, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement. The order was entered on the docket on June 24, 2010.
015.pdf
This document is an Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80447). Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders that all pretrial discovery motions, including motions for sanctions and mental/physical examinations, be referred to Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson for disposition. The order was signed on June 14, 2010.
014.pdf
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dated June 15, 2010, in the case of C.L. v. Jeffrey Epstein. Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson denied Epstein's emergency motions for a protective order and attorney's fees as moot. The denial was based on a representation that the dispute was resolved because the plaintiff (C.L.) agreed to postpone a deposition.
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.
010-01.pdf
This document is a proposed court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80447-CIV). The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss/strike. The new deadline for the filing is set for June 17, 2010.
003.pdf
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action issued on March 31, 2010, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It notifies Jeffrey Epstein that he is being sued by a plaintiff identified as 'C.L.' and instructs him to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days to the plaintiff's attorney, Spencer T. Kuvin.
EFTA00030866.pdf
This is a subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 2, 2007. It commands a redacted individual to appear before a Grand Jury on March 13, 2007, in West Palm Beach. The recipient is ordered to bring all documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically including 'treatment notes,' 'appointment books,' and 'billing statements,' suggesting the recipient may be a medical professional or service provider.
EFTA00027666.pdf
This document is an Opinion and Order from a U.S. District Court case related to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the history of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, from 1999 to 2007 in Palm Beach, Florida, and internationally. The document outlines the investigation by the PBPD and FBI, and the subsequent discussions and negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's legal team from 2006 to 2007, including efforts to secure a plea agreement and manage press coverage.
EFTA00023624.pdf
This document is a Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories in a 2009 civil case against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff, whose name is redacted, details her residence history and her interactions with Epstein between 2002 and 2003, stating she visited his Florida home roughly twice a week to provide massages after being introduced by a friend. The document reveals she recruited other females for Epstein in exchange for payment, used drugs (Morning Glory, Angel Trumpets, cocaine, marijuana) during the relevant period, and lists various legal counsel and law enforcement entities involved in the investigation.
EFTA00021553.pdf
This document is a corrected motion for joinder in a legal case, filed on January 2, 2015, by Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4, seeking to join an existing lawsuit against the United States. The motion details allegations of sexual abuse and sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell against Jane Doe #3, including forced sexual relations with Alan Dershowitz, and argues that the new victims' circumstances are relevant to the court's assessment of their joinder.
EFTA00014187.pdf
This document is a Court Order from August 2008 in the civil case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth Marra denied Epstein's motion to stay (pause) the civil lawsuit. Epstein had argued that the case should be paused because of a 'pending' criminal action (referencing ongoing grand jury subpoenas and his deferred prosecution agreement), but the judge ruled that an investigation or deferred prosecution does not meet the legal definition of a 'pending criminal action' under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k).
EFTA00014185.pdf
Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida) dated August 4, 2008, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion to file a reply brief under seal in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that the public interest in access to court records outweighed the U.S. Attorney's objections and the confidentiality clause in Epstein's agreement with the government, ordering the Clerk to unseal relevant docket entries.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity