Michael J. Pike
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Robert D. Critton Jr.
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert D. Critton Jr.
|
Correspondents involved in same case |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Adam Horowitz
|
Correspondents involved in same case |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-04-12 | N/A | Date of signature/service of the document. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2010-03-23 | N/A | Service of Motion for Extension of Time via CM/ECF | Electronic Filing | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Notice of Compliance regarding the Court's Order DE #192. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Notice of Compliance with Court Order (DE #192) | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-06-11 | N/A | Certificate of Service mailed to opposing counsel. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2009-06-05 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Appearance by Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP for Jeffrey Epstein | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-05-11 | N/A | Notice of Appearance filed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike on behalf of J... | US District Court Southern ... | View |
059.pdf
This document is a motion filed on November 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting permission for Jeffrey Epstein to attend mediation in the case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a previous no-contact order exists regarding Andriano, but her counsel has no objection to Epstein attending the deposition, mediation, or trial. The document includes a service list detailing the attorneys involved in this and related cases, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
057.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on November 16, 2009, regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA). The filing notes that the Department of Justice seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes specifically related to Epstein cases. The document highlights scheduling conflicts involving the deposition of Herbert Stettin (RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer) and alludes to potential ethical or criminal issues within RRA that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.
056.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein on November 16, 2009. The motion requests an extension until November 27, 2009, for Epstein to respond to the complaint, citing that the parties are working together and are 'close to a resolution' of the case. The document includes a certificate of service listing the attorneys involved for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. and Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman).
053.pdf
This is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until November 16, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 102' on May 1, 2009, citing that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. The document lists legal counsel for both sides, including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger for Epstein, and Robert Josefsberg and Katherine Ezell for the plaintiff.
051.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The document indicates that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. It lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman; Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.).
034.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on June 18, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80656) by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until July 5, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102, citing the workload from multiple concurrent cases where he is a defendant. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension and lists the legal representatives for both parties.
024.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
022.pdf
This document is a legal reply brief filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that revealing their identities would subject them to harassment, shame, and further trauma, particularly given their status as victims of sexual exploitation as minors. The filing also discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), statutory minimum damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
006.pdf
Legal document filed on May 11, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-80656). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally entered their appearance as counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 102. The document includes a certificate of service listing other counsel involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger for the defense and attorneys from Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the plaintiff.
087.pdf
This document is a Motion for Extension of Time filed on December 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense requested an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a reply, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and the need to investigate the implications of the 'Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA' firm implosion on the Plaintiff's counsel. The document notes that Plaintiff's counsel opposed this extension request.
082.pdf
This document is a Reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2009 requesting a permanent order for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The filing highlights that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including about 13 boxes related to Epstein cases, amidst concerns of 'serious ethical and potentially criminal issues' at the firm. The document also argues against delaying the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
078.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until November 16, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The document indicates that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
076.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The motion states that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case and that the plaintiff's counsel agrees to the extension. The document includes a procedural history of filings and a service list of attorneys involved.
073.pdf
This document is a Notice of Agreement filed on September 8, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel notifies the court that both parties have agreed to appoint Rodney Romano of Matrix Mediation, LLC as the mediator for the case. The document includes a certificate of service and a service list detailing the contact information for the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant.
070.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
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.
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.
038.pdf
This document is a Motion to Reschedule Hearing filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert C. Josefsberg, representing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and 102, requests to move a hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, because he will be attending his 50th College Reunion in Hanover, New Hampshire. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal teams associated with Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and various plaintiffs in related cases.
035.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs argue for the right to proceed anonymously, citing fears of harassment, public humiliation, and Epstein's alleged intent to intimidate victims by exposing their identities. The document lists numerous related cases and provides a service list of attorneys representing various parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
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.
Jane Does v. Epstein
Requesting Dr. Kliman's questionnaires used with clients, based on transcript review.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity