Robert D. Critton Jr.; Jessica Cadwell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
7 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-06-14 | N/A | Filing of Emergency Motion for Protective Order by Jeffrey Epstein. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2010-03-23 | N/A | Service of Motion for Extension of Time via CM/ECF | Electronic Filing | View |
| 2010-03-23 | N/A | Videotaped Deposition of Bradley J. Edwards | 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boule... | View |
| 2009-11-16 | N/A | Motion for Extension of Time filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-07-02 | N/A | Electronic filing of the Motion for Extension of Time. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-06-18 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Extension of Time | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-13 | N/A | Start of state court trial (Cardiopulmonary vs Lewis) involving Defense counsel | State Court (Florida) | View |
008-01.pdf
A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe #1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the Defendant's Motion to Align Response Date. Copies were furnished to several attorneys including Bruce Reinhart and Jack Goldberger.
003.pdf
This document is a Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Defendants Epstein and Sarah Kellen request an extension to answer the complaint until 10 days after a decision is made on their contemporaneous motion to stay the case, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3509 regarding civil stays during parallel criminal proceedings involving child victims. The document includes a service list detailing legal representation for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for Sarah Kellen.
002.pdf
Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen filed a request for oral argument on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a motion to stay civil proceedings pending the resolution of a criminal action. The document lists legal representation for all parties, including Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and Haley Robson (Co-Defendant). Attorneys Michael R. Tein and Guy A. Lewis are the primary signatories for Epstein.
028.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on May 28, 2010, by Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) in the case Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The memorandum opposes Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce his income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that the tax returns are not protected by the Fifth Amendment (citing the 'required records' exception and 'foregone conclusion' doctrine) and are critical for determining punitive damages given the allegations of sexual molestation and Epstein's refusal to provide net worth discovery beyond a stipulation of 'nine figures.'
022.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on December 3, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 8 in the Southern District of Florida, requesting an extension of time until December 14, 2009, to file an Amended Complaint against Jeffrey Epstein. The request cites obligations of the plaintiff's counsel, Stuart Mermelstein and Adam Horowitz, in other matters, including other Epstein cases. The defendant's counsel, identified in the service list as Jack Alan Goldberger and Robert D. Critton, did not object to the extension.
011.pdf
Legal motion filed on August 11, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting to consolidate the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein with the lead case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein for discovery purposes. The document states that the case involves alleged sexual abuse in Palm Beach, Florida, in 2001. The motion was unopposed by the Defendant's counsel.
009.pdf
This document is an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on July 30, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 8 vs. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff's counsel, Stuart S. Mermelstein, requests an extension until August 12, 2009, to respond to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, citing obligations in other matters including related cases against Epstein. The document confirms that Epstein's counsel does not oppose this request.
040.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe (represented by Bradley Edwards). The motion requests the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer a set of interrogatories regarding his financial assets, net worth, foreign travel, property ownership, and alleged interactions with the plaintiff and other minor females. Epstein refused to answer nearly all questions (except for providing the name/address of the person answering), invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
039.pdf
This legal filing is a Motion to Compel submitted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission regarding his net worth, asset transfers, and allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of minors, which he had previously refused to answer by asserting Fifth Amendment privileges. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket assertion of the privilege is improper and that he must provide a particularized justification for each refusal or face an adverse inference.
030.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 and recruiter, Hayley Robson, has been harassing victims Jane Does 4 and 7 through text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by and cooperating with Epstein. The plaintiffs request a court order prohibiting Epstein from any direct or indirect contact with the victims.
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.
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.
016-01.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.
Motion to Amend
Service of the Motion to Amend Defendant's Motion to Dismiss via CM/ECF
Fwd: Fw: Epstein -- I apologize if you have received this...
Epstein forwards a prior email chain, noting delivery issues.
Motion for Extension of Time
Filing of the motion and service to listed attorneys.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity