United States District Court, Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
|
Professional judge court |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-21 | Court order | The Court issued an order directing the Government to confirm that victims have been notified of ... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-03-29 | Legal filing | The Government filed a letter with the Court to clarify a statement made in a prior letter regard... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-01-15 | Court order | The Court issued an Order allowing the defendant access to a laptop computer provided by the Gove... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Court order | The Court issued an Order (Dkt. No. 92) regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2020-12-08 | Court order | The Court issued an Order (Dkt. No. 92) which prompted this update letter. | Southern District of New York | View |
014.pdf
This document is the transcript of the arraignment for Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, the two prison guards charged in connection with falsifying records related to Jeffrey Epstein's detention. The hearing took place on November 19, 2019, before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn in the Southern District of New York. Both defendants pleaded not guilty and were released on $100,000 bond with travel restrictions. A significant portion of the hearing involved a debate over whether Noel should be required to surrender her personal firearm; the judge ruled she must surrender it for the safety of pretrial services officers.
069.pdf
This document is a letter dated August 4, 2025, from an anonymous victim/survivor to Judge Richard M. Berman regarding the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The author criticizes the DOJ's handling of the 'Epstein Files' and the lack of transparency, while simultaneously pleading for strict redactions to protect victim identities. The judge endorsed the memo, ordering it to be docketed and filed.
068.pdf
This document is a letter filed on August 4, 2025, from an anonymous victim of Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Richard M. Berman. The victim criticizes the DOJ and FBI for allegedly prioritizing the protection of high-profile individuals—including the President—over victims, questions the narrative of Epstein's suicide, and requests a third-party review of files to ensure victim anonymity. The document also quotes a DOJ statement confirming Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims but asserting that no further disclosure of evidence is warranted.
006.pdf
This document is a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel to Judge Richard Berman arguing for pretrial release on bail. The defense proposes strict conditions including home detention, GPS monitoring, and a substantial bond secured by Epstein's $77 million Manhattan home and private jet, with his brother and friend as co-sureties. The letter argues Epstein is not a flight risk (citing his U.S. ties and surrender of passport) and that the current charges are barred by a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
012.pdf
Attorneys for the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein request a pre-motion conference to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Teresa Helm. The defense argues that Helm's claims of assault from 2002 are barred by the statute of limitations and that exceptions based on Epstein's criminal indictment do not apply because Helm was an adult (22) at the time, while the indictment focused on minors. Additionally, the defense argues that punitive damages cannot be legally awarded against a deceased person's estate under New York law.
011.pdf
This document is a court order filed on January 14, 2020, by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman in the Southern District of New York. It coordinates the discovery schedules for multiple civil cases filed against the Jeffrey Epstein estate (represented by Indyke et al.) by various plaintiffs claiming sexual abuse. The order mandates the submission of discovery plans by February 6, 2020, and sets a joint pretrial conference for February 11, 2020.
022-01.pdf
This document is an indictment (19 Cr. 490) filed in the SDNY charging Jeffrey Epstein with sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors between 2002 and 2005. It details how Epstein used a network of employees and victim-recruiters to source minors for sexual abuse at his residences in New York and Palm Beach, paying them in cash. The document also includes forfeiture allegations for his property at 9 East 71st Street, New York, owned by Maple, Inc.
010-16.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing on April 21, 2016, in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The hearing addresses motions to admit Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell as counsel for the plaintiff, which the defense opposes citing conflicts with other litigation (Florida cases) and their status as potential witnesses. The judge also rules on various discovery disputes, including the production of Giuffre's medical records (limited to 1999-2002), tax returns (15 years ordered), and statements made to law enforcement (to be reviewed in camera).
052.pdf
Legal correspondence from Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Freeman regarding the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues against the Plaintiff's request for a 21-year discovery period, stating the alleged abuse occurred only between 1999 and 2002, and asserts that they are already processing a database of over 730,000 documents. The document mentions that flight logs will be produced if the complaint alleges the Plaintiff traveled on Epstein's plane, but does not contain the logs themselves.
045.pdf
Defense counsel Bennet Moskowitz submits a letter to the Court in the 'Jane Doe 1000' case, attaching a recent Order from Judge Paul Engelmayer in the 'Jane Doe 15' case. The attached Order dismisses Jane Doe 15's claim for punitive damages against the Epstein Estate, ruling that under both New York and New Mexico law, punitive damages cannot be recovered from a deceased tortfeasor's estate. The Order details allegations that Jane Doe 15 was groomed by Epstein's secretary in New York and subsequently abused by Epstein at his New Mexico ranch in 2004.
015.pdf
A letter from attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz to Judge Lorna G. Schofield dated January 2, 2020, regarding the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter requests the referral of the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman for general pretrial proceedings, noting that the plaintiff consents and that similar cases (specifically citing Teresa Helm and Juliette Bryant) have already been referred to her.
039-01.pdf
This document is a legal Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York in the case of Mary Doe v. the Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's Estate. The court granted the executors' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's request for punitive damages. The judge ruled that New York law applies to the case because the torts occurred in New York, and under New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL § 11-3.2(a)(1)), punitive damages cannot be awarded against the personal representatives of an estate.
012.pdf
This document is a letter from Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., dated January 24, 2020. It serves as a pre-motion letter outlining the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein's intent to move for dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Juliette Bryant. The Estate argues that Bryant's claims regarding alleged sexual abuse between 2002 and 2004 are time-barred by the statutes of limitations in New York, USVI, Florida, and New Mexico, and that she cannot rely on the Child Victims Act or tolling because she was an adult (age 20-22) at the time of the alleged incidents. Additionally, the letter argues that punitive damages cannot be recovered from a decedent's estate under the relevant laws.
EFTA00029971.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 25, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's requests to immediately disclose the identities of three alleged victims and to be released into the general prison population. The court ruled the request for victim identities was premature as discovery had just begun, and found that the Bureau of Prisons was already providing sufficient access to legal materials (13 hours a day). The court ordered the Government to provide status updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions every 90 days.
EFTA00029844.pdf
Defense counsel Laura Menninger objects to government redactions in the case US v. Maxwell. Menninger argues that 'Accuser-2's' diary entries are not confidential as they were shared on a NY Times podcast and do not implicate Maxwell. The letter also argues against redacting information about another accuser (name redacted) who has publicized her allegations via Netflix and podcasts, referencing the 'Kramer notes', and discusses sealing issues related to Maxwell's deposition in a separate civil case ruled on by Judge Preska.
EFTA00029816.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, seeking to suppress evidence obtained via subpoena from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The defense argues that the government made false representations to Judge McMahon to bypass a civil protective order and obtain confidential deposition transcripts, alleging collusion between the civil plaintiff's lawyers (Boies Schiller) and federal prosecutors. The document details the history of the civil defamation case, specific deposition questions regarding sexual acts and Epstein, and the procedural history of the protective order modification.
EFTA00029590.pdf
Defense attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca writes to Judge Nathan objecting to the government's recent attempts to avoid disclosing the identities of unnamed co-conspirators and specific co-conspirator statements intended for trial. The defense characterizes the government's position as an improper 'motion to reconsider' prior court orders without showing extraordinary circumstances. The letter requests the Court confirm its orders requiring disclosure by October 11, 2021, to allow the defense to prepare motions in limine regarding the admissibility of statements from Jeffrey Epstein and an unnamed employee.
EFTA00029540.pdf
This document is an Opinion & Order by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment based on Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations arguments, and pre-indictment delay. However, the Court grants Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury charges from the sex trafficking-related charges, ruling they must be tried separately to ensure a fair trial. The Court also orders the parties to negotiate a schedule for outstanding pretrial disclosures.
EFTA00028265.pdf
A joint letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter outlines the Government and Defense positions on protecting witness identities, including the use of pseudonyms (nomenclature), voir dire procedures, jury instructions, and the handling of sealed exhibits to prevent public disclosure of victim identities. The document contains significant redactions regarding the actual names and pseudonyms of the witnesses.
EFTA00027214.pdf
This document is a Grand Jury Subpoena issued by the SDNY on August 17, 2019, commanding Citibank to produce financial records for a specific (redacted) account. The investigation concerns alleged violations of federal statutes including bribery, conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 371, 1001, 1346, 1519). The subpoena requests all financial documents from January 1, 2019, to the present, including wire transfers, checks, and account opening information.
EFTA00027204.pdf
A Grand Jury Subpoena issued on August 17, 2019, by US Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman (SDNY) to the Municipal Credit Union (MCU). The subpoena demands the production of financial records (account opening docs, checks, wires, ACH transfers) for a specific, redacted account from January 1, 2019, to the present. The document includes instructions for electronic production of data and a reimbursement procedure letter.
EFTA00027199.pdf
This document is a Grand Jury Subpoena issued on August 17, 2019, by Geoffrey S. Berman (US Attorney for SDNY) to Navy Federal Credit Union. It demands the production of all financial records (checks, wires, account statements, etc.) for a specific, redacted account holder from January 1, 2019, to the present. The subpoena relates to an investigation into alleged violations of federal laws concerning bribery, conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 371, 1001, 1346, 1519, 2).
EFTA00027169.pdf
Defense attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca writes to Judge Alison Nathan arguing against the government's request to defer ruling on Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence until after the trial on non-perjury counts. The defense contends that an evidentiary hearing is necessary immediately because the government's alleged misconduct (misleading a judge to obtain a subpoena) constitutes a due process violation that could suppress all 90,000 pages of evidence and any derivatives ('fruit of the poisonous tree'). Furthermore, the defense argues that Maxwell cannot knowingly decide whether to testify without knowing the admissibility of this evidence, as the government has only promised not to use it in its case-in-chief but reserved rights for impeachment.
EFTA00024724.pdf
This document is a letter motion from the U.S. Department of Justice to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman requesting a stay of the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke' pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that proceeding with civil discovery would prejudice the criminal trial by exposing witnesses, risking harassment, and allowing Maxwell to circumvent criminal discovery limitations. The letter references the June 2020 indictment of Maxwell for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse scheme.
EFTA00022960.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team objecting to the unsealing of specific docket entries (143, 173, 199, 164, and 230) in the civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre. The defense argues that these documents contain sensitive information regarding non-parties ('Does'), inadmissible hearsay, and prejudicial materials such as flight logs and police reports that were improperly filed to bias the court. The filing emphasizes the need to protect the privacy of non-parties and the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity