BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
David Boies, II
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-1
|
Non existent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-3
|
Non existent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant's Counsel
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Boies
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The victims
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Minor Victim-2
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-08 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 1-2 in Case 22-1426, which identifies the parties and their legal representation. | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Legal filing | Attorney David Boies filed a Notice of Appearance in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Court order | Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered that redactions on a March 26 letter from Boies Schiller Flexner L... | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Court order | Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order stating there is no reason to maintain redactions on a let... | SDNY | View |
| 2021-03-25 | Meeting | BSF met and conferred with the Defendant's counsel regarding redactions. | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Court order | The Court ordered BSF to file its March 22, 2021, letter on the public docket with proposed redac... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-03-22 | Legal filing | BSF was to file a letter containing objections to the Defendant's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-03-12 | Legal filing | The Court issued a Sealed and Ex Parte Order requiring BSF to file a letter regarding a subpoena ... | United States District Cour... | View |
020.pdf
A 'Notice of Appearance' filed on March 6, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Sabina Mariella of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP officially enters her appearance as counsel for the plaintiff, Maria Farmer, in her lawsuit against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
019.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on March 6, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for Case No. 1:19-cv-10474. Attorney Andrew Villacastin of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP formally enters his appearance as counsel for the Plaintiff, Maria Farmer. The lawsuit is directed against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein.
014.pdf
This document is a legal letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Farmer in the case 'Farmer v. Indyke et al.' It argues against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, asserting that Farmer's claims are timely under NY CPLR § 215(8)(a) because they were filed within one year of the termination of the criminal action against Jeffrey Epstein (Aug 29, 2019). The letter also argues that equitable estoppel applies due to threats made against Farmer, including a specific death threat involving the West Side Highway.
010.pdf
This document is a letter from Maria Farmer's legal counsel to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald opposing Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene in the case *Farmer v. Indyke et al.*. Dershowitz sought to intervene to strike Paragraph 39 of Farmer's complaint, which alleges that Farmer, while working at Epstein's NY mansion, saw Dershowitz go upstairs while young girls were present. The letter argues that Dershowitz has no right to intervene, that the allegations are relevant to the sex-trafficking conspiracy and Farmer's silence, and that the motion to strike is meritless.
007.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated November 25, 2019, in the case of Maria Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein). The order grants attorney Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to represent the plaintiff, Maria Farmer.
006.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on November 21, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP requests permission to represent the plaintiff, Maria Farmer, in her case against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn.
003.pdf
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action filed on November 12, 2019, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cv-10474-NRB). Plaintiff Maria Farmer is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The summons directs the defendants to respond to the complaint within 21 days of service, with Joshua Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP listed as the plaintiff's attorney.
002.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on November 12, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for a lawsuit initiated by Maria Farmer against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The nature of the suit is categorized as 'Other Personal Injury' under diversity jurisdiction, as the plaintiff resides in Arkansas and the defendants are deemed citizens of the U.S. Virgin Islands (Epstein's domicile). The plaintiff demands a jury trial.
071.pdf
This document is a joint status report filed on August 14, 2020, by attorneys for both the Plaintiff (Jane Doe 1000) and the Defendants (Executors of the Epstein Estate). They requested a 45-day extension to the stay of discovery because the Plaintiff had submitted a claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program and was awaiting a determination. The document includes a handwritten order by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman dated September 11, 2020, granting the requested extension.
069.pdf
A joint status report filed on August 14, 2020, in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The attorneys for both parties inform Judge Freeman that the Plaintiff has submitted a claim to the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program and request a 45-day extension to the stay of discovery to allow time for an eligibility determination.
054.pdf
This document is a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order filed on May 21, 2020, in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. It establishes strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, including medical records, financial data, and the identities of minor victims, to protect privacy during litigation. The order outlines procedures for designating information as confidential, limits who may view such materials, and provides a Non-Disclosure Agreement form (Exhibit A) for third parties.
053.pdf
This document is a legal filing in the civil case Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke & Kahn. It includes a letter from Plaintiff's counsel arguing that the Epstein Estate executors are improperly limiting discovery to a 4-year period and refusing to produce documents regarding Epstein's broader sex-trafficking conspiracy. Attached as Exhibit A are the Defendants' supplemental responses to interrogatories, which list specific employees (including Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and pilots like Larry Visoski), email accounts used by Epstein (specifically noting 'jeevacation@gmail.com' and 'jeeproject@yahoo.com'), and numerous phone numbers associated with his properties in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico, and the Virgin Islands.
051.pdf
This document is a legal letter filed on May 11, 2020, by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 in her case against Epstein estate executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. The letter requests a court conference to address the Defendants' alleged failure to participate in discovery, specifically noting their refusal to produce documents regarding Epstein's broader sex-trafficking conspiracy and failure to answer interrogatories regarding Epstein's email accounts. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are engaging in intentional delay tactics.
046.pdf
This document is a legal filing from Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000's counsel requesting a pre-motion conference to compel Defendants (Epstein's executors Indyke and Kahn) to produce discovery documents and answer interrogatories. The filing includes exhibits of the discovery requests, which seek detailed information on Epstein's flight logs, financial transactions, communications with high-profile individuals (Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz), and the structure of his alleged sex-trafficking operation. The Defendants have objected to almost all requests, claiming they are overbroad or that they lack knowledge because Epstein is deceased, prompting the Plaintiff to seek court intervention. Note: While flight logs are requested, no actual flight data is contained in this document.
035.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on March 6, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-10577). Attorney Andrew Villacastin of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP is entering his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 in her lawsuit against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn.
025.pdf
A legal letter from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to Judge Lorna G. Schofield arguing against the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss in the case of Jane Doe 1000 v. Indyke et al. The letter argues that the Plaintiff's claims are timely under New York Law (CPLR § 215(8)(a) and § 213-c) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel due to Epstein's intimidation tactics. It also asserts that punitive damages should be addressed after discovery.
010.pdf
This document is a legal filing dated November 21, 2019, containing a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for attorney Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to represent Plaintiff Jane Doe 1000 in the case against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes McCawley's declaration of good standing, a supporting Certificate of Good Standing from the Supreme Court of Florida, and a proposed order for the judge to sign granting the admission. The defendants listed are Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of Epstein's estate.
009.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on November 20, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP formally enters his appearance as counsel for the Plaintiff, Jane Doe 1000, in a civil case against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein.
007.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on November 20, 2019, in the Southern District of New York, supporting a motion for 'Jane Doe 1000' to proceed anonymously in her civil suit against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff alleges she was sexually trafficked and abused by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing forced sexual acts and the use of sex toys. The motion argues that anonymity is necessary to protect the plaintiff from severe emotional distress, public scrutiny, and potential retaliation from Maxwell, who was described as being 'at large' at the time of the filing.
006.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously' filed on November 20, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 1000, is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The filing is submitted by attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.
004.pdf
This document is a civil summons issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff, Jane Doe 1000, is suing Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The defendants are directed to respond to the complaint through their attorney, Bennet J. Moskowitz, or the plaintiff's attorney, Joshua Schiller.
002.pdf
Civil Cover Sheet filed on November 14, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for a lawsuit brought by Jane Doe 1000 against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The suit is categorized under 'Other Personal Injury' and claims diversity jurisdiction, noting Epstein's domicile as the U.S. Virgin Islands. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.
054.pdf
Legal document filed on October 15, 2020, in the Southern District of New York regarding the case of Juliette Bryant v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The document is a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal stating that the plaintiff, Juliette Bryant, has accepted an offer of compensation from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. Consequently, the case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing their own legal costs.
052.pdf
A joint status report filed on August 14, 2020, to Judge Debra Freeman in the case of Juliette Bryant v. the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter informs the court that Bryant submitted a claim to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program on June 26, 2020, and requests a 45-day extension to the stay of discovery pending the program's determination. The document includes a stamp from Judge Freeman dated September 11, 2020, granting the requested extension.
020.pdf
This document is a Notice of Change of Address filed on March 9, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for Case No. 19-cv-10479-ALC (Juliette Bryant v. Indyke, et al.). Attorney Sabina Mariella notifies the court that she is changing firms from Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and will continue as counsel of record on the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity