Jane Doe No. 102
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim alleged |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Client |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Katherine W. Ezell
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Litigation adversaries |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff vs defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Litigation opponents |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Recruiter victimizer |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Defendant plaintiff |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jane Doe No. 102 approached at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited as Epstein's underag... | Mar-a-Lago | View |
| 2015-03-24 | N/A | Document entered on FLSD Docket | Florida Southern District C... | View |
| 2010-12-13 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-12-07 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (DE 64) filed. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-10-29 | N/A | Court Order Granting Extension of Time | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-08-07 | N/A | Order entered granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-06-18 | N/A | Order entered on docket granting extension of time. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal ... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102's Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-22 | N/A | Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102 filed a Motion for No-Contact Order. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Complaint [DE 1] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-03-25 | N/A | Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1]. | Southern District of Florida | View |
017-01.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Jane Doe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges to refuse producing documents (such as phone records, tax returns, and correspondence) is improper and that he should be compelled to answer or provide a privilege log. The motion details specific discovery requests and Epstein's uniform response asserting his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
052.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on July 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs 'Jane Does 2-7' against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs allege that Epstein hired private investigators to harass and intimidate them by contacting their former employers, ex-boyfriends, and friends to ask intrusive personal questions and potentially 'out' them as sexual abuse victims. The motion seeks a court order to stop Epstein's investigators from making ex parte contacts with nonparties associated with the plaintiffs.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
045.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff lists 23 specific interrogatories regarding Epstein's finances, properties, travel, and alleged sexual abuse of minors, all of which Epstein refused to answer by invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The motion argues that Epstein's blanket refusals are improper and requests the court force him to answer or provide a privilege log.
043.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The motion argues that Epstein has improperly asserted blanket Fifth Amendment privileges in response to sixteen specific requests for production of documents, including telephone records, appointment books, financial records, and correspondence. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order Epstein to answer the requests, provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocations, and produce a privilege log.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
027.pdf
This document is a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal submitted on May 29, 2009, by attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs request permission to file their response to Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal, or alternatively, request the court to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) so they can adequately respond. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing attorneys representing Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and various other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
025.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida, arguing for the right to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs contend that Epstein aims to reveal their identities to harass and intimidate them, and they cite various legal precedents and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to support their request for privacy due to the sexual nature of the crimes committed against them as minors. The document also includes a service list detailing the attorneys representing various parties in related cases against Epstein.
021.pdf
This document is a Notice of Filing Proposed Order submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2009. It lists eleven separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs, including Jane Does 2-7, 101, 102, C.M.A., and Doe II. The filing serves to submit a proposed order related to case no. 08-80119 and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the litigation.
065.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case with prejudice on December 8, 2009, following a stipulation filed by the parties on December 7, 2009. The order notes that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement.
064.pdf
A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80656). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein agreed to dismiss the action following a settlement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 102).
062.pdf
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.
062-01.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of December 15, 2009, for Epstein to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
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.
053-01.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated October 29, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of November 16, 2009, for the defendant to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
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.).
051-01.pdf
This document is a court order (likely a proposed order attached to a motion) from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of October 30, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff's complaint.
048-01.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated August 7, 2009. Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of October 15, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the complaint of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102.
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.
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.
034-01.pdf
A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of July 5, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity