United States District Court Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | Legal filing | Filing of a Notice of Motion to Withdraw by Christian R. Everdell, Mark S. Cohen, and Cohen & Gre... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-09-03 | Court order | The court issued an order with which the prosecution allegedly failed to comply, leading to the c... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal ruling | The Court’s Opinion and Order (the “April Opinion” or “Apr. Op.”) was dated. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Legal ruling | The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to mo... | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal filing | The court filed an order granting Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's motion for admission pro hac vice. | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
029.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on May 8, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for Case No. 1:19-CV-10479. Attorney Matthew J. Aaronson of Troutman Sanders LLP formally enters his appearance as counsel for defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein in the lawsuit brought by plaintiff Juliette Bryant.
024.pdf
This is a Memorandum of Law filed by the defendants (Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein) in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims of sexual assault and battery are time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations in multiple jurisdictions (USVI, NY, NM, FL, France) and that exceptions like CPLR 215(8)(a) or equitable tolling do not apply. Additionally, the defendants argue that punitive damages are not recoverable against a deceased tortfeasor's estate under the laws of any relevant jurisdiction.
023.pdf
This document is a Notice of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed on April 14, 2020, in the case of Juliette Bryant v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 1:19-cv-10479). The executors of Epstein's estate, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, represented by Troutman Sanders LLP, are moving to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
022.pdf
A Notice of Change of Address filed on March 23, 2020, in the SDNY case Juliette Bryant v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein). Attorney Mary "Molly" S. DiRago of Troutman Sanders LLP notifies the court that her firm has moved from One North Wacker Drive to 227 W. Monroe Street in Chicago, IL. She confirms she will continue as counsel of record.
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.
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. Attorney Sabina Mariella of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP formally enters her appearance as counsel for the plaintiff, Juliette Bryant, in her lawsuit against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
018.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 6, 2020. Attorney Andrew Villacastin of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP formally enters his appearance as counsel for the plaintiff, Juliette Bryant, in her lawsuit against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on February 13, 2020, in the case of Juliette Bryant v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney Mary 'Molly' S. DiRago of Troutman Sanders LLP requests permission to represent the Estate's executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. The filing includes her affidavit and certificates of good standing from the Illinois Bar and the Northern District of Illinois.
013.pdf
This document is a letter from plaintiff's counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner) to Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. in the case *Bryant v. Indyke et al.*, dated January 29, 2020. The letter argues against the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, asserting that Juliette Bryant's claims are timely under New York statutes (CPLR § 215(8)(a) and § 213-c) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel due to Epstein's intimidation tactics. It details that Bryant was a resident of New York during the abuse (2002-2005 era) and was raped repeatedly by Epstein at his New York home.
011.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 14, 2020 (misdated 2019 in signature), by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order addresses thirteen separate civil cases brought by alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein against his estate and associates (Indyke et al.). The judge sets deadlines for proposed discovery schedules (Feb 6, 2020) and schedules a joint pretrial conference for February 11, 2020, to coordinate supervision despite the cases not being formally consolidated.
010.pdf
A joint letter dated January 10, 2020, from legal counsel representing plaintiffs (victims) and defendants (Epstein Estate executors) to Judge Debra Freeman. The letter provides a status update on discovery schedules and settlement discussions, specifically noting the development of a Victims' Compensation Program awaiting approval in the US Virgin Islands. The parties request a court conference in early February 2020.
008.pdf
This document is an Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated December 26, 2019. In the case of Juliette Bryant v. Indyke, et al (Case 19-CV-10479), District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. refers the action to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general pretrial purposes, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive motions, and settlement.
006.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on November 21, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP requests permission to represent plaintiff Juliette Bryant in her lawsuit against the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (Indyke and Kahn). The filing includes a declaration of good standing and a certificate from the Supreme Court of Florida confirming McCawley's bar admission since 1997.
005.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on November 20, 2019, in the US 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, Juliette Bryant, in her lawsuit against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn.
EFTA00038796.pdf
This document is a Grand Jury Subpoena issued by the SDNY on January 19, 2021, commanding a redacted individual to testify on February 25, 2021. The investigation concerns alleged violations of federal laws regarding sex trafficking (1591), transportation for illegal sexual activity (2421-2423), conspiracy (371), and perjury (1623). The package includes a cover letter requesting non-disclosure of the subpoena and an Advice of Rights form.
EFTA00037109.pdf
This document is a legal objection to a proposed $290 million class action settlement in the case of Jane Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase. Filed by the Marsh Law Firm on behalf of an anonymous Epstein survivor, the objection argues that the settlement amount is inadequate, the allocation plan is arbitrary, and the requested attorney fees (30%) are excessive. The filing also alleges potential conflicts of interest regarding Class Counsel's prior relationships with Epstein associates and requests that the Objector be allowed to appear virtually at the fairness hearing.
EFTA00032766.pdf
This document is an Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 20, 2021. The Judge denies Maxwell's request for a renewed bail hearing, ruling that the new S2 Superseding Indictment (which adds charges regarding a Minor Victim-4 between 2001-2004) only strengthens the Government's case regarding flight risk. The Judge also orders defense counsel to clarify their request for a trial adjournment, specifically asking for a precise duration (90 days vs. January 2022) by April 22, 2021, noting that the severance of perjury counts may shorten the necessary trial preparation.
EFTA00032667.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The order addresses the sealing and redaction of twelve reply briefs filed by the Defendant; it mandates the immediate filing of unredacted briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and sets a deadline of April 20, 2021, for justifications regarding redactions in the remaining briefs. The Judge emphasizes that a protective order alone is insufficient to justify sealing judicial documents.
EFTA00031984.pdf
This is a legal declaration filed in the SDNY case Jane Doe v. Darren Indyke. A pilot who worked for Epstein starting in 1991 provides testimony regarding his flight logs from 1994-1997. The pilot confirms two specific flights (Nov 11, 1996, and May 9, 1997) involving a specific female passenger (name redacted) traveling between West Palm Beach, Teterboro, and Santa Fe, noting that he used generic descriptions like 'Baby' or 'Nanny' when names were unknown.
EFTA00031979.pdf
A subpoena issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to T-Mobile on July 28, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court commands T-Mobile to produce subscriber records for a specific (redacted) phone number covering the period between 2000 and 2005, with a return date of November 29, 2021.
EFTA00031978.pdf
This document is a subpoena issued on July 28, 2021, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to AT&T. It commands AT&T to produce subscriber records for redacted phone numbers covering the period between 2000 and 2005 for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
EFTA00031918.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed on March 16, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of her third motion for bail. The defense proposes a comprehensive bail package including a $28.5 million bond, asset monitoring by a retired federal judge, and renunciation of her British and French citizenships to mitigate flight risk concerns. Attached as Exhibit A is a legal opinion from French attorney William Julié arguing that if Maxwell renounces her French citizenship, she would no longer be protected from extradition by France, countering the French Ministry of Justice's position.
EFTA00031856.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 29-30, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the SDNY Court Arraignment Unit. The correspondence concerns the finalization and filing of the signed indictment and arrest warrant for Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically ensuring that exhibits to the affidavit are correctly saved in the court file and requesting stamped copies of the warrant with the docket number.
EFTA00031685.pdf
Court Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 3, 2021, addressing an incident on April 24, 2021, at the MDC where Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers were accused of violating BOP rules during a visit. The Judge denied the defense's request for the Court to order the turnover of video tapes (though they must be preserved) and ordered Government counsel to confer with MDC to ensure Maxwell maintains access to confidential attorney-client communications.
EFTA00031684.pdf
A court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated May 3, 2021. The order addresses a letter received from a non-party's counsel requesting anonymity for their client, an alleged victim of a sexual crime. The Judge orders the letter to be filed under seal to protect the individual's privacy interests.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity