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 |
038.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated June 5, 2017, and filed on June 6, 2017. Judge Robert W. Sweet orders the termination of the case (17 Mc. 25) between Bradley J. Edwards and Ghislaine Maxwell following the resolution of a motion to quash a subpoena via a sealed opinion dated April 4, 2017.
037.pdf
This court document from April 7, 2017, details a 'Notice of Submission of Witness Solicitation Materials' filed in the case of Bradley J. Edwards v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre submitted witness solicitation materials for in camera review as per a March 23, 2017, court ruling. The document also includes a certificate of service, confirming electronic filing and service to attorneys Laura A. Menninger and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca.
036.pdf
A legal filing (Sur-Reply) by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys arguing that Plaintiff Bradley Edwards must produce solicitation letters sent to former Epstein employees and their responses. The defense argues Edwards waived work-product privilege by failing to produce a privilege log and that the letters sent to third parties do not constitute work product.
033.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell. Edwards argues that Maxwell's requests for his communications with 'prospective witnesses' are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek protected attorney work-product. The filing notably alleges that Maxwell has failed to explain her presence on 23 flights with a teenaged Virginia Giuffre or the message pads documenting underage girls calling Epstein's mansion for 'massages'.
032.pdf
A legal motion filed on March 13, 2017, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS). Attorney Paul G. Cassell requests admission Pro Hac Vice to represent Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards in his lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. Cassell attests to his good standing with the Utah Bar and lack of criminal or disciplinary history.
032-01.pdf
This document is a legal declaration filed on March 13, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Paul G. Cassell submits this declaration to support his application for admission Pro Hac Vice to represent the plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, in his case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Cassell attests to his clean legal record, stating he has no felony convictions or disciplinary actions against him and is a member in good standing of the Utah bar.
031.pdf
A court order filed on March 3, 2017, by Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document sets a schedule for hearing various motions throughout March 2017 and establishes a deadline for objections to deposition designations in April 2017. It also references a related motion to quash in the case of Bradley v. Maxwell.
022.pdf
This document is a motion filed on December 16, 2016, by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests permission to file 'Exhibit B' under seal, noting that the exhibit is a sealed order from the Southern District of New York in the underlying 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The document lists legal counsel for Maxwell and for Bradley J. Edwards, who is the subject of a subpoena in this miscellaneous action.
015.pdf
This document is a Motion to Seal filed on July 7, 2016, by attorney Jack Scarola on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Edwards seeks to seal exhibits attached to his Motion to Quash a subpoena, specifically referencing confidential depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Rinaldo Rizzo, as well as documents related to Alan Dershowitz, which are already under seal in the Southern District of New York. The motion argues that sealing is necessary to comply with protective orders from the underlying case.
012-01.pdf
This document is a proposed court order filed on July 7, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. It grants a motion by Bradley J. Edwards to file a reply exceeding the standard page limit (up to 25 pages) in support of his motion to quash a subpoena related to the underlying civil case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
010-06.pdf
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
005.pdf
This document is a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed on June 29, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Denise D. Riley requests that attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca of the Colorado firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman be admitted to represent Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in matters related to a subpoena issued to Bradley J. Edwards. The document includes contact information for the attorneys involved and a certificate of service to opposing counsel Jack Scarola.
005-01.pdf
This document is a formal certification filed by attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 29, 2016. It pertains to a subpoena issued to Bradley J. Edwards in relation to the underlying case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca certifies his compliance with local rules and his good standing with the Colorado bar.
001-03.pdf
This document is a subpoena issued by the US District Court (SDNY) on behalf of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to attorney Bradley J. Edwards in May 2016. It demands the production of various documents, including those related to previous litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, communications with journalist Sharon Churcher, and records regarding the organization 'Victims Refuse Silence, Inc.' A check for $45.00 payable to Edwards is included, likely as a witness fee.
052.pdf
This document is a legal stipulation filed on November 5, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, regarding case 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF. The plaintiff, 'Jane Doe,' voluntarily dismisses her claims with prejudice against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. The dismissal is agreed upon by counsel for both parties without costs to either side.
047.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on September 6, 2021, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:20-cv-02365-LJL-DCF). The defendants, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate), represented by attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz, are moving to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
045.pdf
This document is a transcript of a telephone conference held on August 26, 2021, before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman in the case of Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al. The proceedings cover case management matters, including setting a scheduling order for discovery, discussing a forthcoming motion to dismiss, and granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. The court also encourages the parties to engage in settlement discussions and outlines procedures for status reports.
042.pdf
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York dated August 26, 2021, in the civil case of Jane Doe v. Indyke and Kahn. The order grants a motion for attorney Mary 'Molly' S. DiRago of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate. It is signed by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.
034.pdf
This is a legal declaration filed on August 13, 2021, by Bennet J. Moskowitz, attorney for the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn). The document serves to introduce 15 exhibits (Exhibit A through Exhibit O) into the court record in support of the executors' statement regarding the plaintiff's application to proceed anonymously. The nature and content of these exhibits are completely redacted in this document, and a separate page indicates the exhibits themselves were filed under seal.
032.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on August 13, 2021, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cv-02365). Attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP enters his appearance as counsel for Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in their capacities as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, in a lawsuit brought by a Jane Doe.
029.pdf
This document is a Notice of Motion filed on July 30, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cv-02365). Plaintiff Jane Doe is notifying the defendants (Executors of the Epstein Estate and various associated corporate entities) that she is moving the court for an order allowing her to proceed anonymously in the lawsuit.
015.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York, dated September 4, 2020, by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The order applies to multiple civil cases filed against 'Indyke et al.' (executors of the Epstein estate) and 'Nine East 71st Street et al.' The proceedings are stayed to allow plaintiffs to pursue settlements through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, with status reports required starting October 1, 2020.
005.pdf
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 18, 2020. It notifies Darren K. Indyke, as an executor of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, that a lawsuit has been filed against him and co-executor Richard D. Kahn by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe. The document instructs Indyke to respond to the complaint within 21 days or face a default judgment.
002.pdf
This document is a civil summons filed on March 17, 2020, in the Southern District of New York. It notifies Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, that they are being sued by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe. The document instructs the defendants to respond to the complaint within 21 days to the plaintiff's attorney, Daniel J. Kaiser.
042.pdf
This document is a 'Joint Stipulation for Dismissal' filed on November 9, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cv-11869). Plaintiff 'Anastasia Doe' agrees to dismiss her case against the Co-Executors of the Jeffrey Epstein Estate (Indyke and Kahn) with prejudice because her claims were resolved through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. The order is signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity