Katherine W. Ezell
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane Doe No. 101
|
Client |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 103
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 102
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Counsel for |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 101
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Amy Ederi
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Counsel for plaintiffs |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bob
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-12-13 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2010-05-18 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2010-04-23 | N/A | Undersigned Plaintiff's counsel (Katherine W. Ezell) is due to leave for vacation in Italy. | Italy | View |
| 2010-04-22 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Extension of Time. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2010-04-01 | N/A | Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 filed Motion to Transfer case to Judge Marra. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-09-08 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Agreement for Appointment of Mediator | 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 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-04 | N/A | Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 filed a Notice of Striking Docket Entry [7] because it was inadvertent... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Electronic filing of Plaintiff's Response to Court's Order | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-12-29 | N/A | Email discussion regarding the privacy mechanics of Jeffrey Epstein's GPS monitoring during work ... | West Palm Beach, FL (implie... | View |
| 2008-09-19 | N/A | Meeting with victims | Unknown (implied travel 'go... | View |
017-02.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 6, 2009, opposing a Motion to Compel discovery filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse the production of photographs of his Palm Beach home (specifically massage rooms), financial records, tax returns, passport/travel records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander. The defense argues that despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the threat of federal prosecution remains real and substantial, particularly in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that the act of producing these documents would be testimonial and incriminating.
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.
010.pdf
This is a motion filed by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a court order to allow him to attend mediation, deposition, and trial in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion notes that a prior no-contact order involving Carolyn Andriano might technically preclude this, but states that Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Andriano have no objection. The document includes a certificate of service listing numerous attorneys involved in related cases.
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.
071.pdf
A 2009 legal motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein requesting permission to attend mediation in a case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a prior 'no contact order' exists regarding Andriano, but states that neither she nor her counsel object to Epstein's presence at depositions, mediation, or trial. The document includes a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in multiple related cases against Epstein.
069.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and employee of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the civil case 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. Zinoviev claims he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began in November 2005, after the period of the alleged misconduct, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him.
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.
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.
016.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, claims he has no relevant information regarding Epstein's criminal or civil cases, particularly concerning events prior to September 2005. The motion cites legal precedents regarding the scope of discovery and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) to argue against the deposition.
022.pdf
Legal document filed on May 18, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida stipulating the dismissal with prejudice of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 10-CV-80309) brought by Jane Doe No. 103 against Jeffrey Epstein. The document indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
015.pdf
This document is a motion filed on April 12, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case 'Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffery Epstein'. The defense seeks to amend their previous Motion to Dismiss to clarify an argument regarding retroactivity, specifically stating that the criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)) relied upon by the plaintiff did not exist during the time of the alleged abuse (Jan 2004 - May 2005). The plaintiff's counsel reportedly did not oppose this amendment.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on March 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting an extension of time for Jeffrey Epstein to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 103. Epstein's legal team requests the deadline be moved from March 26 to April 5, 2010, citing workload from 'several other cases' filed in the same court in which Epstein is a defendant. The plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension.
004.pdf
This is a Summons in a Civil Case issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 23, 2010. The case (No. 10-80309) involves plaintiff Jane Doe 103 suing defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The summons directs Epstein to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days via his counsel, Robert D. Critton, to the plaintiff's attorneys at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
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.
059.pdf
This document is a motion filed on November 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting permission for Jeffrey Epstein to attend mediation in the case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a previous no-contact order exists regarding Andriano, but her counsel has no objection to Epstein attending the deposition, mediation, or trial. The document includes a service list detailing the attorneys involved in this and related cases, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
057.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on November 16, 2009, regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA). The filing notes that the Department of Justice seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes specifically related to Epstein cases. The document highlights scheduling conflicts involving the deposition of Herbert Stettin (RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer) and alludes to potential ethical or criminal issues within RRA that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.
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).
055.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and Jeffrey Epstein's driver/bodyguard since November 2005. Zinoviev seeks to prevent or limit his deposition, arguing he has no knowledge relevant to the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began after the alleged events, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him. The motion cites legal precedents on the scope of discovery and includes a list of attorneys involved in various related cases.
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.
Electronic Filing of Response
Certificate of Service indicating the document was electronically filed and served on counsel of record.
Motion for Enlargement of Time
Conferral regarding the motion; Mr. Critton advised Defendant does not oppose.
Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously
Electronic filing and service of the legal document.
RE:
Confirms that victim address info will not be disclosed to Epstein. Explains Epstein travels with a private driver and PBSO monitors his routes via GPS. Requests go through AUSA to verify legitimacy.
RE:
Thanks the AUSA for the information provided.
[No Subject]
Inquires about JE's work release notification. Asks why mechanical restriction is needed if he only goes to the office, and if designating an address as off-limits would reveal the victim's location to Epstein.
RE: Epstein Items
Clarifying meeting date as Friday. Mentioning Bob received voicemail. Discussing lack of contact from Roy Black and Tien.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity