JANE DOE NO. 2
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Paul Cassell
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2's friend
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unidentified Recruiter
|
Recruitment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Carolyn M. Andriano
|
Identity |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 103
|
Related plaintiffs |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 8
|
Co plaintiffs consolidated |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Stuart S. Mermelstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Litigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff against defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Defendant vs plaintiff |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Accused of sexual touching of minor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Herman
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 1
|
Victims co petitioners |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff vs defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul O. Cassell
|
Counsel for plaintiff |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Plaintiff defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
PAUL G. CASSELL
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Adversarial plaintiff defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
ADL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Epstein summoned Jane Doe No. 2 to his home for a massage where she was sexually touched. | Epstein's Intracoastal home | View |
| 2019-09-03 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where a victim, identified as Jane Doe No. 2, begins to give her testimony reg... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2019-09-03 | Court hearing | Victims provide statements in a court proceeding related to Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. | N/A | View |
| 2011-10-11 | N/A | Victims filed discovery requests with the Government, seeking information about Dershowitz, Princ... | Federal court (S.D. Fla.) | View |
| 2010-06-25 | N/A | Order Affirming Magistrate Judge Johnson's Discovery Orders signed by Judge Marra. | West Palm Beach, Florida | View |
| 2010-02-22 | N/A | Scheduled trial docket. | US District Court | View |
| 2010-02-04 | N/A | Magistrate's Order entered granting in part and denying in part Jane Doe's Motion to Compel. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-12-16 | N/A | Omnibus Order signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson ruling on multiple motions. | West Palm Beach, Florida | View |
| 2009-11-13 | N/A | Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 made herself available for Defendant's exam | Not specified | View |
| 2009-11-13 | N/A | Plaintiff made herself available for Defendant's exam. | Unknown | View |
| 2009-10-06 | N/A | Filing of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-06-12 | N/A | Scheduled hearing for all cases consolidated for discovery under Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-02-01 | N/A | Publication of article regarding new lawsuit against Epstein | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Edwards and Cassell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. ... | Federal court (S.D. Fla.) | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Alleged scheme of sexual assault involving underage girls took place. | Palm Beach, New York, St. T... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Alleged sexual assault/massage incident involving Jane Doe No. 2 | Epstein's Palm Beach mansion | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | Period for which telephone records and massage scheduling information were requested. | 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Bea... | View |
Epstein_Part_22.pdf
This document contains a partial transcript from a plea conference for Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County, Florida, on June 30, 2008, where the court detailed strict no-contact orders with victims. It also includes a declaration from Adam D. Horowitz dated September 16, 2009, describing a stipulation for Jeffrey Epstein not to physically attend Jane Doe No. 4's deposition, but to listen remotely, and an incident where Epstein crossed paths with Jane Doe No. 4 in a lobby.
017-15.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on June 28, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion requests that the court issue an order of confidentiality regarding information Epstein was compelled to produce, specifically his tax returns, passport, and information provided by the federal government during prior criminal proceedings. The defense seeks to prevent this information from being disclosed to third parties or the media and to limit its use strictly to the current litigation.
017-14.pdf
Order from the U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida) dated June 25, 2010, denying Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of Magistrate Judge Johnson's discovery orders. Epstein is ordered to produce documents within three days, with specific instructions to redact names of minor sexual assault victims. The order also restricts the Plaintiff from disclosing Epstein's tax returns or passport to third parties, except for expert witnesses bound by confidentiality.
017-12.pdf
This document is an appeal by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein against a Magistrate's Order compelling him to produce discovery materials, including correspondence with prosecutors, tax returns, and passport/travel records. Epstein argues that producing these documents violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he still faces a real threat of federal prosecution outside the Southern District of Florida, despite his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing also details privacy concerns for third parties (alleged victims), claims attorney work-product privilege over files selected by his defense counsel, and argues that his offer to stipulate to a high net worth renders the production of his tax returns unnecessary.
017-11.pdf
This Omnibus Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida), dated April 1, 2010, denies two motions filed by Jeffrey Epstein for reconsideration of previous orders. The court upholds previous rulings compelling Epstein to produce specific discovery materials, including his passport and tax returns (W-2s and 1099s for 2003-2008), rejecting his Fifth Amendment arguments under the 'foregone conclusion' doctrine and 'required records' exception. The order grants Epstein a ten-day window to file a formal appeal.
017-09.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in February 2010, arguing against a Magistrate's order compelling him to produce sensitive documents. The motion relies heavily on Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, arguing that despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein faces real risks of prosecution in other jurisdictions. Attached exhibits include the Plaintiff's 2009 requests for production of massage logs, photos of Epstein's Palm Beach home, financial records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander, to which Epstein consistently objected.
017-08.pdf
This is a court order from the Southern District of Florida dated February 11, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants in part Epstein's motion for an extension, setting a new deadline of February 26, 2010, for Epstein to appeal Magistrate Judge Johnson's prior order compelling document production. The order also stipulates that if the appeal fails, Epstein must produce the documents within three business days.
017-05.pdf
This document is an Omnibus Order from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida dated February 4, 2010, in the civil case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The Magistrate Judge rules on the Plaintiff's motions to compel answers to interrogatories, admissions, and production requests. The court upholds Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding questions about his financial history, assets, and potential witnesses, but orders him to produce documents that are already known to the government (tax returns, passport, and documents provided to him during plea negotiations), ruling that these fall under the 'foregone conclusion' doctrine.
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.
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.
017.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, regarding the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The filing, submitted by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff 'C.L.', serves to withdraw a subpoena and cancel the scheduled deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was set for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing various attorneys representing different parties in related cases against Epstein.
015.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on May 28, 2010, by Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) opposing Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that tax returns are 'required records' not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and are critical for determining punitive damages. The document notes that Epstein attempted to avoid producing these records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs rejected as insufficient.
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.
010-01.pdf
This is an Agreed Order from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Epstein permission to attend the deposition, mediation, or trial of Plaintiff Carolyn Andriano (in the related case CMA v. Epstein and Kellen, 08-CIV-80811), explicitly overriding a previous no-contact order [DE 238] for these specific legal proceedings.
009.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys argue for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), noting that the DOJ has seized boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to Epstein. The document also disputes delays in the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
008.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Protective Order filed by Igor Zinoview and Jeffrey Epstein to limit the scope of depositions in a civil case. Zinoview asserts via affidavit that he only began working for Epstein in November 2005, after the alleged events, and thus has no relevant knowledge. The filing also includes excerpts from the depositions of Epstein's pilots, Larry Visoski and Larry Eugene Morrison, where they are questioned about their personal beliefs regarding the sexual abuse allegations and whether they would trust Epstein with their own daughters. Flight logs and passenger manifests are referenced in the deposition indexes ('PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK' and 'JEGE, Inc., Passenger Manifest') but the actual log content is not present in these specific pages.
078.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The notice, filed by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff C.L., withdraws a subpoena and cancels the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was scheduled for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in related cases.
076.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) in response to Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce his income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that the tax returns are relevant for determining punitive damages and are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the 'required records' exception. The document also notes Epstein's attempt to avoid producing records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs reject as insufficient.
074.pdf
An Omnibus Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The order, signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson, addresses eight specific motions filed between March and November 2009 across multiple related case numbers. Most motions were stricken for not being filed in the Lead Case No. 08-80119, while one defendant motion was granted nunc pro tunc and a third-party motion by 'Zinoview' was denied as moot.
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.
071-01.pdf
This is a United States District Court Agreed Order from November 2009 in the Southern District of Florida. It grants Jeffrey Epstein's motion to attend mediation and explicitly states that a previous no-contact order does not prevent him from attending the deposition, mediation, or trial of Plaintiff Carolyn Andriano. The order references multiple related case numbers.
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.
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.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-02-01 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein (... | JANE DOE NO. 2 | $50,000,000.00 | Amount sued for in lawsuit | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | JANE DOE NO. 2 | $200.00 | Payment after massage/sexual encounter | View |
Motion to Compel
Motion to compel production of various materials.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity