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 |
080.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, requesting a protective order to prevent his deposition in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, who worked as a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, argues he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment began after the alleged events and he never discussed the criminal or civil cases with Epstein.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
064-01.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida (Exhibit A), signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. The order mandates that Epstein and his agents preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including records of domestic and international travel on private airplanes, phone communications, computer data, and items resulting from the October 25, 2005 search of his Palm Beach home. It establishes preservation timelines ranging from 1998 to 2005 depending on the specific plaintiff and defines sanctions for wrongful destruction of evidence.
061.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The motion seeks to force Epstein to answer 23 specific Requests for Admission regarding his net worth (specifically if it exceeds $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of Caribbean property, and specific allegations of sexual battery, assault, and sex trafficking of minors. Epstein had previously refused to answer these questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
048.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on June 9, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 requesting an extension of time and page limits to respond to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The request is based on an upcoming court hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, in a related case (Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein) which addresses potential breaches of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document includes certificates of conference and service, listing legal counsel for both parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for a co-defendant named Sarah.
045.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, Hayley Robson (who originally recruited the victims), has been harassing Jane Does 4 and 7 via text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by Epstein. The plaintiffs argue that a court order is necessary to prevent Epstein from contacting or harassing victims through third parties like Robson.
034.pdf
This document is a response filed by the United States Government (as amicus curiae) in May 2009 opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay various civil lawsuits against him. The government argues that there are no 'special circumstances' justifying a stay because Epstein is not currently under indictment, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to facilitate restitution for victims, not to shield Epstein from civil discovery. The filing lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and emphasizes that staying the cases would prejudice the victims' rights to speedy proceedings and restitution.
033.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed by the United States government in the Southern District of Florida on May 29, 2009. The filing, signed by Assistant US Attorney A. Marie Villafaña under US Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, consolidates multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein (Plaintiffs include various Jane Does and C.M.A.). The United States enters as Amicus Curiae solely to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings, explicitly stating it does not become a party to the litigation nor take a position on the outcome of the civil suits.
028-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion by Plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 101 and 102) to preserve evidence in their cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including flight logs ('travel in Defendant's private airplanes'), phone records, computer data since 1998, financial records regarding payments to victims, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly forbids the destruction, deletion, or alteration of any such evidence.
023.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections' filed on May 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.M.A. withdraws her objections to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to compel her to identify herself by her legal name in the case style and third-party subpoenas, though she maintains her objection to the case being dismissed sua sponte. The document lists numerous related cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys involved.
019.pdf
This document is a consolidated court order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 14, 2009, covering multiple civil lawsuits (Jane Does, C.M.A., etc.) against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra requests the United States government provide its official position regarding Epstein's motion to stay these civil cases. Epstein argued that defending himself in these civil suits might violate his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO and subject him to criminal prosecution.
018.pdf
This document is a court order dated May 14, 2009, from the Southern District of Florida, consolidating eleven separate civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery and procedural motions. Judge Kenneth A. Marra designates 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein' as the lead case for filings and sets strict limits on depositions to prevent duplication, ruling that defendants and common witnesses may be deposed only once across all cases. The order aims to improve judicial economy and efficiency in handling the multiple lawsuits filed by various Jane Does and other plaintiffs.
008.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 101 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009. The plaintiff agrees to the court's order to consolidate ten separate cases filed by various Jane Does and C.M.A. against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery. The document includes a service list detailing the contact information for attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and the defendant.
006.pdf
This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 28, 2009. It addresses ten separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs (Jane Does and C.M.A.). The order grants the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases for discovery purposes and grants a protective order limiting Epstein to a single deposition per plaintiff to prevent piecemeal depositions, while also ordering parties in remaining cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
EFTA00014187.pdf
This document is a Court Order from August 2008 in the civil case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth Marra denied Epstein's motion to stay (pause) the civil lawsuit. Epstein had argued that the case should be paused because of a 'pending' criminal action (referencing ongoing grand jury subpoenas and his deferred prosecution agreement), but the judge ruled that an investigation or deferred prosecution does not meet the legal definition of a 'pending criminal action' under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k).
EFTA00014185.pdf
Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida) dated August 4, 2008, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion to file a reply brief under seal in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that the public interest in access to court records outweighed the U.S. Attorney's objections and the confidentiality clause in Epstein's agreement with the government, ordering the Clerk to unseal relevant docket entries.
DOJ-OGR-00030300.tif
This document is an affidavit from Robert D. Critton, Jr., counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, filed on September 17, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The affidavit pertains to case 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON, where Jane Doe No. 2 is the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein is the defendant, and asserts the truthfulness and reasonableness of information and costs related to the legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00030282.tif
This document is a court filing from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated September 11, 2009, related to case 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON, where Jane Doe No. 2 is the Plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein is the Defendant. It concerns Jeffrey Epstein's Emergency Motion to Strike a Protective Order and to allow his attendance at the deposition of Jane Doe Nos. 2-8, specifically mentioning a Notice for Taking the Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 for September 16, 2009.
DOJ-OGR-00030273.tif
This document is a court filing from September 17, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, specifically a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein for sanctions and to compel the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4. The motion details that Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was noticed for September 16, 2009, but her counsel indicated she could not appear before 1:00 p.m., and the deposition location was moved to Prose Court Reporting in West Palm Beach, FL.
DOJ-OGR-00000677.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where victims are giving statements. An unidentified speaker discusses the societal problem of victim-blaming. Another victim, Jane Doe No. 3, begins her testimony, recounting how she moved to New York City 15 years prior to pursue modeling and was subsequently introduced to Mr. Epstein by a woman who portrayed him as someone who could help her career.
DOJ-OGR-00000675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It shows an attorney, Mr. Edwards, introducing his client as 'Jane Doe 2' to the court. Jane Doe 2 then begins her victim impact statement, speaking about the widespread nature of the trauma, the 'Me Too' movement, and her intention to address the difficult question of why victims stayed in the abusive situation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023049.jpg
This article from The Virgin Islands Daily News details the 'unusual level of collaboration' between federal prosecutors (including Alexander Acosta and A. Marie Villafana) and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team during the negotiation of his non-prosecution agreement. It highlights the exclusion of victims from the process, the 'VIP treatment' Epstein received in jail (including work release authorized by Sheriff Ric Bradshaw), and subsequent legal battles by victims like 'Jane Doe No. 1' (Wild) and Jena-Lisa Jones to invalidate the agreement. The document also reveals that in 2011, the NY District Attorney's office under Cyrus Vance argued on Epstein's behalf to reduce his sex offender status, a move that shocked the presiding judge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015626.jpg
This document is a legal response in the case of Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072), arguing against the sealing of records based on Judge Marra's order. It details that Dershowitz's argument for confidentiality is a misunderstanding, and references a 2008 federal case (Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States) filed by Edwards and Cassell pro bono, on behalf of underage sex abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein, where discovery requests were made in 2011 seeking information about Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021717.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article dated August 19, 2011, detailing a court hearing regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra heard arguments from victims' lawyers (Edwards, Cassell) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee concerning whether the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The judge also set a schedule for Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, to submit arguments regarding the unsealing of correspondence between the defense and federal prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021716.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article from August 2011 detailing legal arguments before Judge Kenneth Marra regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement. Attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, representing two Jane Does, argued that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The attorneys sought to nullify the agreement and unseal correspondence, aiming to expose Epstein to federal prosecution.
| 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