ADL
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
ISRAEL
|
Pro israel group |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rothstein
|
Founder principal |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE DOE NO. 2
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Herbert Stettin
|
Fiduciary management |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Herbert Stettin
|
Chief restructuring officer |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice seized 40+ boxes of documents from RRA offices | RRA Offices | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | Release year of 'Donald TRUMP The Game' by Milton Bradley. | N/A | View |
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.
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.
044.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein had previously asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions regarding his net worth (alleged to be over $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of foreign property, and specific allegations of sexual assault, battery, and sex trafficking of minors. The plaintiff argues that the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as a blanket refusal in a civil case and demands Epstein answer or provide specific justification for his silence.
043.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The motion argues that Epstein has improperly asserted blanket Fifth Amendment privileges in response to sixteen specific requests for production of documents, including telephone records, appointment books, financial records, and correspondence. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order Epstein to answer the requests, provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocations, and produce a privilege log.
030.pdf
This document is a Notice of Withdrawing Subpoena filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.L., represented by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin, withdrew a subpoena and cancelled the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which had been scheduled for June 15, 2010. The document includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in the primary case (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein) and related cases.
027-01.pdf
This document is a Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition and an associated Subpoena filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON). Plaintiff Jane Doe, represented by attorney Brad Edwards of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, commanded Jean Luc Bruhel to appear for a deposition on September 22, 2009, in New York City. The document contains the legal notice, the subpoena addressed to Bruhel at a New York address, and standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding subpoenas.
021.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to avoid deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claimed he had no relevant knowledge of Epstein's legal matters. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview worked for Epstein during the police investigation period and likely has relevant observations, regardless of whether he discussed legal matters with Epstein.
017.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys reply to a response regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The document notes that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to the Epstein case, and alludes to serious ethical and criminal issues involving the RRA firm that could impact the validity of the 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.
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.
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.
040.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe (represented by Bradley Edwards). The motion requests the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer a set of interrogatories regarding his financial assets, net worth, foreign travel, property ownership, and alleged interactions with the plaintiff and other minor females. Epstein refused to answer nearly all questions (except for providing the name/address of the person answering), invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
039.pdf
This legal filing is a Motion to Compel submitted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission regarding his net worth, asset transfers, and allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of minors, which he had previously refused to answer by asserting Fifth Amendment privileges. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket assertion of the privilege is improper and that he must provide a particularized justification for each refusal or face an adverse inference.
087.pdf
This document is a Motion for Extension of Time filed on December 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense requested an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a reply, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and the need to investigate the implications of the 'Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA' firm implosion on the Plaintiff's counsel. The document notes that Plaintiff's counsel opposed this extension request.
086.pdf
This document is a response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano on November 28, 2009, opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to prevent his deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claims he has no relevant knowledge of legal matters involving Epstein. The Plaintiff argues that because Zinoview worked for Epstein during the active police investigation (2005-2006), he likely possesses relevant information regarding activities at the Epstein residence, and that a complete bar on his deposition is legally unjustified.
082.pdf
This document is a Reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2009 requesting a permanent order for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The filing highlights that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including about 13 boxes related to Epstein cases, amidst concerns of 'serious ethical and potentially criminal issues' at the firm. The document also argues against delaying the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
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.
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.
060.pdf
This is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The motion seeks a court order requiring Epstein to answer 16 specific requests for production of documents (including telephone records, photos, tax returns, and passport copies) or to provide a privilege log, as Epstein has refused to produce documents by asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's boilerplate objections are invalid, violate local rules requiring a privilege log, and that he must provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation for each request.
EFTA00032942.pdf
This document is a 'White Collar Law360' email newsletter dated February 13, 2020. It summarizes various legal news stories, including the Roger Stone sentencing, fraud cases involving Theranos and Air Charter Co., and investigations into university funding. A specific article highlights a defamation dispute between attorneys David Boies and Alan Dershowitz, centering on Boies' remarks regarding Dershowitz's alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
EFTA00032906.pdf
This document is an 'Access to Justice' email newsletter from Law360 dated April 20, 2020. It aggregates various legal news stories, primarily focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the justice system, including court closures, remote hearings, and bankruptcy issues. It is relevant to the Epstein files because it contains a summary of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling that the Crime Victims' Rights Act protections do not arise until after a formal criminal charge is filed, which is described as a blow to Epstein's victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity