Jane Doe No. 101
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
22
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Katherine W. Ezell
|
Client |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Client |
5
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Defendant plaintiff |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser alleged |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Katherine W. Ezell
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Procurer
|
Recruiter recruit |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim abuser |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 first brought to Epstein's mansion at age 17. | 358 El Brillo Way, West Pal... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plaintiff lured back to Epstein mansion on at least one or two other occasions. | 358 El Brillo Way, West Pal... | View |
| 2010-12-13 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-12-07 | N/A | Settlement Agreement | N/A | View |
| 2009-10-15 | N/A | Court Order entered on FLSD Docket granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-07-02 | N/A | Date the document was entered on the FLSD Docket. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-06-26 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 56]. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-06-26 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 56]. | Southern District of Florida | 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 Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal ... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-05-29 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-22 | N/A | Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 and 102 filed a Motion for No-Contact Order. | US District Court Southern ... | 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 | Date of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101's First Amended Complaint [DE 9] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed Complaint [DE 1] | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [DE 9]. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-04-17 | N/A | Plaintiff filed action against Epstein (Complaint DE 1). | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-04-17 | N/A | Sexual abuse of Jane Doe No. 101 by Jeffrey Epstein when she was under age 18. | Unspecified | View |
| 2009-04-17 | N/A | Motion to Proceed Anonymously filed/signed. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-04-17 | N/A | Filing of Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. | U.S. District Court, Southe... | View |
| 2008-07-25 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Enlargement of Time | Southern District of Florida | View |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
021.pdf
This document is a Notice of Filing Proposed Order submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2009. It lists eleven separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs, including Jane Does 2-7, 101, 102, C.M.A., and Doe II. The filing serves to submit a proposed order related to case no. 08-80119 and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the litigation.
006.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, dated April 28, 2009, presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order grants the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order against piecemeal depositions, limiting Jeffrey Epstein (Defendant) to a single deposition of each plaintiff across ten related civil cases. It also consolidates four specific cases (08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993) for the purposes of discovery and orders parties in the remaining six cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
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.
030.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 and recruiter, Hayley Robson, has been harassing victims Jane Does 4 and 7 through text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by and cooperating with Epstein. The plaintiffs request a court order prohibiting Epstein from any direct or indirect contact with the victims.
024.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
022.pdf
This document is a legal reply brief filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that revealing their identities would subject them to harassment, shame, and further trauma, particularly given their status as victims of sexual exploitation as minors. The filing also discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), statutory minimum damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
020.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It lists multiple civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. The United States, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña (under U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta), files this notice to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's 'Motion to Stay Proceedings,' while explicitly stating the U.S. is not becoming a party to the litigation.
016-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein and his associates to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically highlighting records of domestic and international travel (including private airplanes), phone communications, financial records, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly prohibits the destruction, alteration, or deletion of potential evidence dating back to 1998.
013.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on May 20, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, involving multiple consolidated cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff C.M.A. formally withdraws her objections to Epstein's motion to identify her by her legal name in the case style and in third-party subpoenas, rendering the motion to dismiss moot, though she continues to object to dismissal on alternative grounds. The document lists numerous 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs and provides a service list of attorneys representing both the plaintiffs (Jack Scarola, Jack P. Hill) and the defendant (Richard Willits, Robert Critton, Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart).
089.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-CV-80591. The plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, and defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit following a settlement, the terms of which the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 101).
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.
087-01.pdf
This document is a proposed court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of December 15, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss.
081-01.pdf
This document is a proposed court order (Document 81-1) from the case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket on November 16, 2009. The order grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of November 27, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's response regarding the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The document lists Kenneth A. Marra as the presiding United States District Judge.
078.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until November 16, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The document indicates that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
078-01.pdf
This document is a proposed court order from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The document grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss. The new deadline set for Epstein's filing is November 16, 2009.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Jane Doe No. 101 | $200.00 | Payment after massage session. | View |
| 2009-04-17 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | Jane Doe No. 101 | $0.00 | Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to money dama... | View |
Solicitation
Attempts to lure her back to the mansion for other sexual acts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity