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 |
076.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The motion states that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case and that the plaintiff's counsel agrees to the extension. The document includes a procedural history of filings and a service list of attorneys involved.
076-01.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of October 30, 2009, for filing a responsive pleading.
070.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.
070-01.pdf
This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated August 2009. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response regarding a motion to dismiss. The new deadline for Epstein's responsive pleading is set for October 15, 2009.
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.
057.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591). Epstein's attorneys request an extension until August 21, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to a motion to dismiss, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension via telephone and correspondence.
057-01.pdf
This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated July 2009 (entered on docket July 2, 2009). Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time. Epstein was given until August 21, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101's response regarding a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.
056.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on June 26, 2009, by the attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Plaintiff argues against Epstein's motion to dismiss, specifically contesting his claim that multiple violations of sexual exploitation statutes should be merged into a single count with a single penalty. The response asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 2255 allows for separate civil remedies and damages (minimum $150,000) for each distinct violation of a predicate offense.
053.pdf
Legal filing from June 12, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team withdraws seven specific arguments previously made in a Motion to Dismiss regarding the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, including arguments about the plaintiff's minority status and predicate offenses. The defense states it will now rely solely on arguments regarding count merger and subparagraph D.
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.
048-01.pdf
A proposed court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The document grants the Plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time and page limits to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The order allows for a response of up to 36 pages. Note: The body of the text contains a likely typographical error dating it to 'June, 2008' while the header indicates it was entered on the docket in June 2009.
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.
035.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs argue for the right to proceed anonymously, citing fears of harassment, public humiliation, and Epstein's alleged intent to intimidate victims by exposing their identities. The document lists numerous related cases and provides a service list of attorneys representing various parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
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.pdf
This document is a motion filed on May 26, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 requesting a court order to compel Jeffrey Epstein to preserve all evidence, including electronic data, documents, and physical items located at his six international properties. The plaintiffs argue that given Epstein's status as a sex offender and his previous attempts to reclaim seized property (which may include child pornography), there is a high risk he will destroy incriminating evidence, including flight logs ('records of domestic and international travel') and computer files. The document lists the specific types of digital and physical evidence sought and notes that Epstein's counsel had failed to respond to a previous preservation letter.
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.
021.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 18, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers requested permission to exceed the standard 20-page limit for their upcoming motion to dismiss, citing complex legal issues regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §2255 and its applicability to the alleged conduct. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this request via telephone.
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.
016.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on May 11, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys oppose the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously, arguing that Epstein's due process rights to conduct discovery—specifically issuance of third-party subpoenas to medical providers and employers—require the use of the plaintiff's legal name. The filing asserts that the plaintiff's privacy interests do not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings and Epstein's right to defend himself against allegations of sexual exploitation and coercion.
015.pdf
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on May 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591-MARRA/JOHNSON). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally enter their appearance as counsel for the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing counsel for the Plaintiff (Jane Doe No. 101) and co-counsel for the Defendant.
| 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