Jack Scarola
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
[Redacted Plaintiff]
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Professional counsel for |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial defendant vs counsel for victims |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Edwards
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Thomas E. Scott
|
Opposing counsel co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Virginia Roberts
|
No prior communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brad
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James E. Hill
|
Professional press |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BRAD EDWARDS
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert C. Josefsberg
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witnesses who testified
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Questioning of Attorneys Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman by the defense. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Upcoming trial in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Malicious prosecution suit against Epstein likely to go to trial. | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| N/A | Legal request and opposition | The defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, made a request to call Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert G... | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Representation/bringing to government | Jack Scarola represented Carolyn and brought her to the government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Conversation | Jack Scarola talked to other witnesses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The witness, Carolyn, filed a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The witness filed a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-04 | N/A | Case in state court pitting Bradley Edwards against Epstein | Palm Beach County | View |
| 2021-05-03 | N/A | Issuance and distribution of an Order regarding the trial date in United States v. Ghislaine Maxw... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-01-26 | N/A | Conference between Jack Scarola and the witness regarding testimony. | Florida (presumed) | View |
| 2021-01-21 | N/A | Approximate date of AUSA's trip to Florida to meet Jack Scarola (referenced as 'last week' in Jan... | Florida | View |
| 2020-07-17 | N/A | Scheduled WebEx interview/meeting with the witness at Jack Scarola's office. | Jack Scarola's Office | View |
| 2020-07-17 | N/A | Video interview/meeting with witness, Jack Scarola, Mike, and FBI/Prosecutors via WebEx. | Jack Scarola's Office (Conf... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Legal action | Carolyn, through her lawyer, responds and gets in touch with the government, right after the vict... | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-07 | N/A | Jack Scarola informs SDNY prosecutors about a victim willing to testify regarding molestation and... | Email correspondence | View |
| 2019-03-05 | N/A | Miami federal prosecutors sent a letter recusing themselves from the case. | Miami | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal action | Carolyn's lawyer, Jack Scarola, contacted the government. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place between attorneys for accusing witnesses and SDNY prosecutors concerning or r... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-08-01 | N/A | Scarola put Trump on the witness list. | Palm Beach | View |
| 2016-07-07 | N/A | Filing of Motion to File an Over Length Reply by Bradley J. Edwards. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2016-07-07 | N/A | Filing of Motion to Seal Bradley J. Edwards' Motion to Quash Subpoena. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2016-04-08 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Withdrawal in Edwards & Cassell v. Dershowitz. | Broward County, Florida | View |
| 2016-02-03 | N/A | Electronic filing and service of legal documents through the Clerk of Broward County | Broward County, Florida | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place where certain attorneys for accusing witnesses met with SDNY prosecutors to a... | Southern District of New York | View |
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.
015-01.pdf
This document is a Motion to Stay proceedings filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in a civil case brought by a plaintiff identified as C.M.A. Epstein argues that the civil case should be paused until late 2010, when his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors expires, to avoid forcing him to waive his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination while facing potential ongoing criminal liability. The filing includes an affidavit from his criminal defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, and an Indictment from 2006 for Felony Solicitation of Prostitution.
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.
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.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
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.
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.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
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).
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.
038.pdf
This document is a Motion to Reschedule Hearing filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert C. Josefsberg, representing Plaintiffs Jane Doe 101 and 102, requests to move a hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, because he will be attending his 50th College Reunion in Hanover, New Hampshire. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal teams associated with Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and various plaintiffs in related cases.
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.
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.
010.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Striking Docket Entry' filed on May 4, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., notifies the court that a previous docket entry was filed without a signature and has been re-filed correctly. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing numerous attorneys involved in this case and related cases against Epstein, including Bruce Reinhart (defense), Jack Scarola, and Brad Edwards.
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.
EFTA00038919.pdf
This document is an email chain forwarded on January 3, 2022. It contains an original email from attorney Jack Scarola dated December 29, 2021, issuing a statement on the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. Scarola expresses satisfaction with the verdict on behalf of his clients but notes that other co-conspirators in Epstein's enterprise have yet to be held accountable.
Edwards adv. Epstein Interview
Discussion regarding Virginia's comfort level in naming names and her travel history with Jeffrey Epstein.
[EXTERNAL] Re: EXTERNAL Rule 17(c) subpoena
Discussing privacy concerns regarding files and disclosures made to the Fund under confidentiality assurances.
Re: EXTERNAL Rule 17(c) subpoena
Informing Jack about a motion filed by Maxwell's counsel to subpoena the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and stating intent to file a motion to quash.
Local Criminal Rule 23.1
Notification regarding a recent order from Judge Nathan concerning Local Criminal Rule 23.1, clarifying its application to attorneys associated with a case, such as attorneys for witnesses.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Notification regarding an attached order concerning the trial date for the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
RE Request for information
Sender provides a picture of a victim taken around the time of her abuse by Epstein. Mentions the victim recalls topless photos were taken which would be critical evidence.
RE: [Redacted]
AUSA thanks Jack and confirms they will work with FBI Victim Services to figure out funding logistics.
Funding Confirmation
Confirms SDNY can pay for the witness, husband, and three minor children to travel to NY and for a hotel suite.
Re: [Redacted]
Jack accepts the news and pledges support.
Re: [Redacted]
Confirms witness is willing to testify but requires her husband and children to travel with her. Requests government commitment for funding travel.
Follow up
Asking for an update, noting steps needed to expand the case to include the witness's testimony.
Re: [Redacted]
Jack confirms he is scheduled to conference with the witness tomorrow afternoon.
Checking in
AUSA checking if the witness has made a decision about testifying. Mentions a recent trip to Florida.
RE: [Redacted] - Discovery Responses
Attached please find the Discovery Responses filed on [Redacted] behalf in her civil matter against Epstein.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Jack confirms he is available right now.
RE: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Discussing contact with Epstein Estate attorneys (Weinstein and Tomback) regarding the release of the transcript. Confirms limited details were shared about Scarola's client.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Stating he is unaware of any protective order relating to the CMA case.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Jack states he is unaware of any protective order relating to the case.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Asking about protective orders in the civil suit that might govern disclosure.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Inquiry about whether a protective order exists in the civil suit that would govern disclosing materials.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Asking if USANYS was able to locate the transcript.
RE: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Acknowledging receipt of email; mentioning they will reach out to the adversary to ask for a copy of the deposition.
Re: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Stating they will likely reach out to the adversary in the deposition to ask for a copy.
Fwd: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Forwarding confirmation that the deposition transcript cannot be found. Attaching notes from paralegal Mike Danchuk instead.
Fwd: 12/04/09 [Redacted] vs Epstein Deposition Transcript
Informing USANYS that the original deposition transcript and video are lost; attaching paralegal notes instead; commenting on the nature of the testimony regarding Epstein's victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity