| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Client |
16
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
4
|
4 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-06-11 | N/A | Certificate of Service mailed to opposing counsel. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on March 31, 2010, initiating a federal lawsuit by plaintiff 'C.L.' against Jeffrey Epstein. The cause of action is cited as sexual assault of a minor under 18 U.S.C §2255 and §2422. The document lists Epstein's legal team, including Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart, and Robert Critton, and references numerous related federal cases.
This document is a Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories in a 2009 civil case against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff, whose name is redacted, details her residence history and her interactions with Epstein between 2002 and 2003, stating she visited his Florida home roughly twice a week to provide massages after being introduced by a friend. The document reveals she recruited other females for Epstein in exchange for payment, used drugs (Morning Glory, Angel Trumpets, cocaine, marijuana) during the relevant period, and lists various legal counsel and law enforcement entities involved in the investigation.
This document is a service list for the 2008 court case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB AB. It provides the names, law firms, and contact information for the attorneys representing various parties in the case. Key parties and their counsel include the State of Florida (represented by Lanna Belohlavek), Jeffrey Epstein (represented by Jack A. Goldberger and Robert Critton), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce E. Reinhart), and Haley Robson (represented by Douglas M. McIntosh and Jason A. McGrath).
The document is a professional headshot photograph of Bruce E. Reinhart. The caption identifies him as a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC. The image includes a PR Newswire credit and a Bates stamp indicating it is part of a House Oversight Committee production.
Service of the response via U.S. Mail.
Argument that service was improper and default judgment was premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity