Southern District of Florida
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Northern District of Georgia
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Northern District of Georgia prosecutors
|
Proxy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Southern District of New York Prosecutors
|
No communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Professional distancing |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Jurisdictional dispute |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Jurisdictional separation |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement and investigation in Florida where victims' rights were violated. | Florida | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Unknown | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal agreement | The Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) with the Southern District of Flor... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Period covered by the OPR report regarding the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jef... | Southern District of Florida | View |
20250117162420418_AMENDED%20Application%20to%20Extend%20T...
This document is an amended application to the US Supreme Court requesting a 45-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Her new attorney, David Oscar Markus, cites his recent retention and conflicting trial schedules as reasons for the delay. The application highlights a legal question regarding a circuit split on whether plea agreements are binding on federal prosecutors across different districts.
025.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on November 29, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting a 10-day extension to respond to two plaintiff motions regarding protective orders and evidence preservation. The motion states that the parties are currently in discussions to resolve the matters and that plaintiff's counsel, Gary Farmer, does not oppose the extension. The document lists M.J. as the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants.
020.pdf
This document is a Reply in Support of a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2010. The defense argues that the plaintiff failed to properly serve Epstein because the papers were left with an individual named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York home (9 East 71st St), but the plaintiff failed to prove 'Mark' resided there or was of suitable discretion. The filing also seeks to strike allegations regarding obstruction of justice in prior litigation and opposes sanctions against Epstein.
017-20.pdf
This affidavit by attorney Bradley Edwards details difficulties in discovery for a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 10-81111). It alleges that key witnesses Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel evaded depositions by falsely claiming to be out of the country. Crucially, it lists specific individuals for whom Epstein paid legal fees to prevent them from testifying against him, explicitly labeling Sarah Kellen as a 'procurer of girls' and Nadia Marcinkova as a 'live-in sex slave', while also identifying his personal pilots and household staff.
017-19.pdf
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an emergency motion to hold Jeffrey Epstein in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders in a civil case (08-CV-80893). The motion alleges that Epstein failed to produce state criminal discovery materials and provided only heavily redacted correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's Office, obscuring the defense counsel's side of the communications. Doe seeks immediate production of unredacted documents, sanctions of $5,000 against Epstein's counsel, and a ruling that withheld materials be deemed admissible at trial.
017-14.pdf
Order from the U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida) dated June 25, 2010, denying Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of Magistrate Judge Johnson's discovery orders. Epstein is ordered to produce documents within three days, with specific instructions to redact names of minor sexual assault victims. The order also restricts the Plaintiff from disclosing Epstein's tax returns or passport to third parties, except for expert witnesses bound by confidentiality.
017-12.pdf
This document is an appeal by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein against a Magistrate's Order compelling him to produce discovery materials, including correspondence with prosecutors, tax returns, and passport/travel records. Epstein argues that producing these documents violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he still faces a real threat of federal prosecution outside the Southern District of Florida, despite his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing also details privacy concerns for third parties (alleged victims), claims attorney work-product privilege over files selected by his defense counsel, and argues that his offer to stipulate to a high net worth renders the production of his tax returns unnecessary.
017-11.pdf
This Omnibus Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida), dated April 1, 2010, denies two motions filed by Jeffrey Epstein for reconsideration of previous orders. The court upholds previous rulings compelling Epstein to produce specific discovery materials, including his passport and tax returns (W-2s and 1099s for 2003-2008), rejecting his Fifth Amendment arguments under the 'foregone conclusion' doctrine and 'required records' exception. The order grants Epstein a ten-day window to file a formal appeal.
017-09.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in February 2010, arguing against a Magistrate's order compelling him to produce sensitive documents. The motion relies heavily on Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, arguing that despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein faces real risks of prosecution in other jurisdictions. Attached exhibits include the Plaintiff's 2009 requests for production of massage logs, photos of Epstein's Palm Beach home, financial records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander, to which Epstein consistently objected.
017-02.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 6, 2009, opposing a Motion to Compel discovery filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse the production of photographs of his Palm Beach home (specifically massage rooms), financial records, tax returns, passport/travel records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander. The defense argues that despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the threat of federal prosecution remains real and substantial, particularly in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that the act of producing these documents would be testimonial and incriminating.
016-13.pdf
This document is a Motion for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 against Jeffrey Epstein on January 4, 2010. The motion alleges that Epstein flagrantly violated multiple court orders, including a No-Contact Order, by deliberately appearing at the location of the Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination (IME) on November 24, 2009. The Plaintiff requests sanctions, attorney's fees, and a protective order moving the remainder of her IME to a different city, citing the trauma caused by the encounter.
016-12.pdf
This document is a Motion for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 against Jeffrey Epstein for violating a no-contact order and a written stipulation. On September 16, 2009, Epstein appeared in the lobby of the building where Jane Doe No. 4's deposition was scheduled, staring her down and causing her to flee in distress, despite an agreement that he would not attend. The document includes a declaration from attorney Adam Horowitz, a transcript of the cancelled deposition where defense counsel Robert Critton argues Epstein was simply leaving his office in the same building, and an email confirming the prior stipulation.
015.pdf
This document is a Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Quash Service of Process. The plaintiff, M.J., argues that service was properly effected on October 8, 2010, when a private investigator handed the papers to an employee named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York mansion. The filing accuses Epstein and his associate Richard Barnett of fraud and perjury for submitting an affidavit claiming service never occurred, and details a pattern of obstruction by Epstein and his associates (including Ghislaine Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel) in similar civil cases.
015-01.pdf
Affidavit by attorney Bradley Edwards in Case 10-81111 detailing obstruction tactics by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The document asserts that Jean Luc Brunel visited Epstein 67 times in jail and that both Brunel and Ghislaine Maxwell evaded depositions by falsely claiming to be out of the country. It explicitly lists Epstein's inner circle (including pilots and household staff like Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova) and notes that Epstein paid for their legal counsel to control their testimony.
010.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on November 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-cv-81111) by the plaintiff, identified as M.J. The filing strikes two previous certificates of service (DE 5 and DE 6) related to a summons and a subpoena for defendant Jeffrey Epstein due to incorrect filing. The document names Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants and lists contact information for attorneys representing both sides.
020.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on June 16, 2010, in the case of L.M. v. Epstein. Epstein's lawyers argue the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint within the required 120 days (Rule 4(m)). Furthermore, the motion alleges that the complaint filed by L.M. (represented by Bradley Edwards) was used as a prop in Scott Rothstein's massive $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to lure investors with fabricated settlement agreements. The document cites depositions where L.M. contradicts allegations made in her complaint regarding sexual acts and travel.
017.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, regarding the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The filing, submitted by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin on behalf of Plaintiff 'C.L.', serves to withdraw a subpoena and cancel the scheduled deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which was set for the following day, June 15, 2010. The document also includes a certificate of service listing various attorneys representing different parties in related cases against Epstein.
008.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Protective Order filed by Igor Zinoview and Jeffrey Epstein to limit the scope of depositions in a civil case. Zinoview asserts via affidavit that he only began working for Epstein in November 2005, after the alleged events, and thus has no relevant knowledge. The filing also includes excerpts from the depositions of Epstein's pilots, Larry Visoski and Larry Eugene Morrison, where they are questioned about their personal beliefs regarding the sexual abuse allegations and whether they would trust Epstein with their own daughters. Flight logs and passenger manifests are referenced in the deposition indexes ('PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK' and 'JEGE, Inc., Passenger Manifest') but the actual log content is not present in these specific pages.
010-10.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated April 15, 2015, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion for a supplemental protective order. Epstein sought to keep correspondence between his lawyers and the US Government regarding his non-prosecution agreement sealed from the public. Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the public interest in determining if the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was violated outweighs Epstein's desire for confidentiality, stating that plea negotiations are not privileged.
076.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) in response to Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce his income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that the tax returns are relevant for determining punitive damages and are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the 'required records' exception. The document also notes Epstein's attempt to avoid producing records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs reject as insufficient.
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.
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.
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.
031.pdf
This document is a Reply by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to Plaintiff Jane Doe II's opposition to his motion to dismiss a civil suit (Case 09-CIV-80469). Epstein's defense argues that a concurrent state action requires dismissal of the federal case, that the 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 ('Masha's Law') cannot be applied retroactively to conduct from 2003-2005 to increase damages, and that the Plaintiff misrepresents the terms of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office. The document details specific dates in 2003 and 2004 where the Plaintiff alleges she received payments for acts of prostitution.
020.pdf
This document is the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in a civil case. The Plaintiff argues that the federal court has jurisdiction alongside state claims, that the 2006 amendments to 18 U.S.C. §2255 regarding damages should apply retroactively or are procedural, and that interstate commerce requirements were met via phone calls made by co-defendant Sarah Kellen from a New York number. The document details specific dates of solicitation between 2003 and 2005 and alleges a conspiracy involving Epstein, Kellen, and Haley Robson to procure minors for prostitution.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity