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 |
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.
013.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 6, 2009, against Plaintiff Jane Doe II. The defense argues that the federal case should be dismissed because a nearly identical state case was filed 10 months prior, and because the plaintiff is improperly applying a 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 retroactively to conduct alleged to have occurred between 2003 and 2005, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto clause. Additionally, the motion argues that the statute does not allow for multiplying damages per incident and that the plaintiff failed to allege the necessary interstate commerce elements required for federal jurisdiction.
026.pdf
This document is an October 2008 court order granting a motion to remand the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen' back to state court. The federal judge ruled that the plaintiff had valid state-law claims (civil conspiracy, etc.) against defendant Haley Robson, a Florida resident, meaning her inclusion in the lawsuit was not 'fraudulent joinder' intended solely to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. The order details the plaintiff's allegations that Robson recruited her at age 14 from Loxahatchee, Kellen managed the encounter, and Epstein sexually abused her at his Palm Beach mansion.
018.pdf
This document is a Motion for Stay filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in a civil lawsuit brought by Jane Doe. They argue that a stay is mandatory under federal law because of a pending federal criminal investigation/action (the deferred prosecution agreement). Attached is a declaration from AUSA A. Marie Villafana detailing the government's interaction with victims (T.M., C.W., S.R.) and providing copies of notification letters sent to them and their attorneys regarding their rights and the non-prosecution agreement.
012.pdf
This document is a motion filed on August 21, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests the court to preserve evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department from Epstein's home, citing concerns that Epstein (who had recently pleaded guilty and was in jail) was attempting to retrieve the evidence through State Court and might destroy it. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
011.pdf
This document is a Motion to Remand filed on August 18, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff seeks to move the case back to Florida state court, arguing that federal diversity jurisdiction is invalid because both the Plaintiff and Defendant Haley Robson are Florida citizens. The motion details allegations that Robson recruited the plaintiff (a minor at the time) for Epstein's sexual abuse scheme and argues that Robson is a legitimate defendant, not 'fraudulently joined' solely to prevent federal jurisdiction.
030.pdf
This document is a Notice of Withdrawing Subpoena filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.L., represented by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin, withdrew a subpoena and cancelled the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which had been scheduled for June 15, 2010. The document includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in the primary case (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein) and related cases.
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.
011.pdf
Legal motion filed on August 11, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting to consolidate the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein with the lead case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein for discovery purposes. The document states that the case involves alleged sexual abuse in Palm Beach, Florida, in 2001. The motion was unopposed by the Defendant's counsel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
009.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff C.L. opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to dismiss Count III of her complaint. The core legal argument concerns whether the Adam Walsh Act (2006) can be applied retroactively to Epstein's conduct; the Plaintiff argues it provides a civil, non-punitive remedy and thus does not violate the Ex Post Facto clause. The document also graphically describes Epstein's 'systematic' child exploitation enterprise, involving at least three assistants who recruited, groomed, and paid minor girls, which Epstein sought to strike from the record.
EFTA00038941.pdf
This document is a 'Relativity Searches' report dated November 18, 2021, listing document control numbers relevant to four redacted search targets. The results include references to Epstein's 'black book', lists of girls' names, masseuses, phone records, bill logs, and interview transcripts from 2007 and 2018. It serves as an index of evidence rather than a primary source of the evidence itself.
EFTA00038158.pdf
This document is a chain of internal emails between the FBI and DOJ from September and October 2020. The correspondence concerns the review of a draft report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation between 2006 and 2008. FBI officials, including a Unit Chief and Special Agent, are coordinating to review the report specifically to ensure its release does not compromise their '7A stance,' which refers to FOIA Exemption 7(A) protecting ongoing law enforcement proceedings.
EFTA00031991.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 24, 2020, between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at SDNY contacts OPR Counsel to discuss the 'universe of materials' OPR gathered during their review of the 2008 Non-prosecution Agreement between the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein. SDNY seeks this information to determine their discovery obligations in the recently filed case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
EFTA00030511.pdf
An email dated July 30, 2019, circulating a South Florida Sun Sentinel article. The article discusses the legal conflict regarding Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, noting that while some victims want new charges in Florida following his New York arrest, prosecutors argue others wish to avoid reopening the case to protect their privacy. Lawyers for victims Jane Doe 1 and 2 argue that the privacy concerns of some should not prevent the prosecution of Epstein and his co-conspirators.
EFTA00028452.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from June 2019 between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and their Victim Witness Coordinator regarding the impending arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence reveals that the investigation was covert at the time, with charges expected within a week, and highlights a strong desire to avoid the failures of the previous Southern District of Florida investigation regarding victims' rights. Logistics for a victim hotline (866-874-8900) and coordination between SDNY, the FBI, and the C-20 squad are discussed in detail.
EFTA00027959.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2020 between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG). The Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at USANYS reached out to the Associate Deputy Attorney General to discuss document and discovery requests related to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) investigation and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically in light of the recent charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. The ODAG official advised contacting SDFL directly as CVRA litigation had concluded and noted that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) had conducted a significant document collection the previous year.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity