C.M.A.
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jack P. Hill
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jack P. Hill
|
Counsel for |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Carolyn Andriano
|
Same person |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial plaintiff vs defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Counsel for plaintiff |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack P. Hill
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack P. Hill
|
Counsel for plaintiff |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Counsel for |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-05-20 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-20 | N/A | Plaintiff C.M.A. filed Notice of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-04-29 | N/A | Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Motion to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A. (D.E. 67). | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Alleged sexual abuse of Plaintiff C.M.A. by Epstein (referenced in discovery response). | N/A | View |
017-01.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Jane Doe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket invocation of Fifth Amendment privileges to refuse producing documents (such as phone records, tax returns, and correspondence) is improper and that he should be compelled to answer or provide a privilege log. The motion details specific discovery requests and Epstein's uniform response asserting his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
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.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
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.
044.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida, requesting the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein had previously asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions regarding his net worth (alleged to be over $1 billion), his financial support of modeling agency MC2, his ownership of foreign property, and specific allegations of sexual assault, battery, and sex trafficking of minors. The plaintiff argues that the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as a blanket refusal in a civil case and demands Epstein answer or provide specific justification for his silence.
043.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The motion argues that Epstein has improperly asserted blanket Fifth Amendment privileges in response to sixteen specific requests for production of documents, including telephone records, appointment books, financial records, and correspondence. The Plaintiff requests the Court to order Epstein to answer the requests, provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocations, and produce a privilege log.
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.
021.pdf
This document is a Notice of Filing Proposed Order submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2009. It lists eleven separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs, including Jane Does 2-7, 101, 102, C.M.A., and Doe II. The filing serves to submit a proposed order related to case no. 08-80119 and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the litigation.
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.
006.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, dated April 28, 2009, presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order grants the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order against piecemeal depositions, limiting Jeffrey Epstein (Defendant) to a single deposition of each plaintiff across ten related civil cases. It also consolidates four specific cases (08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993) for the purposes of discovery and orders parties in the remaining six cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
040.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed on July 10, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe (represented by Bradley Edwards). The motion requests the court to force Jeffrey Epstein to answer a set of interrogatories regarding his financial assets, net worth, foreign travel, property ownership, and alleged interactions with the plaintiff and other minor females. Epstein refused to answer nearly all questions (except for providing the name/address of the person answering), invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
039.pdf
This legal filing is a Motion to Compel submitted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to answer 23 specific requests for admission regarding his net worth, asset transfers, and allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking of minors, which he had previously refused to answer by asserting Fifth Amendment privileges. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's blanket assertion of the privilege is improper and that he must provide a particularized justification for each refusal or face an adverse inference.
030.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 and recruiter, Hayley Robson, has been harassing victims Jane Does 4 and 7 through text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by and cooperating with Epstein. The plaintiffs request a court order prohibiting Epstein from any direct or indirect contact with the victims.
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.
020.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed on May 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It lists multiple civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein. The United States, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña (under U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta), files this notice to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's 'Motion to Stay Proceedings,' while explicitly stating the U.S. is not becoming a party to the litigation.
016-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein and his associates to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically highlighting records of domestic and international travel (including private airplanes), phone communications, financial records, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly prohibits the destruction, alteration, or deletion of potential evidence dating back to 1998.
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).
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.
060.pdf
This is a Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The motion seeks a court order requiring Epstein to answer 16 specific requests for production of documents (including telephone records, photos, tax returns, and passport copies) or to provide a privilege log, as Epstein has refused to produce documents by asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The plaintiff argues that Epstein's boilerplate objections are invalid, violate local rules requiring a privilege log, and that he must provide a particularized justification for his Fifth Amendment invocation for each request.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity