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 |
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.
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.
033.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Limited Appearance' filed by the United States government in the Southern District of Florida on May 29, 2009. The filing, signed by Assistant US Attorney A. Marie Villafaña under US Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, consolidates multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein (Plaintiffs include various Jane Does and C.M.A.). The United States enters as Amicus Curiae solely to respond to a court order regarding Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings, explicitly stating it does not become a party to the litigation nor take a position on the outcome of the civil suits.
028-03.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion by Plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 101 and 102) to preserve evidence in their cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including flight logs ('travel in Defendant's private airplanes'), phone records, computer data since 1998, financial records regarding payments to victims, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly forbids the destruction, deletion, or alteration of any such evidence.
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.
019.pdf
This document is a consolidated court order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 14, 2009, covering multiple civil lawsuits (Jane Does, C.M.A., etc.) against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra requests the United States government provide its official position regarding Epstein's motion to stay these civil cases. Epstein argued that defending himself in these civil suits might violate his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO and subject him to criminal prosecution.
018.pdf
This document is a court order dated May 14, 2009, from the Southern District of Florida, consolidating eleven separate civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein for the purposes of discovery and procedural motions. Judge Kenneth A. Marra designates 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein' as the lead case for filings and sets strict limits on depositions to prevent duplication, ruling that defendants and common witnesses may be deposed only once across all cases. The order aims to improve judicial economy and efficiency in handling the multiple lawsuits filed by various Jane Does and other plaintiffs.
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.
006.pdf
This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 28, 2009. It addresses ten separate civil cases filed against Jeffrey Epstein by various plaintiffs (Jane Does and C.M.A.). The order grants the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases for discovery purposes and grants a protective order limiting Epstein to a single deposition per plaintiff to prevent piecemeal depositions, while also ordering parties in remaining cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.
DOJ-OGR-00030279.tif
This document is a page from a court filing, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, dated September 17, 2009, listing multiple attorneys and their respective law firms, contact information, and the specific related cases they represent plaintiffs in. It details legal counsel for various plaintiffs, including 'Jane Doe' and 'C.M.A.', across several related case numbers, providing contact details for each attorney and their firm.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013477.jpg
This court document, filed on June 28, 2010, updates the court on the status of Doe v. Epstein. It reports that since mediation on April 5, 2010, Jeffrey Epstein has resolved/settled numerous lawsuits, including cases involving C.L., C.M.A., and multiple Jane Does, leaving only the current federal case and two state court cases unresolved, all represented by Brad Edwards. The document also notes the extensive scope of the upcoming trial, citing over 170 potential witnesses and 140 exhibits.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity