Jane Does 2-8
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Stuart S. Mermelstein
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-05-28 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal regarding the productio... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2010-05-28 | N/A | Plaintiffs filed Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2010-05-28 | N/A | Filing of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Rule 4 Appeal | Southern District of Florida | View |
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.
015.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on May 28, 2010, by Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) opposing Jeffrey Epstein's appeal of a Magistrate Judge's order compelling him to produce income tax returns for the years 2003-2008. The Plaintiffs argue that tax returns are 'required records' not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and are critical for determining punitive damages. The document notes that Epstein attempted to avoid producing these records by offering to stipulate to a net worth in the 'nine figures,' which the Plaintiffs rejected as insufficient.
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.
028.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on May 28, 2010, by Plaintiffs (Jane Does 2-8) in the case Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON). The memorandum opposes 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 not protected by the Fifth Amendment (citing the 'required records' exception and 'foregone conclusion' doctrine) and are critical for determining punitive damages given the allegations of sexual molestation and Epstein's refusal to provide net worth discovery beyond a stipulation of 'nine figures.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity