Doe No. 2
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Adam Horowitz
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe No. 103
|
Similar claimant |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | Legal decision | A decision was made in the case Doe No. 2 v. Kolko. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
012-02.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated April 1, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309). The order grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the case to Judge Marra's Division to be consolidated with eleven similar pending actions under the lead case Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80119).
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
Response in opposition
Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's appeal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity