Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Plaintiffs

Person
Mentions
35
Relationships
32
Events
58
Documents
17
Also known as:
Victim Plaintiffs Plaintiffs (Brunel/MC2) Federal Plaintiffs September 11th plaintiffs Victim plaintiffs Hip-replacement plaintiffs US Government/Civil Plaintiffs
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
32 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Epstein
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Jack Scarola
Legal representative
6
1
View
organization Privatbank
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Al Rajhi Bank
Litigation
5
1
View
organization CIA
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Jack Scarola
Client
5
1
View
person defendant
Litigation
5
1
View
organization al Qaeda
Adversarial
5
1
View
organization Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Legal representative
5
1
View
person the defendant
Adversarial
5
1
View
person Jeffrey Epstein
Legal representative
5
1
View
person defendants
Litigation
5
1
View
organization Al Rajhi Bank
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Katherine W. Ezell
Client
2
2
View
person Robert C. Josefsberg
Client
2
2
View
person Bruce Reinhart
Client
1
1
View
organization OGR
Claimant
1
1
View
person Jane Does 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Same group plaintiffs
1
1
View
person Bin Laden Family Members
Legal representative
1
1
View
person defendant
Legal representative
1
1
View
person Stuart S. Mermelstein
Counsel for plaintiffs
1
1
View
person Adam S. Horowitz
Counsel for plaintiffs
1
1
View
person Robert C. Josefsberg
Counsel for plaintiffs
1
1
View
person Katherine W. Ezell
Counsel for plaintiffs
1
1
View
person Stuart S. Mermelstein
Client
1
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Plaintiffs' motion to deny a protective order, which seeks to exclude Epstein from depositions, i... Court proceedings View
N/A N/A The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss the Federal complaint for lack of subject matter ... Federal Court View
N/A Legal action In a civil litigation, defense counsel declined to accept service on behalf of the defendant, for... this district View
N/A Lawsuit A civil litigation where multiple plaintiffs sued Jeffrey Epstein. N/A View
N/A Legal argument Defendant points the Court to civil law regarding plaintiffs proceeding by pseudonyms N/A View
N/A N/A Civil Suits Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Litigation against Mr. Epstein, for which a document was allegedly prepared. N/A View
N/A N/A Civil litigation cases involving the defendant. Various courts View
N/A N/A Civil litigation service attempt Southern District (NY) View
2025-07-11 N/A Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for an Order for Preservation of Evidence but required parties t... Court View
2024-01-12 N/A Judgment issued dismissing the case with prejudice. New York, New York View
2023-07-20 N/A Deadline for Plaintiffs' response to the motion. Southern District of New York View
2020-09-04 N/A Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman orders status reports for stayed cases pending potential settlemen... New York, New York View
2020-09-04 N/A Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman issues an order staying proceedings in multiple cases to allow for... New York, New York View
2020-09-04 N/A Court Order issued by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman staying proceedings in multiple cases. New York, New York View
2020-08-01 N/A Civil Cases Unknown View
2020-07-31 N/A Deadline for completion of expert discovery N/A View
2020-07-10 N/A New deadline for service of Plaintiffs' expert reports (extended from June 10). N/A View
2020-06-22 N/A Cases stayed pending plaintiffs' attempt to resolve claims through the Epstein Victims Compensati... U.S. District Court SDNY View
2020-06-22 N/A Order directing a status update and staying cases pending resolution attempts through the Compens... U.S. District Court SDNY View
2020-06-10 N/A Deadline for completion of all fact discovery N/A View
2020-06-10 N/A Deadline for Plaintiffs' expert reports N/A View
2020-06-01 N/A New deadline for Plaintiffs to file motions to amend pleadings or join parties (extended from Apr... Court View
2020-05-07 N/A Plaintiffs filed a letter in each Action seeking a pre-motion conference on motions to compel. United States Courthouse View
2020-04-30 N/A Deadline for motions to amend pleadings or join additional parties N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00001734.jpg

This document is page 3 of a government filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 21, 2020. The government argues against modifying a protective order, asserting that the defendant should not be allowed to use discovery materials from this criminal case in her parallel civil cases. The filing highlights that the grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators is active and ongoing, and that disseminating these materials could compromise witness privacy and the investigation.

Legal filing / government letter to court
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001076.jpg

This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00001949.jpg

This document is page 72 of a court transcript from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. The prosecution argues to the Judge that the defendant is a serious flight risk, justifying why they did not offer her the chance to surrender voluntarily. The prosecutor also notes the defendant's lack of candor regarding finances and references separate civil litigation where defense counsel refused to accept service on the defendant's behalf.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019551.jpg

This document is Page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, arguing against modifying a protective order. The Government asserts that the defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell) should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her civil cases, citing witness privacy and an active, ongoing grand jury investigation into co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. The text emphasizes that defense counsel represents the defendant in both criminal and civil matters and warns against 'cherry-picking' confidential materials to defend against abuse accusations.

Legal correspondence / court filing (letter to judge)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019336.jpg

This document is page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as 'the defendant'). The Government argues against modifying a protective order, stating that the defendant should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her various civil cases, as this would violate witness privacy and jeopardize an 'active' ongoing grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators. The text highlights that the same defense counsel represents the defendant in both civil and criminal matters, raising concerns about the inappropriate use of confidential discovery materials to defend against abuse accusations by civil plaintiffs.

Legal correspondence / court filing (government letter to judge)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg

This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017925.jpg

This document is page 22 of a Westlaw printout of a 2005 court opinion titled 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details legal standards for civil liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and civil RICO statutes (Section 1962), specifically defining 'material support' for terrorism. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a congressional production (possibly related to the Epstein investigation given the context of the request), this specific page discusses 9/11 litigation and does not explicitly name Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal opinion/court document (westlaw printout)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017905.jpg

This document is a page from a 2019 Westlaw printout containing legal headnotes for the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details legal arguments regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically affirming that the Saudi High Commission (SHC) and two Saudi officials were entitled to immunity in a lawsuit alleging they funded terrorism. The text discusses the rejection of a specific article offered as evidence by plaintiffs and establishes the legal standard for sovereign immunity regarding foreign agents.

Legal research / case law headnotes (westlaw printout)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017872.jpg

This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. The text focuses on legal arguments for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), arguing that by assisting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the defendants purposefully directed their activities at the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.

Legal opinion / court reporter page (federal supplement)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017869.jpg

This is page 804 of a legal opinion from the Federal Supplement (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, though the case name is not explicitly at the top). It details the court's decision to grant the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss a complaint based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The text also discusses standards for Personal Jurisdiction and the New York Long-Arm Statute, citing various legal precedents. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional document production.

Legal document (court opinion/ruling page from federal supplement)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017866.jpg

This document is page 801 from a 2005 legal opinion regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation (349 F.Supp.2d 765). The text discusses the 'discretionary function' exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the court's finding that this exception bars claims against Saudi Royals Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, who were accused of donating to charities linked to al Qaeda. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was likely part of a Congressional document production.

Legal opinion / court order (federal supplement)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017858.jpg

This document is page 793 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and rules that alleged money laundering or charitable contributions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki do not constitute 'commercial activity' that would strip them of sovereign immunity. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.

Legal opinion / court document
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023386.jpg

This document is a page from a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) regarding litigation over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It discusses legal theories of primary and secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for defendants accused of providing material support or financing to al-Qaeda. The document does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, but bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included in a larger production of documents to the House Oversight Committee.

Legal opinion / case law (westlaw printout)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023371.jpg

This document is a preliminary statement from a legal appeal (cited 2012) concerning the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. The Plaintiffs-Appellants (victims' families) are appealing a district court's dismissal of claims against five defendants, including Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and Saleh Abdullah Kamel, whom they allege knowingly provided material support to al-Qaeda. The text argues that the lower court applied improper pleading standards and misinterpreted statutes such as the Alien Tort Statute and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the U.S. House Oversight Committee.

Legal brief / appellate filing (westlaw printout)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015595.jpg

This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on behalf of Alan Dershowitz. The document argues that a Confidentiality Order should be modified to allow Dershowitz's counsel to use Virginia Roberts's deposition testimony to prepare his defense, citing Florida case law regarding the requirement that sealing orders be the 'least restrictive' measure available.

Legal filing (conclusion of a motion or memorandum of law)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014101.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) originating from the Southern District of Florida, dated March 24, 2015. It contains the Defendant's legal objections to document requests regarding IT systems and metadata. Crucially, it includes a response to a request for documents regarding visits to Little Saint James Island; the Defendant agrees to produce documents relating to the 'sole occasion' they were physically present on the island, a visit referenced in a sworn declaration by Alan Dershowitz.

Legal pleading (response to request for production of documents)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014100.jpg

This page contains the 'General Objections' section of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered in the Southern District of Florida in 2015. The Defendant outlines five standard objections regarding the production of documents, citing relevance, admissibility, timing of discovery, attorney-client privilege, and undue burden. The document bears a House Oversight Committee bates stamp.

Legal filing (response/objections to document requests)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$2,400,030,000.00
7 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
1 transactions
Net Flow
$2,400,030,000.00
8 total transactions
Date Type From To Amount Description Actions
N/A Received Jeffrey Epstein Plaintiffs $15,000.00 Request for damages in excess of fifteen-thousa... View
N/A Received Defendants (Tyler... Plaintiffs $15,000.00 Request for damages in excess of fifteen-thousa... View
N/A Paid Plaintiffs Counsel $0.00 Obligation to pay counsel a reasonable fee for ... View
2020-07-07 Received Novartis Spokespe... Plaintiffs $0.00 Civil settlement holding Novartis accountable f... View
2019-04-03 Received Jones Day Plaintiffs $200,000,000.00 Value of discrimination suit filed against Jone... View
2019-03-05 Received Morrison & Foerst... Plaintiffs $200,000,000.00 Amount of pregnancy bias suit filed against the... View
2016-12-25 Received Johnson & Johnson... Plaintiffs $1,000,000,000.00 Ken Starr mentions agreeing to handle an appeal... View
2016-12-25 Received Johnson & Johnson... Plaintiffs $1,000,000,000.00 Ken Starr mentions agreeing to handle an appeal... View
As Sender
7
As Recipient
2
Total
9

Article regarding Islamic aid organizations

From: Plaintiffs
To: Court

Article stating organizations provided funds to terrorists; court refused to admit it to supplement record.

Legal submission
N/A
Communication Source

Discovery

From: Plaintiffs
To: Jeffrey Epstein

Request for phone records, pictures, videos.

Legal request
N/A
Communication Source

Service of process

From: Plaintiffs
To: Defense counsel

Defense counsel declined to accept service on behalf of plaintiffs in civil litigation.

Legal service
N/A
Communication Source

Legal Service

From: Plaintiffs
To: Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz

Notice published in The International Herald and Al Quds al-Arabia.

Notice by publication
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Document Requests

From: Defendant (Dershowitz)
To: Plaintiffs

Responses to requests 10 and 11 regarding evidence of Jane Doe #3's credibility and Clinton's travel.

Court filing
2015-03-24
Communication Source

Response to discovery requests

From: Dershowitz
To: Plaintiffs

Produced no documents; made vague commitments to produce documents in the future.

Legal response
2015-02-23
Communication Source

Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit

From: Plaintiffs
To: THE COURT REPORTER

Accused Reinhart of violating DOJ policies by switching sides.

Legal filing
2011-01-01
Communication Source

Notice of Supplemental Authority

From: Plaintiffs
To: U.S. District Court fo...

Bringing attention to Seventh Circuit's decision in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation.

Legal filing
2009-02-04
Communication Source

Motion to Supplement Record

From: Plaintiffs
To: Court

Plaintiffs sought to add the 1998 article to the record against Prince Salman and Naif. The motion was denied.

Court motion
2005-01-01
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search