Robert Critton
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Spencer Kuvin
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-12-13 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2010-05-18 | N/A | Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2010-01-27 | N/A | Judge Hafele rules deposition videos cannot be released without court order. | West Palm Beach | View |
| 2009-09-16 | N/A | Scheduled Deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 | 250 Australian Avenue South... | View |
| 2009-06-25 | N/A | Epstein's legal team filed a Motion to Stay Disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | Palm Beach County Circuit C... | View |
| 2009-06-11 | N/A | Certificate of Service mailed to opposing counsel. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
089.pdf
Court minutes from a June 25, 2009 hearing presided over by Judge Jeffrey Colbath regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case (Nos. 2006CF009454AXX / 2008CF009381AXX). The proceedings involved motions to unseal records and intervene, argued by attorneys for the Palm Beach Post and unidentified parties (likely victims), with the Judge granting the motions to unseal and intervene. Defense counsel Jack Goldberger moved to stay disclosure.
055.pdf
This document is a transcript of court proceedings from June 26, 2009, regarding State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The hearing concerns a 'Motion to Stay' filed by Epstein's defense to prevent the immediate release of sealed documents, specifically a Non-Prosecution Agreement (MPA) and grand jury materials, pending an appeal. The Judge denies the indefinite stay and the request for a bond but grants a short delay until the following Thursday to allow the defense time to file with the appellate court. The document also touches on potential redactions of children's names, which the Judge notes were not actually found in the documents in question.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
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.
024.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on September 18, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in the Southern District of Florida (Case 08-80804) against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss until 15 days after the court rules on a pending motion to remand the case to state court due to alleged lack of federal jurisdiction. The document lists legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
016-01.pdf
This document contains a Proposed Order and an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08-80804). Filed on August 13, 2008, the motion requests an extension to file a Civil RICO Case Statement until after the court rules on an upcoming motion to remand the case back to state court. The plaintiff argues the case was improperly removed to federal court and lacks federal jurisdiction. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
012.pdf
This document is a motion filed on August 21, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests the court to preserve evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department from Epstein's home, citing concerns that Epstein (who had recently pleaded guilty and was in jail) was attempting to retrieve the evidence through State Court and might destroy it. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
022.pdf
Legal document filed on May 18, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida stipulating the dismissal with prejudice of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 10-CV-80309) brought by Jane Doe No. 103 against Jeffrey Epstein. The document indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
064.pdf
A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80656). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein agreed to dismiss the action following a settlement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 102).
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.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
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).
089.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-CV-80591. The plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, and defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit following a settlement, the terms of which the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 101).
073.pdf
This document is a Notice of Agreement filed on September 8, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel notifies the court that both parties have agreed to appoint Rodney Romano of Matrix Mediation, LLC as the mediator for the case. The document includes a certificate of service and a service list detailing the contact information for the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant.
056.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on June 26, 2009, by the attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The Plaintiff argues against Epstein's motion to dismiss, specifically contesting his claim that multiple violations of sexual exploitation statutes should be merged into a single count with a single penalty. The response asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 2255 allows for separate civil remedies and damages (minimum $150,000) for each distinct violation of a predicate offense.
048.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on June 9, 2009, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101 requesting an extension of time and page limits to respond to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. The request is based on an upcoming court hearing scheduled for June 12, 2009, in a related case (Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein) which addresses potential breaches of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document includes certificates of conference and service, listing legal counsel for both parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for a co-defendant named Sarah.
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.
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.
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.
Agreement to Motion
Undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, Robert Critton, Esquire, who graciously advised that we may represent to the Court that he is in agreement with this motion.
Motion for Enlargement of Time
Conferral regarding the motion; Mr. Critton advised Defendant does not oppose.
Enlargement of time
Counsel consulted regarding extension of time to file reply; Critton did not oppose.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity