Event Details

This document is a 'Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice' filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 24, 2010. It formally ends the lawsuit between Plaintiff 'C.L.' and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein following a settlement agreement. The document is signed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. (representing Epstein) and Spencer T. Kuvin (representing C.L.).

This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 20, 2009. The order directs counsel for Plaintiff 'Jane Do No. 101' and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to confer and file joint scheduling and discovery reports in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It outlines specific deadlines for these conferences and reports following the filing of an answer or motion.

This document is a legal reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on November 16, 2009, regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA). The filing notes that the Department of Justice seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes specifically related to Epstein cases. The document highlights scheduling conflicts involving the deposition of Herbert Stettin (RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer) and alludes to potential ethical or criminal issues within RRA that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.

This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, dated April 28, 2009, presided over by Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order grants the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order against piecemeal depositions, limiting Jeffrey Epstein (Defendant) to a single deposition of each plaintiff across ten related civil cases. It also consolidates four specific cases (08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, and 08-80993) for the purposes of discovery and orders parties in the remaining six cases to show cause why they should not also be consolidated.

This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. The parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The document notes that a settlement was reached, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.

This document is an 'Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet' filed on April 1, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach Division) for the case of Jane Doe 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein. It lists eleven related pending cases, all associated with the identifier 'KAM'.

This is a Summons in a Civil Case issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 23, 2010. The case (No. 10-80309) involves plaintiff Jane Doe 103 suing defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The summons directs Epstein to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days via his counsel, Robert D. Critton, to the plaintiff's attorneys at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

This document is a Civil Summons from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated March 24, 2009. It notifies defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (a.k.a. Sarah Bonk) that they are being sued by Jane Doe II and must respond within 20 days. Notably, the summons lists Sarah Kellen's address in New York City and Jeffrey Epstein's address as the Palm Beach County Stockade, including his inmate jacket number.

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.

This is a Final Order of Dismissal from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated February 28, 2008. The case (08-80069-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON) involves Jane Doe No. 1 and family members as Plaintiffs against Jeffrey Epstein as Defendant. Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case without prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot following the Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

This document is a court order (likely a proposed order attached as an exhibit, given the blank signature and 'Document 16-1' header) from the case Jane Doe No. 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It grants the Plaintiff's agreed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss Count VI.

This document is a proposed court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of December 15, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss.

Summons in a Civil Case issued on April 17, 2009, by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-80591 (Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein). The document summons Jeffrey Epstein, noted as being located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, to answer the complaint within 20 days. It lists Epstein's defense counsel (Spicer, Goldberger, Critton) and the plaintiff's attorneys (Josefsberg and Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A.).

This document is a court order (likely a proposed order attached to a motion) from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of October 30, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff's complaint.

A summons issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009, for Case Number 09-80656. The summons is directed to Jeffrey Epstein, located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, notifying him of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 102. It lists his defense counsel as Jack A. Goldberger and Robert D. Critton, Jr., and requires a response to the plaintiff's attorneys, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., within 20 days.

This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80069-CIV-MARRA). Dated January 28, 2008, Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders counsel to confer and file a joint scheduling and discovery report. It outlines procedural deadlines for pretrial discovery and scheduling conferences pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This document is a legal response filed on March 24, 2015, by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida. They are responding to Alan Dershowitz's supplement for intervention, arguing that he has failed to provide specific evidence refuting Jane Doe #3's allegations that he sexually molested her, despite his public claims on Fox Business to the contrary.

This document is the signature page of an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. It contains a certification that Epstein has read, understood, and agreed to comply with the clarifications to the agreement. The document is signed by Lilly Ann Sanchez, attorney for Epstein, on October 29, 2007, though it also lists signature blocks for U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, A. Marie Villafaña, and Gerald Lefcourt.

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.

This document is the first page of Alan Dershowitz's legal objections and responses to initial document production requests filed by plaintiffs Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. The document was filed in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida (Case CACE 15-000072), but appears here as an exhibit in a federal case (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) docketed on March 24, 2015. It contains standard legal preliminary statements reserving rights regarding discovery and trial preparation.

This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered on July 9, 2019. The government argues that the Petitioners (victims) lack standing to void Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because the government is contractually bound to it, and a favorable ruling would not redress their injury. However, the document notably admits that a federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein remains a 'legally viable possibility' regardless of the NPA's status.

This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) containing the Defendant's responses to specific document requests. The requests specifically seek evidence regarding allegations that Jane Doe #3 had sex with President Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein's Little Saint James Island. The Defendant agrees to produce non-privileged documents regarding the Clinton allegations but objects to producing copies of their passports.

This document is page 4 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm SDBS to Thomas E. Scott, Jr., regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The letter aggressively challenges the defense's discovery responses, accusing them of 'word play and gamesmanship' regarding document production, metadata, and definitions. The sender demands immediate production of documents and rejects the defense's attempts to limit discovery to a narrow timeframe, arguing that Dershowitz's alleged defamation and public denials were broad and unrestricted by time.

This document is a 'Counsel List' exhibit filed on March 24, 2015, in the Florida Southern District Court (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM), related to the state case 'Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz' (Case No.: CACE 15-000072). It lists contact information for Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr. of the law firm Cole Scott & Kissane P.A., identifying him as the attorney for the Defendant (Dershowitz). The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.

This document is a Certificate of Service page from a legal filing in the case of Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (Case No. CACE 15-000072). It certifies that attorney Jack Scarola sent a copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents via E-Serve on March 2, 2015. The document includes Scarola's contact information at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and bears a House Oversight stamp.

This document is a cover sheet for 'Exhibit 1' filed in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM. It was entered on the Southern District of Florida (FLSD) docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a Bates stamp indicating it is part of a House Oversight Committee collection.