Event Details

This document is a proposed court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80447-CIV). The order grants Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss/strike. The new deadline for the filing is set for June 17, 2010.

This document is a 'Motion to Proceed Anonymously' filed on April 17, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Jane Doe No. 101 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff, represented by Podhurst Orseck, P.A., requests to use a pseudonym because she was sexually abused by Epstein as a minor and wishes to avoid further psychological trauma and public humiliation. The motion notes that Epstein already knows her identity from the related criminal investigation and cites precedents where other victims (Jane Does 1-7, etc.) were granted anonymity.

This document is a proposed court order from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The document grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to the plaintiff's response regarding a motion to dismiss. The new deadline set for Epstein's filing is November 16, 2009.

This document is a proposed court order (Document 81-1) from the case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket on November 16, 2009. The order grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of November 27, 2009, for him to file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's response regarding the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The document lists Kenneth A. Marra as the presiding United States District Judge.

This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on May 11, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys oppose the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously, arguing that Epstein's due process rights to conduct discovery—specifically issuance of third-party subpoenas to medical providers and employers—require the use of the plaintiff's legal name. The filing asserts that the plaintiff's privacy interests do not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings and Epstein's right to defend himself against allegations of sexual exploitation and coercion.

A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida transferring civil case 09-81092 (L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein) from Judge James I. Cohn to Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The order was signed by Judge Cohn on July 28, 2009, and accepted by Judge Marra on July 29, 2009, citing Internal Operating Procedure 2.15.C.

This document is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated May 2009. Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp transfers the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Kenneth A. Marra because it is related to multiple other actions pending before Judge Marra against Epstein. Judge Marra formally accepts the transfer on the second page.

This document is a legal affidavit filed on November 3, 2010, in the case of M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The affiant, Richard Barnett, states that he was present at Epstein's residence at 9 East 71st Street, NYC, for the entire day of October 8, 2010. He testifies that no individual named 'Mark' worked, resided, was present, or received a subpoena at that location on that date.

This document is an Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of C.L. vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80447). Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders that all pretrial discovery motions, including motions for sanctions and mental/physical examinations, be referred to Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson for disposition. The order was signed on June 14, 2010.

A proposed court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). The document grants the Plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time and page limits to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The order allows for a response of up to 36 pages. Note: The body of the text contains a likely typographical error dating it to 'June, 2008' while the header indicates it was entered on the docket in June 2009.

This document is the second page of a court order from the case 'Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein' (Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM), entered on the FLSD Docket on September 17, 2009. It indicates that the order was 'DONE and ORDERED' in 2009 by Kenneth A. Marra, a United States District Judge.

This document is a summons and affidavit of service related to a lawsuit filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. Jane Doe, represented by her mother, is the plaintiff against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The document details the service of the summons on Sarah Kellen in New York City on April 19, 2008, and includes important legal notices in English, Spanish, and French regarding the lawsuit and the defendant's responsibilities.

This document is a page from a court filing, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, dated September 17, 2009, listing multiple attorneys and their respective law firms, contact information, and the specific related cases they represent plaintiffs in. It details legal counsel for various plaintiffs, including 'Jane Doe' and 'C.M.A.', across several related case numbers, providing contact details for each attorney and their firm.

This court document, filed on June 28, 2010, updates the court on the status of Doe v. Epstein. It reports that since mediation on April 5, 2010, Jeffrey Epstein has resolved/settled numerous lawsuits, including cases involving C.L., C.M.A., and multiple Jane Does, leaving only the current federal case and two state court cases unresolved, all represented by Brad Edwards. The document also notes the extensive scope of the upcoming trial, citing over 170 potential witnesses and 140 exhibits.

This document is a legal motion filed on June 28, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys in the civil case 'Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein' (Case No. 08-CIV-80893). Epstein is requesting a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson or a second mediation attempt before July 1, 2010, citing upcoming trial deadlines on July 19, 2010. The document notes that a previous mediation on April 5, 2010, with mediator Rodney Romano failed to produce an agreement.

This document is a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley P.A. to attorney Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr. regarding the case 'Edwards and Cassell vs. Dershowitz.' The letter addresses discovery disputes, specifically criticizing the recipient's use of 'general objections' and 'subject to' responses as improper tactics that shield information from discovery. It cites federal court precedents disapproving of such objections.

This document is the signature page of an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. It certifies that Epstein understands the clarifications to the agreement. The document is signed by Lilly Ann Sanchez (Epstein's attorney) on October 29, 2007, and by a representative (FAUSA) for Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana on October 30, 2007, under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. The signatures for Jeffrey Epstein and Gerald Lefcourt are blank on this copy.

This document is page 22 of a legal response filed on March 24, 2015, in the case involving Alan Dershowitz. It details the Defendant's objections to Requests for Production #12 and #13, which seek evidence regarding claims that Jane Doe #3 lied about world leaders and that a Palm Beach County State Attorney dropped a case due to her lack of credibility. Dershowitz's defense emphasizes that his original declaration stated these claims were made 'on information and belief' and agrees to produce non-privileged documents in his possession.

This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM). It certifies that attorneys Thomas E. Scott and Steven R. Safra of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. served legal documents on behalf of their client, Alan M. Dershowitz, to plaintiff's counsel Jack Scarola via E-Serve on February 23, 2015. The document bears a House Oversight stamp.

This document is a legal response filed on March 24, 2015, in the Southern District of Florida, containing a Defendant's responses to discovery requests regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The requests seek documents proving the presence of the Defendant's nephew and Epstein's legal team on Epstein's private plane, as well as flight manifests linking the Defendant to Epstein. The Defendant objects to requests regarding the legal team by citing allegations from 'Jane Doe #3' regarding her abuse between 1999 and 2002, arguing that post-2002 travel records are irrelevant to the specific action.

This document is page 5 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, regarding discovery disputes in the case Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The text criticizes the Defendant (Dershowitz) for providing evasive, incomplete, or legally unfounded responses to interrogatories concerning his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, statements made about Bradley Edwards, and potential witnesses. It specifically notes that Dershowitz refused to provide details based on flight logs or the deposition status of Jane Doe #3, and lists Thomas and Joanne Ashe as individuals identified by the Defendant.