Relationship Details

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.

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.

This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.

This document is a motion filed on November 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting permission for Jeffrey Epstein to attend mediation in the case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a previous no-contact order exists regarding Andriano, but her counsel has no objection to Epstein attending the deposition, mediation, or trial. The document includes a service list detailing the attorneys involved in this and related cases, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.

Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen filed a request for oral argument on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a motion to stay civil proceedings pending the resolution of a criminal action. The document lists legal representation for all parties, including Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and Haley Robson (Co-Defendant). Attorneys Michael R. Tein and Guy A. Lewis are the primary signatories for Epstein.

This document is a court order from August 5, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied the defendants' motion to file documents under seal, ruling that the U.S. Attorney's objections and confidentiality clauses did not outweigh the public's right to access court records, ordering the clerk to unseal specific docket entries.

This document is a Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Defendants Epstein and Sarah Kellen request an extension to answer the complaint until 10 days after a decision is made on their contemporaneous motion to stay the case, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3509 regarding civil stays during parallel criminal proceedings involving child victims. The document includes a service list detailing legal representation for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for Sarah Kellen.

This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on August 8, 2008, requesting an extension to file a response to the complaint in the case of Jane Doe #1. Epstein's lawyers argue that the deadline should be aligned with parallel cases (Jane Doe Nos. 2-5) to September 4, 2008, to promote judicial economy. The document notes that co-defendants Haley Robson and Sarah Kellen had not yet been served at the time of filing.

This document is a legal response filed on August 22, 2008, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Epstein's lawyers state they have no opposition to the plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence (DE 12). However, they dispute the plaintiff's certification of compliance, arguing that plaintiff's counsel filed the motion prematurely without properly conferring with the defense or waiting for a return call regarding Epstein's position.

This document is an 'Order of Pretrial Procedures' from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, dated March 25, 2009, in the civil case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. It outlines the procedural requirements for the case, including deadlines for scheduling meetings, reports, and discovery planning, and warns of sanctions for non-compliance. The document also includes a sample 'Scheduling Order' template detailing rules for pretrial stipulations, jury instructions, and witness lists.

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.

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.

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 a Civil Cover Sheet filed on September 17, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida for Case 9:10-cv-81111. The plaintiff, identified only as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen for 'Sexual exploitation of a minor' and demanding a jury trial. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards.

This document is a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 29, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers argue that the plaintiff, 'M.J.', failed to properly serve Epstein with the lawsuit because the documents were merely left in an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of his New York residence (9 East 71st Street) rather than being delivered personally as required by law. The document details the specific dates of the attempted service and cites Florida, New York, and Federal laws to support the argument that the service was legally ineffective.

This document is a Summons in a Civil Action filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010. The plaintiff, identified as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document commands Epstein to respond within 21 days and lists Bradley J. Edwards as the plaintiff's attorney. The second page is an unfilled Proof of Service form.

A legal motion filed on November 10, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting the court to quash service of process in the case of M.J. v. Epstein. The defense argues that leaving an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of Epstein's New York vacation home and claiming to leave papers with a non-existent person named 'Mark' violates Federal, New York, and Florida service laws. The document includes arguments citing specific statutes and an affidavit from Richard Barnett denying the presence of anyone named 'Mark' at the residence.

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.

This document is a Reply in Support of a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2010. The defense argues that the plaintiff failed to properly serve Epstein because the papers were left with an individual named 'Mark' at Epstein's New York home (9 East 71st St), but the plaintiff failed to prove 'Mark' resided there or was of suitable discretion. The filing also seeks to strike allegations regarding obstruction of justice in prior litigation and opposes sanctions against Epstein.

This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated December 6, 2010, in the case of M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow granted Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motions regarding a protective order and preservation of evidence. The new deadline for Epstein's response was set for December 13, 2010.

This document is an unopposed motion filed on November 29, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting a 10-day extension to respond to two plaintiff motions regarding protective orders and evidence preservation. The motion states that the parties are currently in discussions to resolve the matters and that plaintiff's counsel, Gary Farmer, does not oppose the extension. The document lists M.J. as the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants.

This document is a Supplemental Appendix filed by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. in a Florida state court case involving Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a transcript of a June 2009 hearing regarding the unsealing of court records, administrative orders, case law, and federal court filings including a declaration by AUSA A. Marie Villafana regarding the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The appendix documents the legal arguments surrounding the transparency of the Epstein proceedings and the government's interaction with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

This document is a legal notice filed on November 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-cv-81111) by the plaintiff, identified as M.J. The filing strikes two previous certificates of service (DE 5 and DE 6) related to a summons and a subpoena for defendant Jeffrey Epstein due to incorrect filing. The document names Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants and lists contact information for attorneys representing both sides.

This document is a Supplemental Affidavit filed on November 22, 2010, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-cv-81111-WPD). Richard Barnett, the property manager of 9 East 71st Street in New York, testifies that he does not reside at the property, that no one resided there on October 8, 2010, and specifically that Jeffrey Epstein was not present at that location on that date.

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.

A Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court Southern District of Florida for Case No. 9:10-cv-81111. The case, involving plaintiff 'M.J.' against defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, was dismissed following a settlement between the parties on December 13, 2010. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas ordered the case closed while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms.

This document is a Motion to Stay proceedings filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in a civil case brought by a plaintiff identified as C.M.A. Epstein argues that the civil case should be paused until late 2010, when his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors expires, to avoid forcing him to waive his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination while facing potential ongoing criminal liability. The filing includes an affidavit from his criminal defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, and an Indictment from 2006 for Felony Solicitation of Prostitution.

A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated November 23, 2010, in the case of M.J. vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas granted a motion allowing attorney Paul G. Cassell to appear on behalf of the Plaintiff and receive electronic filings.

A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated June 16, 2009, granting a default judgment against Sarah Kellen in a civil case filed by Jane Doe II. Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that Kellen failed to respond to the complaint despite being properly served under New York state law. Jeffrey Epstein is listed as a co-defendant in the case header.

Court order from the Southern District of Florida dated August 21, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders defendant Jeffrey Epstein to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence and Expedite Certain Discovery by August 26, 2008.

A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe #1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the Defendant's Motion to Align Response Date. Copies were furnished to several attorneys including Bruce Reinhart and Jack Goldberger.

A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated August 2009 in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Sarah Kellen's request to adopt co-defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Reply as her own arguments in the case.

This document is a Motion to File Under Seal submitted by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen on July 25, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Epstein et al. The defendants request to seal their 'motion for stay' to protect a confidential agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The document includes certificates of compliance and service, noting that the plaintiff opposes the motion, and lists the legal counsel representing all parties involved.

This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated June 2010 (entered on docket June 30, 2010). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case brought by Plaintiff Jane Doe II against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen following a settlement stipulation by the parties. The court retained jurisdiction specifically to enforce the terms of said settlement.

This document is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated March 2009. Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp transfers the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 09-80469) to Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The transfer is ordered because the case is related to several lower-numbered cases already assigned to Judge Marra (including 08-80069, 08-80119, etc.).

A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dated November 8, 2010, in the case of M.J. vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas denied Jeffrey Epstein's motion to quash service of process without prejudice because the motion failed to comply with local rules requiring a certification of good faith effort to confer with opposing parties.

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.

A 2009 legal motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein requesting permission to attend mediation in a case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a prior 'no contact order' exists regarding Andriano, but states that neither she nor her counsel object to Epstein's presence at depositions, mediation, or trial. The document includes a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in multiple related cases against Epstein.

This document is an affidavit by Richard Barnett filed on October 29, 2010, in the case of M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. Barnett testifies that on October 13, 2010, he discovered an unmarked envelope containing legal documents (Summons, Complaint, Civil Rico Statement) in the mailbox of Epstein's home at 9 East 71st Street, NYC. He asserts that service was never personally delivered to anyone at the residence.

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.

This legal document is a 'Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories' filed in the Southern District of Florida on February 18, 2009. It certifies that the Plaintiff (whose name is redacted) has provided answers to questions (interrogatories) previously asked by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein on January 16, 2009. The document lists Sarah Kellen as a co-defendant and was prepared by attorney Jack Scarola of the firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. The document was later used as Defendant's Exhibit C-8 in the criminal trial S2 20 Cr. 330 (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell).

This document is the first page of a civil legal complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. A redacted female plaintiff, aged 21, is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen for damages in excess of $15,000. The document establishes the residency of the parties, noting Epstein's multiple properties across the US and abroad.

This document is the cover page for a transcript of testimony given by a Special Agent (name redacted) before Federal Grand Jury 07-103 on March 18, 2008, at the U.S. Courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida. The case involves the United States of America vs. Jeffrey Epstein and co-defendants Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross (a/k/a Adriana Mucinska), and Nadia Marcinkova. Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafana is listed as the appearing counsel.

This document is the first page of a civil complaint filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The plaintiffs are 'Jane Doe' (a minor) and her mother, suing defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen for allegations involving sexual assault and abuse. The document establishes jurisdiction and venue, noting the residency of the parties involved.

This is a court filing from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated October 28, 2009. Attorneys Jack Scarola and Jack P. Hill, representing an unnamed (redacted) Plaintiff, filed a notice confirming they served 'Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories' to the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document notes that the original interrogatories were propounded by Epstein on January 16, 2009. It is marked as Defendant's Exhibit C-9 in a later criminal case (20 Cr. 330).