Both are listed as Defendants in the same lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Jane Doe.
Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN
Listed together as Defendants in the case caption
Listed as Defendants together in case caption
Listed as Defendants
Listed as defendants together
Listed as co-defendants in the case caption.
Listed as co-defendants in the case caption.
008.pdf
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.
DOJ-OGR-00030546.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal complaint filed on behalf of Plaintiff Jane Doe against defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. It concludes a count on civil conspiracy and introduces 'COUNT III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendant Epstein,' alleging his conduct was outrageous and caused severe trauma to Jane Doe and her mother. The plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees against all three defendants.
003.pdf
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.
014.pdf
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.
013.pdf
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.
008-01.pdf
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.
DOJ-OGR-00030541.jpg
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.
006.pdf
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.
Entities connected to both Jeffrey Epstein and Haley Robson
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship