Relationship Details

This document is a 'Notice of Striking Docket Entry' filed on May 4, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., notifies the court that a previous docket entry was filed without a signature and has been re-filed correctly. The document includes a Certificate of Service listing numerous attorneys involved in this case and related cases against Epstein, including Bruce Reinhart (defense), Jack Scarola, and Brad Edwards.

This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 18, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers requested permission to exceed the standard 20-page limit for their upcoming motion to dismiss, citing complex legal issues regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §2255 and its applicability to the alleged conduct. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this request via telephone.

Legal filing from May 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team accepts consolidation of multiple civil cases for depositions but opposes general consolidation for all discovery, arguing that individual cases have distinct facts and defenses that would be confused by a blanket consolidation. The document lists numerous related case numbers (e.g., 08-80119, 08-80381, 09-80469) and requests clarification on the court's previous orders regarding case management.

This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion by Plaintiffs (Jane Doe No. 101 and 102) to preserve evidence in their cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including flight logs ('travel in Defendant's private airplanes'), phone records, computer data since 1998, financial records regarding payments to victims, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly forbids the destruction, deletion, or alteration of any such evidence.

This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida (Exhibit A), signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. The order mandates that Epstein and his agents preserve a wide range of materials, specifically including records of domestic and international travel on private airplanes, phone communications, computer data, and items resulting from the October 25, 2005 search of his Palm Beach home. It establishes preservation timelines ranging from 1998 to 2005 depending on the specific plaintiff and defines sanctions for wrongful destruction of evidence.

This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.

This document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated August 2009. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response regarding a motion to dismiss. The new deadline for Epstein's responsive pleading is set for October 15, 2009.

This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The motion states that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case and that the plaintiff's counsel agrees to the extension. The document includes a procedural history of filings and a service list of attorneys involved.

This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until November 16, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The document indicates that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

This document is a Motion for Extension of Time filed on December 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense requested an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a reply, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and the need to investigate the implications of the 'Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA' firm implosion on the Plaintiff's counsel. The document notes that Plaintiff's counsel opposed this extension request.

This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated May 26, 2009, granting a motion to preserve evidence in multiple civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders Epstein and his associates to preserve a wide range of materials, specifically highlighting records of domestic and international travel (including private airplanes), phone communications, financial records, and evidence related to the October 25, 2005 police search of his Palm Beach mansion. The order explicitly prohibits the destruction, alteration, or deletion of potential evidence dating back to 1998.

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 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.

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.

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).

This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated July 2009 (entered on docket July 2, 2009). Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time. Epstein was given until August 21, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 101's response regarding a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

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.

A court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591). Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of October 30, 2009, for filing a responsive pleading.

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.

This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 4, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80591) in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's counsel requests an extension until May 26, 2009, to respond to the complaint filed on April 17, 2009. The reasons cited include the burden of other cases naming Epstein as a defendant and a conflicting state court trial scheduled for mid-May involving the defense counsel.