Relationship Details

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 legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.

This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.

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 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 contains a Proposed Order and an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08-80804). Filed on August 13, 2008, the motion requests an extension to file a Civil RICO Case Statement until after the court rules on an upcoming motion to remand the case back to state court. The plaintiff argues the case was improperly removed to federal court and lacks federal jurisdiction. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.

This document is a motion filed on August 21, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests the court to preserve evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department from Epstein's home, citing concerns that Epstein (who had recently pleaded guilty and was in jail) was attempting to retrieve the evidence through State Court and might destroy it. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.

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 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 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 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 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 Motion to Set Aside Order of Default filed by attorney Bruce E. Reinhart on behalf of defendant Sarah Kellen in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Sarah Kellen. Kellen argues that the default judgment entered on June 17, 2009, is invalid because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the summons under New York law (specifically regarding timing of filing the affidavit of service) and because the time for a responsive pleading had not yet expired when the default was entered.

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 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.