Relationship Details

This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.

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 an email from paralegal Jessica Cadwell to an individual named Brad, concerning a legal matter involving 'Jane Doe'. Cadwell requests that Brad have Jane Doe sign a HIPAA release to obtain her records from the Department of Juvenile Justice for time spent at 'Milton Center for girls'. The email, which includes a confidentiality notice stating it is the property of Jeffrey Epstein, also asks for a one-week extension on 'Responses to Net Wirth ROGS'.

This is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until November 16, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 102' on May 1, 2009, citing that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. The document lists legal counsel for both sides, including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger for Epstein, and Robert Josefsberg and Katherine Ezell for the plaintiff.

This document is an email chain from February 2010 in which Jeffrey Epstein forwards an old 2008 email and a critical Palm Beach Post editorial about his plea deal to members of his legal team, including Alan Dershowitz, Martin Weinberg, and Robert Critton Jr. The repeated subject line indicates Epstein was having trouble with the emails being marked as 'undeliverable'.

This document is an email thread from August 5, 2009, forwarded to Jeffrey Epstein and his attorney Robert Critton. The emails discuss the status of serving legal papers to Ghislaine Maxwell, Leslie Wexner, and Donald Trump in relation to a 'Jane Doe' case. The thread confirms that Maxwell was not served, while Wexner's counsel and Trump's staff accepted service on their behalf.

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 respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The document indicates that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. It lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman; Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.).

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 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.