Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Date

Unknown

Source

DOJ Data Set 9

Reference

efta-efta00728626

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0upvotesShare

Post Reddit

Save Post Watch

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08,0712009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00728626 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08,0712009 Page 2 of 5 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811 -CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 2 EFTA00728627 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 3 of 5 Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09- 80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09- 80591-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 102 CASE NO.: 09- 80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant" or "Epstein")'s Motions to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to 3 EFTA00728628 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 4 of 5 Identify Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss (DE 65 in 08-80119). The Court has reviewed the motions, responses, and replies, and is otherwise fully advised in the premesis. Plaintiffs filed their respective suits under a pseudonym (although Defendant and his counsel are aware of Plaintiffs' legal names) to prevent public disclosure of private, intimate facts pertaining to their alleged sexual abuse and exploitation by Defendant when they were minors. Plaintiffs claim that public disclosure of their legal names would create a substantial risk to them of further psychological harm. Defendant argues that the purpose of his motion to identify is to obtain discovery related to the allegations in Plaintiffs' respective complaints and to properly defend and investigate the matters that have been filed against him. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs "gather together in a continued effort to stonewall and prevent discovery of their past medical, psychological and employment histories." (DE 247 at 4). Defendant states that he will withdraw his request for Plaintiffs to be identified in the styles of their respective cases if he is permitted to conduct the necessary and regular discovery related to Plaintiffs' allegations in their complaints. (DE 247 at 5-6). Defendant argues that failure to allow him discovery is severely prejudicing him. The Court agrees that Defendant is entitled to discovery relating to the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaints. However, it also acknowleges Plaintiff's concerns regarding public disclosure of their legal names. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Motions to Compel and/or Identify Jane Doe in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify Doe in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of 4 EFTA00728629 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 253 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2009 Page 5 of 5 Discovery, or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss (DE 65 in 08-80119) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Based upon Defendant's agreement, the plaintiffs need not be identified by their legal names in the styles of these cases. As to third party discovery, Defendant shall style any subpoenas to third parties for documents or depositions with the case number and style "In Re [plaintiff's legal name]." Further, the subpoenas to third parties shall not make reference to or identify Defendant by name. Defendant's alternative motion to dismiss sua sponte is denied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 7ih day of August, 2009 KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 5 EFTA00728630

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80119-KAM

Wire Refreference

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:14:2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00222605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are.

389p

DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 0716/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, EFTA00214072 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 206 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plai

House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Document alleges Alexander Acosta’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein plea deal and potential immunity for co‑conspirators

The passage links a former U.S. Labor Secretary (Alexander Acosta) to the negotiation of Epstein’s 2007 non‑prosecution agreement, suggesting possible misconduct and abuse of power. It also mentions A Acosta personally involved in negotiations of Epstein’s 2007 plea deal granting immunity from federa Deal included a 13‑month private jail sentence for Epstein in exchange for cooperation. Acosta lat

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Donate More ways to support →

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.