Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
sd-10-EFTA01377941Dept. of JusticeOther

EFTA Document EFTA01377941

Page 5 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * For Defendant (9:09-cv-80469-KAM): Bruce Reinhart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bruce . ein art, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL; Denise Kalland, Denise Kalland, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL. For Jane Doe No. 101, Plaintiff (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Katherine Warthen Ezell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Miami, FL USA; Robert C. Josefsberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL USA. For Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Michael James

Date
Unknown
Source
Dept. of Justice
Reference
sd-10-EFTA01377941
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
Loading PDF viewer...

Summary

Page 5 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * For Defendant (9:09-cv-80469-KAM): Bruce Reinhart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bruce . ein art, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL; Denise Kalland, Denise Kalland, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL. For Jane Doe No. 101, Plaintiff (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Katherine Warthen Ezell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Miami, FL USA; Robert C. Josefsberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL USA. For Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Michael James

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Page 5 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * For Defendant (9:09-cv-80469-KAM): Bruce Reinhart, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bruce . ein art, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL; Denise Kalland, Denise Kalland, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL. For Jane Doe No. 101, Plaintiff (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Katherine Warthen Ezell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Miami, FL USA; Robert C. Josefsberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL USA. For Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant (9:09-cv-80591-KAM): Michael James Pike, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pike & Lustig, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL; Robert Deweese Critton, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Critton Luttier ["7] & Coleman, West Palm Beach, FL; Jay P. Lefkowitz, Michael D. Shumsky, PRO HAC VICE, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC. JUDGES: LINNEA R. JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. OPINION BY: LINNEA R. JOHNSON OPINION ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents (D.E. #57). For the following reasons said Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. In this case, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls in question were approximate) 16 ears of age. As part of this scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant allegedly lured economically disadvantaged minor girls to his homes in a m eac , ew York and St. Thomas, with the promise of money in exchange for a massage. Epstein purportedly transformed the massage into a sexual assault. The three-count Complaint alleges sexual assault and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional ['13] distress (Count II), and, coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). In 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United States Attorney's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and then move forward with Epstein's prosecution. Accordingly, the undersigned would agree with Epstein's statement at page 4 of its Response, that the fact there exists a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean For internal use only For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0075100 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00221284 EFTA01377941

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Case #9:09-CV-80469-KAM
Case #9:09-CV-80591-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
Court UnsealedCorrespondenceUnknown

Memorandum and Order: 20cv00484 (JGK) (DF)

The document is a Memorandum and Order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman granting Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to stay the civil proceedings against her and others pending the resolution of her criminal trial. Maxwell is currently in custody awaiting trial on July 12, 2021. The civil case involves allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation against Maxwell and the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate.

1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02726140

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

JANE DOE I JEFFREY EPSTEIN LITIGATION

JANE DOE I JEFFREY EPSTEIN LITIGATION RELEVANT PLEADINGS Docket No. Date Description 12 6/20/08 Defendant's Motion to Stay 13 6/20/08 Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer 16 7/1/08 Defendant's Notice Concerning Motion to Stay 23 7/17/08 Defendant's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal 24 7/17/08 Defendant's "Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action" 31 7/29/08 Defendant's Notice of Filing Exhibits (Attaching Villafaiia Declaration from victims' rights suit) 33 8/5/08 Order Denying Motion to Stay 34 8/5/08 Order Denying Motion to Seal 37 8/12/08 Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal 38 8/12/08 Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay 40 9/4/08 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint 41 9/22/08 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint 45 9/30/08 Order Setting Trial Date and Discovery Deadlines 46 10/6/08 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Motion fo

2p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

511 922,419 FtIN;Cf

511 922,419 FtIN;Cf f ift - ( df)t— Th-tittsf e: wr iwi mcfn .3:95Kona - apt?? It * ci of * C PRCta MOSPats Details of a civil lawsuit, made public in January 2035, contained a deposition from "Jane Doe 3" that accused Maxwell of recruiting her in 1999, when she was a minor, and grooming her to provide sexual services for Epstein.M A 2018 expose by Julie K. Brown in the M' revealed Jane Doe 3 to be , who was previously known as met Maxwell at Donald 'frump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, w en was a 16- year-old spa attendant.M She asserted that Maxwell had introduced her to Epstein, after which she was " omed by. the two [of them] for his pleasure, including lessons in Epstein's preferences during oral sex". 22n631 Maxwell has repeatedly denied any involvement in Epstein's crimes.L2i In a 2015 statement, Maxwell rejected allegations that she has acted as a procurer for Epstein and denied that she had "facilitated Prince Andrew's [alleged] acts of sexual abus

25p

Forum Discussions

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

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