Victim Civil (S.D. Fla.) — 09-cv-80469

Case 09-cv-80469 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 24, 2009 by a plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously as 'Jane Doe II' against Jeffrey Epstein and a co-defendant. The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp and Magistrate Judge Ann E. Vitunac (EFTA02750317, summons issued March 24, 2009), but the docket was promptly reassigned into the Marra/Johnson pair that managed the broader Florida Doe cluster, and subsequent filings carry the 9:09-cv-80469-KAM caption. Plaintiff's counsel was based at 224 Datura Street, Suite 900, West Palm Beach — the address of the Florida plaintiffs' bar then prosecuting many of the Epstein civil suits. A LEXIS docket extract preserved in the corpus identifies Sarah Kellen, the co-defendant, as represented by Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. and Denise Kalland, P.A. of West Palm Beach (EFTA01387840). Epstein was represented through the discovery phase by Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman.

What distinguishes 09-cv-80469 from the other suits in the Florida Doe cluster is the joinder of Sarah Kellen as a named co-defendant. The complaint as recited in Judge Marra's August 11, 2009 Order and Opinion (EFTA00728674; duplicate at EFTA02750700) alleges a single-count violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, with Plaintiff alleging that 'from about June, 2003 until about February 2005' she was persuaded, induced, or enticed to come to Epstein's home and to provide 'massages' that escalated into sexual encounters, that Epstein paid her $200 per visit, and that she could document specific dates of payment (06/16/03, 07/02/03, 04/09/04, 06/07/04, 07/30/04, 08/30/04, 10/12/04, 10/30/04 and 11/09/04) plus 'as many as 10 to 20 other occasions during this' period. The complaint pleads a criminal conspiracy between Epstein and the co-defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) to solicit underage women for prostitution.

Procedurally, the case ran on the standard cluster track. Epstein moved to exceed the page limitation for his motion to dismiss on May 5, 2009 (D.E. 11, EFTA02750339), filed his Motion to Dismiss on May 6, 2009 (D.E. 13), then filed a Reply and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's opposition on June 1, 2009 (D.E. 31, EFTA00222862). The motion to dismiss was fully briefed by midsummer; on August 11, 2009 Judge Marra issued an Order and Opinion on Epstein's Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 57, EFTA00728674 / EFTA02750700). Discovery proceeded under Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson's case-management orders applying across the consolidated cluster, including her ruling granting-in-part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents (D.E. #57 in the cluster, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, EFTA01387840). The latest 09-cv-80469-captioned filing in the corpus sample is Epstein's June 14, 2010 Emergency Motion for Protective Order, Motion to Quash and Motion for Attorneys' Fees (D.E. 77, EFTA02750805) directed at depositions of Maritza Milagros Vasquez noticed across the consolidated cases.

An internal December 3, 2018 DOJ lawsuit-inventory memorandum prepared by an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York lists 09-cv-80469 as 'settled' (EFTA00078630, p. 1). The corpus does not contain the settlement agreement, the stipulation of dismissal, or any final order of dismissal for 09-cv-80469.

The DOJ corpus contains 212 EFTA-stamped pages and 14 emails linked to 09-cv-80469. The high-confidence sample is dominated by court filings under both the native 9:09-cv-80469-KAM caption and the consolidated multi-Doe caption used across the cluster. Native-caption filings include the original summons (EFTA02750317, March 24, 2009), Epstein's unopposed motion to exceed the page limit on his motion to dismiss (EFTA02750339, May 5, 2009, D.E. 11), Epstein's May 20, 2009 motion (EFTA02750411, D.E. 18), a May 29, 2009 substantive filing (EFTA02750484, D.E. 27), Epstein's June 1, 2009 Reply and Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss (EFTA00222862, D.E. 31), a June 8, 2009 filing (EFTA02750568, D.E. 35), a July 10, 2009 filing (EFTA02750607, D.E. 43), a July 28, 2009 filing (EFTA02750674, D.E. 50), and Judge Marra's August 11, 2009 Order and Opinion on the Motion to Dismiss (EFTA00728674; second copy at EFTA02750700, D.E. 57). Later filings include Epstein's November 20, 2009 Motion to Attend Mediation (EFTA02750765, D.E. 71) and the June 14, 2010 emergency motion targeting cluster-wide deposition practice (EFTA02750805, D.E. 77).

A significant set of cross-captioned filings appears under the lead 08-cv-80119 docket but lists 09-cv-80469 on its caption page — including the United States' formal response on Epstein's stay theory (EFTA00213024, taking the position that a stay of the civil proceedings was 'not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement' between the United States and Epstein), the June 8, 2009 multi-case filing (EFTA00221837, D.E. 147), the June 19, 2009 41-page consolidated filing (EFTA00234871, D.E. 165), and a series of mid-2009 cross-captioned papers (EFTA01112390, EFTA02738614, EFTA02741096, EFTA02742225, EFTA02742956, EFTA02744487, EFTA02745108, EFTA02745331, EFTA02746031). Two documents stand outside the routine docket flow but are central. The first is the June 9, 2009 USAO 'Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach' memorandum (EFTA00189787) seeking authorization to serve a notice of breach on Epstein's counsel at the June 12, 2009 hearing before Judge Marra on the consolidated motions to stay — the same hearing series in which 09-cv-80469 was a member case. The second is the December 3, 2018 USAO-SDNY internal email inventorying every Florida Doe case and stating in plain text that '09-cv-80469 (settled)' (EFTA00078630). The corpus does not include the original Doe II complaint (D.E. 1), Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss, any deposition transcripts, the settlement agreement, or any final order of dismissal.