Victim Civil (S.D. Fla.) — 09-cv-80591

Case 09-cv-80591 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and assigned to U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra. The plaintiff proceeded pseudonymously as 'Jane Doe No. 101' and was represented by Robert C. Josefsberg and Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. (Miami) (EFTA02738193). The named defendant was Jeffrey Epstein. The action was one of a wave of S.D. Fla. Doe civil suits filed in 2008–2009 against Epstein and was administered alongside the lead case 08-cv-80119 (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein) and the related 08-cv-80232, 08-cv-80380, 08-cv-80381, 08-cv-80811, 08-cv-80893, 08-cv-80993, 08-cv-80994, 09-cv-80469, 09-cv-80656, 09-cv-80802, and 09-cv-81092 dockets, with consolidated captions appearing throughout the corpus (e.g., EFTA02738299).

The civil claims were grounded in the federal child-victims civil-remedy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The procedural sequence captured in the corpus is unusually well documented. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 1, 2009 (D.E. 9). A notice of striking an inadvertently unsigned earlier filing was entered on May 4, 2009 (EFTA02738193, D.E. 10). On May 26, 2009, Epstein filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (D.E. 29) — the filing whose substance the United States would, weeks later, treat as a breach of the NPA. The plaintiff sought and on June 9, 2009 obtained an enlargement of time and page limits to respond (EFTA02738560, D.E. 48-1). Briefing on the motion to dismiss continued into the fall, with Epstein securing an unopposed extension of time to file his reply (EFTA02738672, D.E. 76, Oct. 15, 2009; granted at EFTA02738727, D.E. 87-1, Dec. 2, 2009).

What distinguishes 09-cv-80591 from the other Florida Doe suits in the corpus is its direct entanglement with the 2007 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement negotiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (then under U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, with AUSA A. Marie Villafaña as line prosecutor). On June 12, 2009 — seventeen days after Epstein's motion to dismiss — the U.S. Attorney's Office hand-delivered a letter to Epstein's counsel Jack A. Goldberger formally notifying Epstein that, by 'contesting liability' through the motion to dismiss in 09-cv-80591, he had willfully violated Term 8 of the NPA (EFTA00213195; substantively identical follow-up at EFTA00617214 and EFTA00233048). On the same day, Epstein filed in 09-cv-80591 a 'Notice of Withdrawal of Arguments I Through VII' of his motion to dismiss (EFTA00212861, D.E. 53), apparently in an effort to neutralize the breach finding. One week later, on June 19, 2009, Kirkland & Ellis partner Jay Lefkowitz — outside counsel to Epstein — sent a 10-page response to the U.S. Attorney defending Epstein's NPA compliance and contesting the breach finding (EFTA00067435).

The corpus sample runs through late 2009 / early 2010. Public reporting and court records outside this corpus indicate the matter, like the other Florida Doe suits, was resolved short of trial through confidential settlement. The corpus does not contain a settlement agreement or a final judgment for 09-cv-80591.

The DOJ corpus contains 328 EFTA-stamped pages and 759 emails linked to 09-cv-80591. The high-confidence sample is dominated by S.D. Fla. court filings under the 9:09-cv-80591-KAM caption — the plaintiff's notice of striking (EFTA02738193, D.E. 10), Epstein's response/discovery filings (EFTA02738263, D.E. 23; EFTA02738299, D.E. 28), Epstein's May 29, 2009 substantive filing (EFTA02738468, D.E. 38), the June 12, 2009 withdrawal of motion-to-dismiss arguments (EFTA00212861, D.E. 53), Magistrate-related orders (EFTA02738560, D.E. 48-1), an exhibit-set filing (EFTA02738634, D.E. 64-1), Epstein's October 15, 2009 unopposed motion for extension (EFTA02738672, D.E. 76), and Judge Marra's December 2, 2009 order granting that extension (EFTA02738727, D.E. 87-1). Several of these documents bear cross-captions referencing the larger constellation of Florida Doe cases (EFTA02738299, EFTA02738468), reflecting that filings in 09-cv-80591 were routinely served and docketed across the consolidated cases.

The most consequential documents in the sample are not motion papers but correspondence. Two near-identical copies of the U.S. Attorney's June 12, 2009 NPA-breach letter to Jack Goldberger appear in the production (EFTA00213195 and EFTA00617214), as does an additional copy or version stamped EFTA00233048. Each letter expressly cites 09-cv-80591 by case number as the conduct constituting the breach: 'on May 26, 2009, Jeffrey Epstein, through his counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss… in the matter of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Court File No. 09-CV-80591-KAM… By filing the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Epstein is contesting liability and, therefore, has violated Term 8 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement' (EFTA00213195). Kirkland & Ellis's June 19, 2009 ten-page reply on behalf of Epstein (EFTA00067435) walks through, point by point, the U.S. Attorney's allegations of breach, asserts that Epstein had paid 'over $300,000 in civil settlements,' and recites a procedural history of the NPA from September 2007 forward.

The corpus also contains a public-record LEXIS docket extract identifying the Doe-case plaintiffs' counsel of record — including counsel for Jane Doe No. 101 in 09-cv-80591 (EFTA01387838). The corpus does not include a settlement agreement, a stipulation of dismissal, or a final judgment for 09-cv-80591 in this sample; the docket trail visible here ends with the December 2, 2009 extension order.