Victim Civil (S.D. Fla.) — 09-cv-80802

Case 09-cv-80802 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 28, 2009 by a plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously as 'Jane Doe No. 8' against Jeffrey Epstein. The Complaint (D.E. 1, EFTA02743308) was signed by Jeffrey M. Herman, Stuart S. Mermelstein, and Adam D. Horowitz of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. (Miami) and assigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra with Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson. The pleading alleged that Epstein, then 'serving a prison sentence in Palm Beach County, Florida for, inter alia, solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution,' sexually assaulted and abused the plaintiff while she was a minor, and sought damages 'in excess of $50 million' under Florida common law and the federal child-victims civil-remedy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (EFTA02743308).

The Complaint pleaded three counts: Count I (Sexual Assault and Battery, Florida common law), Count II (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Florida common law), and Count III (Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 / civil remedy under § 2255) (EFTA02743326). Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP appeared for Epstein on June 5, 2009 (D.E. 4, EFTA02743318; D.E. 5, EFTA02743320), with Robert D. Critton, Jr. as lead civil-defense counsel. After an unopposed extension granted by Judge Marra on July 7, 2009 (D.E. 6-1, EFTA02743322), Epstein filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Counts I and III on statute-of-limitations grounds on July 14, 2009 (D.E. 8, EFTA02743326), and replied on Plaintiff's opposition on or about August 19, 2009 (EFTA00725607). Plaintiff later amended the Complaint in December 2009; Epstein's answer to the Amended Complaint asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to substantive paragraphs (EFTA00725719).

By the summer of 2009, 09-cv-80802 was being administered jointly with the lead case 08-cv-80119 (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein) and the rest of the Florida Doe cluster — including 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-80591, 09-cv-80656, and 09-cv-81092 (EFTA00078630). Filings in the cluster routinely carried multi-case captions enumerating these dockets, and 09-cv-80802 appears as a member case on docket sheets pulled from CM/ECF for the lead and sister cases (EFTA00175589, EFTA00175717, EFTA00175835).

The corpus contains the case-resolution document. A June 18, 2010 letter from Adam D. Horowitz (Mermelstein & Horowitz) to Robert D. Critton, Jr. encloses 'seven original Settlement Agreements and General Releases signed by our clients' for Jane Does 2 through 8 — including 09-CV-80802 — and instructs Epstein's counsel to wire $3,250,000.00 in settlement funds to the firm's IOTA trust account, with stipulations of dismissal to follow on confirmation of receipt (EFTA00724313). That memo establishes the case's closure as part of the broader Herman/Mermelstein omnibus settlement of the Florida Doe cluster.

The DOJ corpus contains 57 EFTA-stamped pages and 36 emails linked to 09-cv-80802. The high-confidence sample is dominated by court filings, with all 30 sampled documents linked through the docket_low_volume audit-confidence path. The clearest 09-cv-80802-native filings in the production are the foundational pleadings: the May 28, 2009 Complaint (D.E. 1, EFTA02743308); the same-day Summons issued to Epstein at his 9 East 71st Street, New York and 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach addresses (D.E. 2, EFTA02743315); Judge Marra's June 1, 2009 standing scheduling order (D.E. 3, EFTA02743316); the June 5, 2009 Notices of Appearance by Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman (D.E. 4, EFTA02743318; D.E. 5, EFTA02743320); the July 7, 2009 unopposed extension order and motion (D.E. 6-1, EFTA02743322; D.E. 6, EFTA02743323); Epstein's July 14, 2009 motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds (D.E. 8, EFTA02743326); and the July 30, 2009 order extending Plaintiff's deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to August 12, 2009 (D.E. 9-1, EFTA02743332).

The sample then captures the case's substantive briefing arc: Epstein's reply on his motion to dismiss Counts I and III (EFTA00725607) and Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint, in which Epstein asserted the Fifth Amendment as to substantive allegations (EFTA00725719). A July 8, 2009 letter from Robert D. Critton, Jr. to AUSA A. Marie Villafana (EFTA00722862) is particularly notable: Critton transmits the 09-cv-80802 motion to dismiss to the U.S. Attorney's Office and asks the USAO to confirm the motion does not violate Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, recording on contemporaneous correspondence Epstein's defense theory that the NPA's no-contest provision applied only to plaintiffs proceeding exclusively under § 2255 — and Plaintiffs' counsel Adam Horowitz's own statement, on the June 12, 2009 hearing record, that the NPA bar 'does not relate to our clients' because they pleaded additional causes of action.

The corpus also contains CM/ECF docket sheets from the lead and sister cases that name 09-cv-80802 as a member case (EFTA00175589, EFTA00175717, EFTA00175835), and a March 12, 2010 CM/ECF notice-of-electronic-filing email circulating Jean-Luc Brunel's Response in Opposition across all consolidated dockets, including 09-cv-80802 (EFTA00207752). The case-resolution document is a June 18, 2010 settlement transmittal letter from Adam Horowitz to Robert Critton enclosing seven signed Settlement Agreements and General Releases — for Jane Does 2 through 8 (08-CV-80119, 08-CV-80232, 08-CV-80380, 08-CV-80381, 08-CV-80994, 08-CV-80993, and 09-CV-80802) — and directing wire transfer of $3,250,000.00 in settlement funds to the firm's IOTA trust account, with stipulations of dismissal to follow (EFTA00724313). The corpus does not contain the executed Settlement Agreement and General Release for 09-cv-80802 itself, the wired payment confirmation, or any deposition transcripts taken in this case; the per-plaintiff allocation of the $3.25 million omnibus payment is not disclosed in the sample.