Victim Civil (S.D. Fla.) — 10-cv-80309

Case 10-cv-80309 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 23, 2010 by a plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously as 'Jane Doe No. 103' against Jeffrey Epstein. Filed under seal, the action was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch with Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum referred (EFTA02739153). The Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (D.E. 1, EFTA02739126) was filed by Robert C. Josefsberg and Katherine W. Ezell of Podhurst Orseck, P.A. (Miami) — the same firm representing the plaintiff in 09-cv-80591 (Jane Doe No. 101) — and pleaded six counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The Complaint described Epstein as 'a billionaire financier,' identified his Palm Beach residence at 358 El Brillo Way, alleged he 'has a sexual preference for underage minor girls,' and noted that following his June 30, 2008 state-court sentencing he was at the time of filing 'a citizen of the United States Virgin Islands' on community control in Palm Beach County (EFTA02739126).

On the same day the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Seal and Proceed Anonymously (D.E. 2, EFTA02739145), representing that Plaintiff had been an 'identified victim by the State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office in their criminal investigations against Defendant.' On March 9, 2010, Judge Zloch granted the motion to proceed pseudonymously, ordered Plaintiff's identity to be 'permanently sealed,' and unsealed the Complaint, motion, and summons (EFTA02739153). Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP appeared for Epstein — Robert D. Critton, Jr. as lead counsel, with Michael J. Pike on filings — the same defense team used across the Florida Doe cluster. After an unopposed extension granted on March 25, 2010 (D.E. 6, EFTA02739157), Epstein filed his Motion to Dismiss Count VI and for More Definite Statement and to Strike on April 5, 2010 (D.E. 14, EFTA02739173), arguing that Count VI's predicate — 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) — had been enacted in 2006 and could not be applied retroactively to alleged conduct in 2004–2005. An Amended Motion to Dismiss followed on April 12, 2010 (D.E. 15-1, EFTA02739188) refining the retroactivity argument.

On April 1, 2010, Plaintiff moved to transfer the case to Judge Marra so it could be consolidated with the existing Doe cluster (D.E. 12, EFTA02739166). The Civil Cover Sheet attachment listed eleven 'Related Pending Cases': 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80811, 08-80893, 08-80993, 08-80994, 09-80459 [09-80469], 09-80802, and 09-81092 (D.E. 12-1, EFTA02739164). On April 27, 2010, Judge Zloch transferred the case to Judge Marra, who accepted the transfer and ordered all subsequent pleadings to bear case number 10-80309-CIV-MARRA (D.E. 18, EFTA02739214). On April 29, 2010, Judge Marra entered the standing scheduling/discovery order requiring counsel to confer and file joint reports under Local Rule 26.1 and Rule 26 (D.E. 19, EFTA02739216).

The substantive briefing on the motion to dismiss never went to decision. Plaintiff's May 13, 2010 Agreed Motion for Further Extension of Time (D.E. 20, EFTA02739218) recited that 'the Parties are in the process of resolving this matter, and the subject motion and response will become moot' — the in-record marker of pending settlement. The corpus does not include the executed Settlement Agreement, the Stipulation of Dismissal, or any payment record for 10-cv-80309. The U.S. Attorney's Office's December 3, 2018 master litigation spreadsheet (EFTA00078630) lists the case as 'settled,' as it does for every other Doe matter in the Florida cluster except 08-cv-80069 (voluntarily dismissed) and 08-cv-80804 (remanded). Notably, 10-cv-80309 is not among the seven Herman & Mermelstein Doe cases (Jane Does 2–8) settled in the June 18, 2010 omnibus $3,250,000 transmittal letter described in 09-cv-80802 (EFTA00724313); 10-cv-80309 was a Podhurst Orseck case and resolved on a separate track.

The DOJ corpus contains 36 EFTA-stamped pages and 30 emails linked to 10-cv-80309. The high-confidence sample is dominated by S.D. Fla. court filings under the 9:10-cv-80309 caption — first under Judge Zloch, then under Judge Marra after the April 27, 2010 transfer. The case-initiating documents are well preserved: the Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (D.E. 1, EFTA02739126); the Unopposed Motion to Seal and Proceed Anonymously (D.E. 2, EFTA02739145); the Summons issued to 'Jeffrey Epstein, c/o Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach' (D.E. 4, EFTA02739152); and the CM/ECF docket sheet showing Judge Zloch's March 9, 2010 order unsealing the Complaint and granting pseudonym protection (D.E. 5-1, EFTA02739153).

The sample then captures the early motion practice: Epstein's March 25, 2010 unopposed motion for extension and accompanying proposed order (D.E. 6, EFTA02739157; D.E. 6-1, EFTA02739156); Epstein's motion to exceed the 20-page Local Rule 7.1 limit on his motion to dismiss (D.E. 7, EFTA02739161; D.E. 7-1, EFTA02739160); Plaintiff's April 1, 2010 Motion to Transfer with the Related Pending Cases attachment listing the eleven sister Doe dockets (D.E. 12, EFTA02739166; D.E. 12-1, EFTA02739164; D.E. 12-2, EFTA02739165); the April 2, 2010 Notice of Agreement (D.E. 13, EFTA02739171); Epstein's April 5, 2010 original Motion to Dismiss Count VI / for More Definite Statement / to Strike (D.E. 14, EFTA02739173, with multiple duplicate scans at EFTA00605537–EFTA00605542); the April 12, 2010 Amended Motion to Dismiss with refined retroactivity argument (D.E. 15-1, EFTA02739188; D.E. 15, EFTA02739204); a further April 22, 2010 agreed extension motion and order (D.E. 16, EFTA02739209; D.E. 16-1, EFTA02739208); the April 27, 2010 Order of Transfer from Judge Zloch to Judge Marra (D.E. 18, EFTA02739214); and Judge Marra's April 29, 2010 standing scheduling/discovery order (D.E. 19, EFTA02739216).

The end of the sample is the May 13, 2010 Agreed Motion for Further Extension (D.E. 20, EFTA02739218), in which Plaintiff's counsel — with Robert Critton's agreement — represented to Judge Marra that 'the Parties are in the process of resolving this matter' and that the pending motion to dismiss 'will become moot' once the Stipulation for Dismissal was filed. The corpus also contains a December 3, 2018 USAO internal spreadsheet email enumerating every Epstein-related lawsuit and labeling 10-cv-80309 as 'settled' (EFTA00078630). The corpus does not contain the executed Settlement Agreement and General Release, any wired-payment confirmation, the Stipulation of Dismissal, or any deposition transcript taken in this case; and the corpus sample contains no per-plaintiff allocation showing what 10-cv-80309 was settled for. Two contemporaneous USAO–Epstein-counsel correspondence items in the sample (EFTA00194687, a September 2, 2008 Kirkland & Ellis letter from Jay Lefkowitz to AUSA Villafaña regarding Section 2255 settlement-fee mechanics; and EFTA00233329, a July 3, 2008 Mermelstein letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding ongoing Epstein-victim representation) predate this case's February 23, 2010 filing and are not 10-cv-80309-native filings, but they document the settlement-and-fee-payment infrastructure that the Florida Doe cluster, including this case, would later use.