Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein (08-cv-80380)

Case 08-cv-80380 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 14, 2008 by a plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously as 'Jane Doe No. 4' against Jeffrey Epstein. The case was originally assigned to U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley and was transferred three days later, on April 17, 2008, to U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra under Local Rule 3.9(C) so that the related 2008 Doe matters could be managed by a single judge (EFTA02740342). Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson handled discovery referrals. The PACER docket sheet reproduced at EFTA00175775 lists Plaintiff's counsel as Jeffrey M. Herman, Stuart S. Mermelstein, and Adam D. Horowitz of Herman & Mermelstein, P.A.; defense counsel of record include Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, and Michael R. Tein, with Martin G. Weinberg admitted pro hac vice (EFTA01377939).

The Second Amended Complaint (EFTA02740615) alleges that Jane Doe No. 4 was approximately 15 years old in 2002–2003 when she was recruited and abused at Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and pleads diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 plus a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. The pleading describes the recruitment-pyramid scheme and seeks damages in excess of $50 million. Epstein answered through counsel and asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to the bulk of the substantive paragraphs (EFTA02741235). His early procedural posture included a contested clerk's default he successfully moved to set aside in June 2008 (EFTA02740374) and a motion to stay civil discovery on the basis of the parallel federal grand-jury investigation in S.D. Fla. (EFTA02740424, EFTA02740493) — a stay motion that cross-referenced AUSA Ann Marie Villafana's July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the related CVRA action, In re: Jane Doe, 08-cv-80736.

By spring 2009 the suit was being litigated alongside its sister Doe cases under a multi-case caption (EFTA02740997, EFTA02741102) covering Doe Nos. 2–7, C.M.A., the unnumbered Jane Doe in 08-cv-80893, and Doe II in 09-cv-80469. The corpus shows Magistrate Judge Johnson and Judge Marra resolving overlapping discovery disputes — motions to compel interrogatory answers over Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment objections (EFTA02740935), motions for protective order over plaintiffs' sexual histories, and motions to consolidate plaintiff depositions (EFTA00722736). As with the other Florida Doe suits, public reporting outside this corpus indicates the action was resolved short of trial via confidential settlement; the corpus does not contain a settlement agreement or a final judgment for 08-cv-80380.

The DOJ corpus contains 774 EFTA-stamped pages and 35 emails linked to 08-cv-80380, drawn primarily from federal court filings docketed under Case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM and from parallel docket entries in the consolidated sister cases. Document types in the sample include the original April 17, 2008 transfer order from Judge Hurley to Judge Marra; Epstein's response opposing entry of default judgment; plaintiff's motion for enlargement to respond to Epstein's stay motion; the Second Amended Complaint; the September 23, 2008 order denying as moot Epstein's earlier motions to dismiss after the amended pleading was filed; Magistrate Johnson’s and Judge Marra’s discovery orders; an 11-page reply memorandum on plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories that exhaustively responds to Epstein's blanket Fifth Amendment objections; Epstein’s First Amended Answer asserting the Fifth Amendment paragraph-by-paragraph; a 14-page transcript of a March 3, 2009 hearing before Judge Diana Lewis in the parallel state action Jane Doe II v. Epstein, Palm Beach Circuit Court Case No. 50-2008-CA-020614; and a copy of the underlying 2006 Florida grand-jury indictment of Epstein, filed as a defense exhibit (EFTA02740749).

Many of the most recent documents in the sample are multi-case captioned filings — motions, oppositions, and orders that were docketed simultaneously across the seven "Doe Nos. 2–7" and C.M.A. dockets. They illustrate how heavily this litigation was coordinated for discovery purposes despite never being formally consolidated into a single MDL. Several of the EFTAs in the sample originate in the DOJ’s SDNY-Maxwell production rather than directly from S.D. Fla. (EFTA01377939 carries DB-SDNY and SDNY_GM Bates stamps), reflecting that materials from the 2008 Florida Doe wave were re-filed years later as exhibits in downstream litigation. The corpus does not contain a copy of the original April 14, 2008 complaint in 08-cv-80380, deposition transcripts of the plaintiff or Epstein, the docket’s sealed materials, or a settlement agreement.