Epstein Data Wiki

Jack Scarola

Properties2
tagsperson, lawyer, victims-counsel, florida, palm-beach, cvra
aliasesJohn Scarola, Jack Scarola, Scarola, Jack

25 min read

PracticePlaintiffs’ trial lawyer, West Palm Beach, Florida1
FirmSearcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach12
BarFlorida Bar No. 16944013
Role in the Epstein matterCounsel for a plaintiff in the Florida federal civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein; counsel for Bradley J. Edwards in Epstein’s suit against him and in Edwards’s counterclaim; one of the counsel for the petitioners in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case456
LitigationJeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Cnty.); Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell v. Alan M. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.)786

Jack Scarola, who signs later filings as John Scarola, is an American plaintiffs’ trial lawyer at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. of West Palm Beach, Florida, admitted to the Florida Bar under number 169440.13 He acted for a plaintiff in the civil suits brought against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for that district corresponded with him as counsel for a victim while Epstein was serving his 2008 state sentence.429 He was counsel to Bradley J. Edwards in Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, the Palm Beach County action in which Epstein sued Edwards and Edwards counterclaimed, and to Edwards and Paul G. Cassell in their defamation action against Alan M. Dershowitz.58 By 2019 he was among the attorneys of record for the two petitioners in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case, and in 2021 he was served with a grand jury subpoena by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for a client’s settlement agreement with Epstein.610

Practice and firm

Scarola practises at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, the address to which the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida wrote to him in December 2008 and the address in his signature blocks in filings of 2011, 2017 and 2025.21113 Filings he signed in 2011, 2016 and 2017 give his name as “Jack Scarola”; the grand jury subpoena served on him in 2021 and the filings of 2019 and 2025 are addressed to and signed by “John Scarola,” under the same Florida Bar number.112116133 In the Florida federal civil suits he appeared with a colleague at the same firm, Jack P. Hill.4

Florida civil suits against Epstein

A certificate of service filed in the consolidated Jane Doe civil actions against Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on June 9, 2009 lists “Jack Scarola, Esq., Jack P. Hill, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.” as counsel for a plaintiff whose name is redacted.4 The two are named as attorneys for the plaintiff on a motion for a protective order filed on June 5, 2009 in Case No. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, which Hill signed.14

In December 2008 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida wrote to Scarola, over the signature of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and by an Assistant U.S. Attorney whose name is redacted, so that the victims he represented could be told that Epstein had applied for and been granted a place in the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office work release programme; the letter said the office had not been notified of the application and had learned of the release more than six weeks after it began.2 In the same month an Assistant U.S. Attorney sent Scarola the non-prosecution agreement with its addendum, asking that disclosure be restricted to people who had signed the protective order; Scarola replied, “Thank you. I will follow your instructions.”9

Counsel to Brad Edwards

Epstein sued Edwards and Scott Rothstein in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County in December 2009, and Edwards counterclaimed.15 The docket’s party list records Scarola as an attorney in the case under his bar number, and docket entries from March 2010 through 2013 record notices of hearing, notices of unavailability and notices of taking deposition filed by “SCAROLA, ESQ, JACK.”16 A motion to strike filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case in June 2012 by Epstein and the attorneys who had intervened there set out the arrangement in terms both sides used: Epstein had sued Edwards in state court for abuse of process, Epstein was represented there by Tonja Haddad, and Edwards was represented by Scarola.17 Epstein, writing to Edwards through an intermediary on August 2, 2011, said he had been “quite surprised to have received a take it or leave it demand from Jack Scarola” instead of the structure he thought they had agreed.18 Edwards replied the next evening that he had turned the finalising of the settlement of his own case over to Scarola, and had given him complete discretion over the abuse of process claim, because “Discussions regarding my case cannot be linked to the resolution of the CVRA case for obvious ethical reasons.”18

Depositions and subpoenas

On August 4, 2011 Scarola wrote to Joseph L. Ackerman Jr. of Fowler White Burnett, counsel for Epstein, in the matter he styled Edwards adv. Epstein, asking for dates in early September to depose three people: Ghislaine Maxwell, Howard Rubenstein and Alan Dershowitz. The letter was signed by Scarola alone and copied to Edwards.19

The docket in the Palm Beach County action records eight subpoenas issued at Scarola’s instance on September 12, 2013, to Joseph I. Ackerman Jr. (SP-13-001186), Roy Black (SP-13-001187), Robert Critton (SP-13-001188), Alan Dershowitz (SP-13-001189), Jack A. Goldberger (SP-13-001190), Darren K. Indyke (SP-13-001191), Christopher E. Knight (SP-13-001192) and Lilly A. Sanchez (SP-13-001193), together with a notice of taking the deposition of Epstein himself on October 21, 2013.20 Each of the eight is identified in the docket entries as an attorney.20

He filed a notice of hearing on a motion to reschedule in July 2012, giving as the ground that counsel with the most knowledge of the matter had an unavoidable out-of-state conflict.21 The Palm Beach Post reported on July 6, 2017 that Circuit Judge Donald Hafele had set Edwards’s malicious prosecution claim for jury trial in December, and that Scarola, who had put Donald Trump on the witness list, had said in May that “We can prove our case without Donald Trump’s testimony.”22 He was still signing for Edwards on November 6, 2017, when the parties jointly moved to dispense with the mediation requirement.11

Epstein’s motion to bar Scarola’s statements to the press

On March 24, 2011 Epstein moved for a protective order to stop Scarola and Edwards making extra-judicial statements to the media.23 The motion was founded on three remarks Scarola had made to The Daily Telegraph, published on March 10, 2011. He told the paper, “We would be very keen to speak with Prince Andrew, given his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” said that his side wanted further detail on the scope of Epstein’s alleged abuse of children and on the transport of children for sex, and said he had reason to believe that the Duke of York had been in Epstein’s company while Epstein was in the company of under-aged children.2425 Asked whether he had reason to suspect the Duke had been present while under-age girls were abused, he said he was restricted in what he could say on the public record.25 The Telegraph told its readers that there was no allegation that the Duke had had sexual contact with any of the girls or was aware of any wrongdoing by Epstein, and reported that Buckingham Palace declined to comment; that caveat is the newspaper’s own.25 Epstein’s motion argued that the comments were generating further articles about him, that the court had discretion to prohibit extra-judicial commentary, and that Scarola’s and Edwards’s communications with the press were limited by Rule 4-3.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; it stated that “All statements and comments by Mr. Scarola to the press and media must therefore stop immediately.”24

Scarola answered the motion himself, in a response he signed and filed on April 5, 2011. He said the British coverage had followed public statements by one of Epstein’s victims, in which neither he nor his client had had any part; that his own comments had been confined to matters of public record and were intended to develop further sources of information for the pending proceedings, and had in fact produced potential new witnesses and evidence; and that he hoped public attention would deter further abuse and bring other victims and witnesses forward.5 On the law he argued that the case was not set for trial, that Epstein had not shown a substantial and imminent threat to his ability to receive a fair trial, and that the blanket order sought would be constitutionally impermissible, relying on Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada and on Florida authority requiring any restraint on a lawyer’s speech to be narrowly tailored.5 Epstein served an amended motion on May 2, 2011; Circuit Judge David F. Crow heard it on July 13, 2011 and denied it without prejudice.726

The 2018 settlement

The Settlement Agreement and Release between Edwards and Epstein, dated November 28, 2018, provided that Epstein would pay seven million dollars by wire transfer to the Searcy Denney trust account on January 7, 2019, and that he or a representative would read a public apology in open court on December 4, 2018.27

Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz

Scarola acted for Edwards and Cassell in their defamation action against Dershowitz in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, No. CACE 15-000072.8 He took Dershowitz’s videotaped deposition, continued into a second volume on October 16, 2015 at Fort Lauderdale.8

Dershowitz’s counterclaim in that action, which was pleaded against Edwards and Cassell and made no claim against Scarola, alleged that statements issued on their behalf by Scarola repeated their accusations against him outside the pleadings.28 It quoted a statement Scarola issued through PR Newswire on January 7, 2015 saying that on at least three occasions since 2009 Dershowitz had been informed that he was a key witness in the litigation against Epstein and asked to testify, and that he had failed to respond or testify; and it quoted the Palm Beach Daily News of December 18, 2015 quoting Scarola as saying that whether the client’s statements were true or not made no difference to whether Edwards and Cassell reasonably believed them.28 The counterclaim alleged that neither Scarola nor anyone acting for Edwards or Cassell had ever contacted Dershowitz about the allegations or attempted to depose him about them.28 He was not a party to the counterclaim and no response by him to those allegations is recorded on this page; the action in which they were pleaded was resolved by the mediated settlement of April 8, 2016 described below, without any adjudication of them.2829

The action was resolved on April 8, 2016 through the court-appointed mediator Jeffrey E. Streitfeld, whose announcement named Scarola among the counsel he had worked with directly; in the accompanying joint statement Edwards and Cassell acknowledged that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz and withdrew them, and Dershowitz withdrew his accusations that they had acted unethically.29 On April 11, 2016 Scarola signed, with Sigrid S. McCawley for a non-party, a notice asking the Broward court to retain jurisdiction over a pending motion notwithstanding the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal.12 See the Dershowitz litigation.

Giuffre v. Maxwell

On June 13, 2016 Scarola signed a motion to quash a subpoena that Ghislaine Maxwell had served on a client of his in connection with Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.), or in the alternative for a protective order, arguing undue burden, want of relevance, availability of the material from other sources, and intrusion on privileged material.30 The proceeding was docketed in the Southern District of New York as No. 1:17-mc-00025-RWS; Judge Robert W. Sweet terminated it on June 6, 2017, recording that the motion to quash had been resolved by a sealed opinion of April 4, 2017.31

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act case

Scarola signed as one of the attorneys for the petitioners in Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA, in their filing of May 10, 2019 on the procedures to be followed to determine a remedy for the government’s violation of the Act.6 Law360 reported on February 21, 2019, the day Judge Kenneth A. Marra held that prosecutors had violated the Act, that the victims were represented by Edwards of Edwards Pottinger LLC, Jay C. Howell, John Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley and Cassell.32 The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported on July 30, 2019 that Edwards, Cassell and Scarola had answered the government’s argument that reopening the Florida cases would harm victims who valued anonymity by saying that South Florida victims unwilling to take part could decline to do so and remain anonymous.33 On September 16, 2019 Marra denied the remaining relief the petitioners had sought, including sanctions, restitution and fees, entered judgment and closed the case.34 The order added that the court was “not ruling” that the decision not to prosecute was improper, only that on the facts of the case the victims’ rights under the Act had been violated.35

Victims’ counsel and the federal investigation, 2019–2021

An FBI victim specialist in the New York Field Office wrote to law firms on September 27, 2019 identifying them as representing victims of Epstein and inviting their clients to briefings by the Victim Services Division at the Miami Field Office on October 15 and the New York Field Office on October 23.36 On October 4, 2019 Scarola asked the specialist, in response to questions from his clients, whether the government would pay the expenses of attending; she replied that the Victim Services Division would cover travel and lodging for the victim and a support person.36 A planning tracker circulated on November 8, 2020 for a briefing by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General listed Scarola among the attorneys attending with clients, alongside Edwards, McCawley, Cassell and others.37

On August 7, 2019 Scarola wrote to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York offering information about a client who was willing to speak to investigators, copying Robert C. Josefsberg of Podhurst Orseck and Edwards.38 The prosecutor replied the same day about a separate person; Scarola confirmed that this person was also his client, and the office asked over the following weeks that a meeting be arranged.38 He also passed on, with permission, information from a third party, telling the prosecutor that he had made no assessment of it and had had no direct contact with him.39

In March 2021, after a conversation over the preceding weekend, an Assistant U.S. Attorney emailed Scarola a grand jury subpoena, telling him he could take additional time if he needed to look into confidentiality restrictions before responding.10 The subpoena, dated March 29, 2021 and issued over the name of United States Attorney Audrey Strauss, was returnable on April 5 and was issued in an investigation of alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2423(a) and 2422(b).13

The Maxwell prosecution

Maxwell’s discovery requests of February 2021 in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330, named Scarola among eight attorneys for accusing witnesses whose communications with prosecutors she sought.40 In December 2021, during the defence case at trial, her counsel sought to call Scarola and two other lawyers for complainants to testify about their dealings with the government.41 The government opposed the request on December 14, 2021, arguing that the testimony sought from Scarola about the course of his communications with prosecutors was not privileged but was “irrelevant and improper impeachment,” that much of it duplicated what the witness had already confirmed on cross-examination, and that whatever value remained was outweighed by the prejudice and jury confusion of making an attorney testify against his own client.42

Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on the morning of December 16, 2021 that the proposed testimony from the three attorneys was, with one exception concerning another lawyer, either irrelevant, duplicative of evidence already elicited on cross-examination, or so marginally relevant as to be outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403.43 Asked by defence counsel to confirm, “You’re precluding testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards,” the court answered, “Yes,” and, on being asked so the witnesses could be released, “Yes, on the 401/403 grounds.”43

Grand jury materials, 2025

On August 4, 2025 Scarola filed a response to the victim notification request in the Maxwell case, describing himself as counsel to multiple victims of Epstein’s criminal conduct. He said his clients were “in full agreement with the public disclosure of the grand jury transcripts,” that all Epstein-related material held by law enforcement, prosecutors and other government bodies should be disclosed, including the complete transcripts of any interviews and depositions with Maxwell, and that the only condition should be that the identity and privacy rights of all victims be scrupulously preserved.3 Judge Paul A. Engelmayer publicly docketed that letter with four others from victims and other individuals on August 6, 2025.44

Coverage

  • The Daily Telegraph, March 10, 2011: “Convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein is facing a new criminal investigation and is involved in a civil suit with a lawyer,” by Jon Swaine.25
  • Palm Beach Post, July 6, 2017: “Trial date set for lawsuit against billionaire sex offender Epstein,” by Jane Musgrave.22
  • Law360, February 21, 2019: “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” by Carolina Bolado.32
  • South Florida Sun Sentinel, July 30, 2019: “Some of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims don’t want new charges in South Florida,” by Marc Freeman.33

Footnotes

  1. Signature block, “Jack Scarola, Florida Bar No.: 169440, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards,” on the response in opposition filed April 5, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02769600 p.9. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Jack Scarola, December 8, 2008, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein/[redacted] Notification of Work Release,” over the name of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, signed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney whose name is redacted. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208281 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Response to Victim Notification Request, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-330, dated August 4, 2025, signed “/s/ John Scarola, John Scarola, Esq., Florida Bar No. 169440.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842934 p.6. A second copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00015096 p.6. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Certificate of service, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON, Document 149, entered June 9, 2009, entry for “Jack Scarola, Esq., Jack P. Hill, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A… Counsel for Plaintiff, [redacted].” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00182748 p.30. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Epstein’s Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Extra-Judicial Statements and Commentary to the Media, filed April 5, 2011, signed by Jack Scarola. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02769600 pp.1–3, 8–9. A second copy is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01074696. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 452, entered May 10, 2019, “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Position on the Procedures to be Followed to Determine a Remedy for the Government’s Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act,” signature block listing Bradley J. Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola as “Attorneys for Jane Does 1 and 2.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027776 pp.1, 21. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Order on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein’s Amended Motion for Protective Order Relating to Extra Judicial Statements Served on May 2, 2011, heard July 13, 2011, signed by Circuit Judge David F. Crow: the motion “is hereby Denied without prejudice.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00598013 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  8. Continued videotape deposition of Alan M. Dershowitz, Volume 2, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell v. Alan M. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.), Friday, October 16, 2015, Fort Lauderdale; appearance page listing “SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A… BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.” on behalf of plaintiffs. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02726484 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney to Jack Scarola, December 9, 2008, 7:09 p.m., subject “Confidential — Non Prosecution Agreement,” enclosing “Epstein NonProsecution Agrmt w Addendum.pdf,” and Scarola’s reply of December 10, 2008. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00014033 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  10. Email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Jack Scarola, March 29, 2021, 1:37 p.m., subject “Subpoena,” attaching “2021.03.29_subpoena_to_Jack_Scarola.pdf.” The client named in the email is redacted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080577 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  11. Joint motion to dispense with mediation, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG, e-filed November 6, 2017, signed “/s/ Jack Scarola, with permission, Jack Scarola (FBN 169440)” as co-counsel for the defendant/counter-plaintiff. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02760251 pp.2–3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Plaintiffs and Non-Party’s Notice Regarding the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072, e-filed April 11, 2016, signed by Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner for the non-party and by Jack Scarola for the plaintiffs. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00605440 pp.1–2. A copy filed as an exhibit in the Southern District of New York is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592788. ↩ ↩2

  13. Grand jury subpoena to John Scarola, Esq., Southern District of New York, dated March 29, 2021, with covering letter over the name of United States Attorney Audrey Strauss and rider. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080578 pp.1–3. ↩ ↩2

  14. Certificate of service to the plaintiff’s motion for protective order, Case No. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, Document 114, entered June 5, 2009, signed “/s/ Jack P. Hill” over the names of Jack Scarola and Jack P. Hill, “Attorneys for Plaintiff.” The plaintiff’s name is redacted. Read from the page image. Other pages of this document are not cited. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00182748 p.102. ↩

  15. Palm Beach County Circuit Court docket printout, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Case ID 502009CA040800XXXXMB, filed December 7, 2009, Division AG (Judge Hafele). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606813 p.1. A duplicate printout of the same report is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01099525. ↩

  16. Case parties list, “ATTORNEY 0169440 SCAROLA, ESQ, JACK,” and docket entries with the filing party “SCAROLA, ESQ, JACK,” including a notice of hearing filed March 1, 2010, a notice of hearing filed June 17, 2010, a notice of unavailability filed September 21, 2010, notices of taking deposition filed November 30 and December 15, 2010, and notices of taking deposition filed April 4 and April 7, 2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606813 pp.2, 9, 18, 24, 29, 31, 51–52. ↩

  17. Motion to strike notice of supplemental authority by limited intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and attorneys Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, Document 177, entered June 6, 2012. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208181 pp.1–2. ↩

  18. Letter from Brad Edwards to Jeffrey Epstein sent through an intermediary, August 3, 2011, 10:16 p.m., marked “CONFIDENTIAL — FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01856703 p.2. Epstein’s message of August 2, 2011, to which it replies, is at p.4 of the same document. ↩ ↩2

  19. Letter from Jack Scarola to Joseph L. Ackerman Jr., Fowler White Burnett, P.A., August 4, 2011, “Re: Edwards adv. Epstein, Our File No.: 291874,” signed “/s/ Jack Scarola” with “cc: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01099132 p.1. ↩

  20. Docket entries 647–655, all with filing date 12-SEP-2013 and filing party “SCAROLA, ESQ, JACK”: a notice of taking the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein on October 21, 2013, and eight subpoenas issued, SP-13-001186 to SP-13-001193. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606813 pp.115–116. ↩ ↩2

  21. Notice of hearing for July 16, 2012 before Judge David F. Crow on the defendant/counter-plaintiff’s motion to reschedule hearing, signed by Jack Scarola. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01104682 pp.1–2. The underlying motion, which states the scheduling conflict, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02771147 pp.1–2; its running head misprints the case number as 502004CA040800XXXXMBAG. ↩

  22. Jane Musgrave, “Trial date set for lawsuit against billionaire sex offender Epstein,” Palm Beach Post, 5:08 p.m. Thursday, July 6, 2017, forwarded to Epstein by Hiltzik Strategies on July 7, 2017. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02645843 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  23. Docket entry 271, motion “FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE OPPOSING COUNSEL AND DFT/COUNTER PLT FROM MAKING STATEMENTS,” filing date 24-MAR-2011, filing party Jeffrey Epstein; docket entry 282, response in opposition, filing date 05-APR-2011. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606813 pp.50, 52. ↩

  24. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Opposing Counsel and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff From Making Extra-Judicial Statements and Commentary to the Media, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG, served March 2011, paragraphs 1–11, and the certificate of service. Quotations checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01159181 pp.1–6. ↩ ↩2

  25. Jon Swaine, “Convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein is facing a new criminal investigation and is involved in a civil suit with a lawyer,” The Daily Telegraph, 10:00PM GMT March 10, 2011, printout dated March 11, 2011, filed as Exhibit 1 to Epstein’s motion. Quotations checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01159181 pp.7–9. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  26. Docket entry 348, order of 25-JUL-2011: “ON PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S AMENDED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENTS SERVED ON MAY 2, 2011 IS DENIED.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606813 p.63. ↩

  27. Settlement Agreement and Release between Bradley J. Edwards and Jeffrey Epstein, dated November 28, 2018, paragraphs 2 and 4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 pp.1–2. ↩

  28. Counterclaim of Alan M. Dershowitz, Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072, Count IV and paragraphs 65, 73, 77–78. The client’s name is redacted in this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00613391 pp.37–38, 42–44. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  29. “Lawyers Acknowledge Mistake In Filing Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Professor Dershowitz,” press release of April 8, 2016 containing the announcement of mediator Jeffrey E. Streitfeld and the Joint Statement of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01186699 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  30. Motion to quash subpoena or, in the alternative, for a protective order, filed June 13, 2016, signed by Jack Scarola; underlying case Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.). The respondent’s name is redacted throughout this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758734 pp.1–2. ↩

  31. Order of Judge Robert W. Sweet, No. 17 Mc. 25, June 6, 2017: “The motion to quash the subpoena having been resolved by sealed opinion dated April 4, 2017, the above-captioned case is hereby terminated.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02759171 p.1. ↩

  32. Carolina Bolado, “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” Law360, February 21, 2019, 5:58 p.m. EST, circulated by email within a U.S. Attorney’s Office the following day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00032506 p.4. ↩ ↩2

  33. Marc Freeman, “Some of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims don’t want new charges in South Florida,” South Florida Sun Sentinel, July 30, 2019, in a press compilation produced to the Southern District of New York. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085684 p.6. ↩ ↩2

  34. Opinion and Order, Document 478, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered September 16, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  35. Opinion and Order, Document 435, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered February 21, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.32-33 (the sentence runs across the page break). ↩

  36. Email thread between an FBI victim specialist in the New York Field Office and Jack Scarola, September 27 to October 4, 2019, subject “FBI Victim Services Division Briefing for Victims of Jeffrey Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01650203 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  37. Email thread on logistics for a briefing by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, November 8–9, 2020, with a guest breakdown listing representing attorneys including Jack Scarola. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01651588 pp.1–2. ↩

  38. Email thread between Jack Scarola and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, August 7 to October 7, 2019, subject “Epstein.” Details identifying the clients are redacted or are omitted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00021332 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  39. Email thread between Jack Scarola and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, September 13–15, 2019, subject “Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027949 pp.1–2. ↩

  40. Exhibit E, “Documents Related to Defense Motions,” United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Document 148-5, filed February 4, 2021, item 2. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002724 p.2. ↩

  41. Letter from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman to Judge Alison J. Nathan, December 13, 2021, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Document 544, setting out the questions Maxwell anticipated asking three attorneys for complainants. Client-specific detail in the letter is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836203 pp.1, 4. ↩

  42. Letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, December 14, 2021, filed December 15, 2021, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Document 545, in opposition to the request to call three attorneys for victims. The complainant is identified in the letter by a first name only, which is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836212 pp.1, 3–4. ↩

  43. Transcript, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), December 16, 2021, trial transcript pages 2298–2300, Document 761. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00013860 pp.3–5. A duplicate copy of the transcript is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00016484. ↩ ↩2

  44. Order of Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE), Document 804, filed August 6, 2025, publicly docketing five letters submitted on behalf of victims and other individuals. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842934 p.1. ↩

Backlinks