Annie Farmer v. Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein Estate

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

On November 12, 2019, Annie Farmer filed a federal civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell and the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate.

The formal case title was Farmer v. Indyke, No. 1:19 cv 10475, because Epstein’s executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were named as defendants alongside Maxwell.

Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell groomed, transported, isolated, sexually assaulted, and falsely imprisoned her when she was sixteen. The alleged conduct began during a visit to New York and continued after Epstein and Maxwell arranged for Farmer to travel from Arizona to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.

The complaint asserted civil claims for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Farmer sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, legal costs, and a jury trial.

The case did not proceed to a verdict. Farmer accepted compensation from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program and agreed to dismiss her claims with prejudice. When Maxwell attempted to obtain the confidential compensation amount through the civil case, United States District Judge Lorna Schofield rejected that demand.

The dismissal was not a finding that Farmer’s allegations were false. It resulted from the compensation program’s release requirements.

Farmer later testified under her own name during Maxwell’s federal criminal trial. Prosecutors presented supporting testimony from Farmer’s mother and a former boyfriend. The jury convicted Maxwell on five federal charges, although the verdict did not separately identify which testimony supported each count.

Case Information

Case: Farmer v. Indyke et al.

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 1:19 cv 10475

Filed: November 12, 2019

Plaintiff: Annie Farmer

Defendants: Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, and Ghislaine Maxwell

Presiding Judge: United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield

Referral: United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman

Jurisdiction: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

Claims: Battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress

Requested Relief: Compensatory damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, legal costs, and a jury trial

Disposition: Dismissed with prejudice on February 16, 2021

The complete public docket is available through CourtListener and Justia.

The United States Department of Justice Epstein Library also provides a collection of records from the case.

Why the Case Was Captioned Farmer v. Indyke

Although the lawsuit is frequently described as Annie Farmer’s case against Maxwell, the formal caption begins with Darren Indyke’s name.

That occurred because Jeffrey Epstein died on August 10, 2019, before Farmer filed her complaint.

Indyke and Kahn were appointed executors of Epstein’s estate. Farmer therefore sued them in their official capacities as the legal representatives responsible for administering the estate and responding to claims against Epstein.

The lawsuit named:

Darren K. Indyke, in his capacity as an executor of Epstein’s estate
Richard D. Kahn, in his capacity as an executor of Epstein’s estate
Ghislaine Maxwell, in her individual capacity

The claims against Indyke and Kahn were based on their representation of the estate. The complaint did not allege that either man personally committed the sexual assaults described by Farmer.

Annie Farmer

Annie Farmer was born in 1979 and grew up in Arizona.

She was the younger sister of Maria Farmer, an artist who became involved with Epstein’s professional and social circle during the 1990s.

Annie was sixteen and attending high school when she met Epstein.

According to the original federal complaint, she was an academically successful student interested in attending a competitive university.

The complaint alleged that Epstein used her educational ambitions and her family’s financial circumstances to manufacture trust. He presented his interest as mentorship and offered to help Farmer obtain educational opportunities.

That offer became the mechanism through which Epstein and Maxwell gained access to her.

Maria Farmer’s Connection to Epstein

Maria Farmer met Epstein and Maxwell through the New York art world.

Epstein purchased some of Maria’s artwork and later employed her to assist with art related work. Her responsibilities included monitoring visitors entering Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse.

Maria later said that she observed Maxwell bringing young girls to the residence while claiming they were being considered for modeling opportunities.

The complaint stated that Maxwell described herself as recruiting models associated with Victoria’s Secret and would leave Epstein’s residence while announcing that she needed to find girls for him.

At the time, Maria did not yet understand that Epstein and Maxwell were operating a sexual recruitment system.

Her employment gave Epstein access to information about the Farmer family, including Annie’s age, academic goals, family circumstances, and location in Arizona.

The New York Visit

Epstein offered to help Annie with her education and invited her to New York.

According to the complaint, Epstein purchased her airline ticket and gave Maria money to buy Annie a dress. A limousine transported the sisters to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse.

Epstein discussed universities and educational opportunities with Annie. He also sent the sisters to a Broadway performance.

Farmer alleged that this display of generosity created the appearance that Epstein was a legitimate mentor interested in her future.

During another outing, Epstein invited Annie and Maria to a movie theater. He positioned himself between the sisters and began touching Annie when Maria was looking away.

The complaint alleged that he caressed Annie’s body without her consent while attempting to conceal his conduct from Maria.

Farmer later described the incident during Maxwell’s criminal trial. CBS News reported that Farmer told jurors the touching made her feel physically sick and was entirely unexpected.

Farmer returned to Arizona after the visit.

The Educational Offer

After Farmer returned home, Epstein continued communicating with her and her mother.

He presented himself as someone who sponsored educational experiences for promising students. He offered to send Annie on a trip that could improve her college applications.

Epstein told Farmer’s mother that an educational gathering would take place at his New Mexico property. He represented that other students would attend and that Maxwell would serve as a host or chaperone.

Farmer’s mother later testified that she was told approximately twenty to twenty five students would participate.

That representation was critical because it gave the proposed trip the appearance of a supervised educational program rather than a private visit with two adults.

Epstein and Maxwell arranged and paid for Farmer’s travel from Arizona to New Mexico.

Arrival at Zorro Ranch

When Farmer arrived at Zorro Ranch, she discovered that no other students were present.

The sixteen year old was alone with Epstein and Maxwell at a remote property covering thousands of acres.

According to the complaint, Farmer did not have independent transportation, unrestricted telephone access, or any practical way to leave without assistance from the adults who had brought her there.

The difference between what her mother had been promised and what Farmer encountered at the ranch became central to the lawsuit.

The complaint characterized the educational program as a false pretense used to transport and isolate her.

Grooming at the Ranch

Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell initially behaved warmly and generously.

They took her shopping and purchased gifts, including beauty products and cowboy boots. The attention made the trip appear special while increasing the adults’ control over the environment.

The complaint alleged that Maxwell then pressured Farmer to touch Epstein and give him a foot massage.

Farmer did not want to touch him. Maxwell allegedly insisted and attempted to normalize the request by presenting it as harmless massage activity.

Epstein and Maxwell also took Farmer to a movie theater. The complaint described sexualized behavior between the two adults in Farmer’s presence, followed by Epstein touching Farmer during the film.

Farmer alleged that Maxwell observed Epstein’s conduct and did not intervene.

The pattern described in the complaint involved gradual boundary violations, adult pressure, isolation, gifts, massage language, and the normalization of sexual conduct.

Farmer’s Allegation Against Maxwell

After returning to the ranch, Maxwell allegedly insisted on giving Farmer a massage.

Farmer said that she was uncomfortable with the request but recognized that she was isolated and dependent on Epstein and Maxwell.

According to the complaint, Maxwell directed Farmer to remove her clothing and lie on a massage table.

Farmer alleged that Maxwell exposed her breasts and touched them without consent. She also alleged that the door remained open so Epstein could see her during the massage.

Farmer repeated the central allegation under oath during Maxwell’s criminal trial.

Reporting from the trial documented Farmer’s testimony that Maxwell pulled down the covering over her breasts and touched them during the massage.

Maxwell denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty in the criminal case.

Farmer’s Allegation Against Epstein

Farmer alleged that Epstein entered her bedroom the following morning without permission.

According to the complaint, Epstein climbed into the bed, said that he wanted to cuddle, restrained Farmer with his arms, and pressed his body against her.

Farmer said she froze in fear and eventually escaped into a bathroom.

The complaint described her as a sixteen year old trapped at a remote estate without independent transportation or unrestricted communication.

Farmer eventually returned to Arizona.

These allegations formed part of the battery, false imprisonment, and emotional distress claims filed against Epstein’s estate.

The False Imprisonment Claim

The second cause of action accused Epstein and Maxwell of falsely imprisoning Farmer at Zorro Ranch.

False imprisonment generally requires proof that a person was intentionally confined, was aware of the confinement, did not consent, and lacked a safe or practical means of escape.

Farmer alleged that:

She was brought to New Mexico under false educational pretenses.
She was told other students would attend.
No other students were present.
The ranch was remote.
She had no independent vehicle.
She lacked unrestricted access to a telephone.
She depended on Epstein and Maxwell for transportation.
She feared what would happen if she resisted their demands.

The complaint did not allege that Farmer was held inside a locked room. It argued that the geographical isolation, deception, age difference, lack of transportation, communication restrictions, and control exercised by Epstein and Maxwell effectively prevented her from leaving.

The case ended before a jury decided whether those facts satisfied the legal requirements for false imprisonment.

Maria Farmer’s 1996 Reports

After returning from New Mexico, Annie initially remained silent because she feared Epstein and Maxwell’s power.

During the same general period, Maria alleged that Epstein and Maxwell sexually assaulted her while she was working at a property connected with Les Wexner in Ohio.

Maria reported Epstein to the New York City Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1996.

Later released federal records confirmed that the FBI received a complaint from Maria during that period. The Washington Post examined the released FBI material, which documented allegations concerning Epstein, photographs of minors, threats, and Maria’s younger sisters.

Maria also contacted Annie.

According to Annie’s civil complaint, Annie then disclosed what Epstein and Maxwell had done to her in New York and New Mexico.

The sisters’ accounts therefore did not begin after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. The complaint placed their disclosures and attempts to alert authorities in 1996.

The Attempt to Reach Vanity Fair

Annie and Maria also attempted to tell their stories to Vanity Fair.

Journalist Vicky Ward was preparing a profile of Epstein during 2002 and 2003. The Farmer sisters supplied allegations, but the final published article did not include their abuse accounts.

The civil complaint alleged that Epstein used threats and influence to suppress the reporting.

Ward later wrote about the omitted allegations and her interactions with Epstein.

The failure to publish the sisters’ accounts became part of a larger institutional history. The FBI did not stop Epstein in 1996, and the magazine did not place the Farmer allegations before the public when it profiled him several years later.

These failures allowed Epstein to continue presenting himself as a legitimate financier, philanthropist, and scientific patron.

Filing the Civil Lawsuit

Farmer filed her complaint on November 12, 2019, approximately three months after Epstein’s death.

The lawsuit relied partly on New York’s Child Victims Act, which created a temporary opportunity for survivors to bring claims that had previously been blocked by statutes of limitation.

The complaint also cited New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 215(8)(a), which provides additional time to bring certain civil claims following the conclusion of a related criminal action.

Epstein’s 2019 federal criminal case formally ended on August 29, 2019, because a criminal prosecution cannot continue against a deceased defendant.

Farmer also argued that Epstein and Maxwell should be prevented from relying on limitation defenses because intimidation, threats, deception, and fear had delayed her ability to sue.

The court never issued a final ruling deciding which limitation theory controlled. The case ended through Farmer’s voluntary dismissal before those questions were tried.

The Three Civil Claims

Farmer asserted three causes of action.

Battery

Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell intentionally touched intimate parts of her body in an offensive and sexual manner without consent.

The complaint identified Epstein’s touching in New York and New Mexico, Maxwell’s massage, and Epstein’s conduct in Farmer’s bedroom.

False Imprisonment

Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell deliberately confined her at Zorro Ranch after arranging the trip through false representations about an educational program and other students.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Farmer alleged that the recruitment, deception, isolation, sexual touching, and intimidation constituted extreme and outrageous conduct that caused lasting emotional and psychological harm.

The complaint sought compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages. Farmer also demanded a jury trial.

The complete November 2019 complaint provides the allegations and legal claims in their original form.

Maxwell’s Response

Maxwell denied Farmer’s allegations.

During the civil proceedings, Maxwell’s lawyers challenged Farmer’s account and questioned her motivations. They later argued that Farmer’s participation in the compensation program gave her a financial incentive to make accusations.

Farmer’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, rejected that argument as an attack on a survivor and said Farmer intended to testify truthfully.

ABC News documented the exchange, including Maxwell’s attempt to frame Farmer’s request for compensation as a reason to doubt her.

The civil court did not decide whether Farmer’s allegations were true or false. Its major ruling concerned whether Maxwell could obtain Farmer’s confidential compensation amount as a condition of dismissing the case.

The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program

Epstein’s estate established the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program in 2020.

The program provided survivors with an alternative to continuing litigation against the estate. Claimants submitted information to an independent administrator, received an award determination, and decided whether to accept the offered compensation.

Acceptance required the claimant to sign a release and dismiss covered litigation with prejudice.

Farmer accepted an award from the program.

Her participation meant that she had to dismiss her pending civil claims against the estate and covered individuals, including Maxwell.

The compensation came through the estate program. It was not a damages judgment entered against Maxwell after a trial.

Maxwell Sought the Confidential Award Amount

Maxwell objected when Farmer sought to dismiss the lawsuit.

Her lawyers demanded an unredacted copy of Farmer’s release showing the amount she received from the compensation program.

Maxwell argued that the amount could be used to suggest Farmer had a financial motive and could assist Maxwell in cross examining Farmer during the criminal prosecution.

Judge Lorna Schofield rejected that demand.

In the court’s February 10, 2021 opinion, Judge Schofield explained that discovery in a civil case must relate to claims or defenses in that case. Maxwell could not keep Farmer’s civil action alive merely to obtain information for public attacks or a separate criminal proceeding.

The judge concluded that dismissing the civil case would not unfairly prejudice Maxwell because:

All claims against Maxwell would be dismissed.
The dismissal would be with prejudice.
Maxwell had filed no counterclaims.
Farmer could not bring the same released claims against Maxwell again.
Maxwell could use criminal discovery procedures to seek information relevant to her criminal defense.

Reuters reported that the judge refused to require Farmer to disclose the confidential payment amount through the civil case.

The Compensation Amount Later Became Public

Although Maxwell could not force disclosure through the civil lawsuit, Farmer later testified during Maxwell’s criminal trial that she had received $1.5 million from the compensation program.

The defense was therefore able to question Farmer about the payment before the jury.

This distinction matters.

The civil judge did not rule that the compensation amount could never be disclosed or discussed. She ruled that Maxwell was not entitled to use Farmer’s civil lawsuit as a discovery vehicle after Farmer had agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice.

The criminal court had its own discovery rules, evidentiary procedures, and cross examination process.

Dismissal With Prejudice

The action was formally dismissed with prejudice on February 16, 2021.

The dismissal order ended Farmer’s civil claims against Maxwell and the estate defendants.

A dismissal with prejudice means the covered claims cannot be filed again.

It does not necessarily mean that:

The court found the allegations false.
Maxwell prevailed after a trial.
A jury rejected Farmer’s testimony.
Farmer withdrew her factual account.
The compensation program rejected her claim.
Maxwell paid Farmer personally.
The court issued a judgment determining liability.

Farmer requested dismissal because accepting the compensation award required a release of the covered defendants.

The case therefore ended through compensation and release, not through an adjudication of the underlying allegations.

Annie Farmer’s Criminal Trial Testimony

Farmer testified against Maxwell on December 10, 2021, during United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20 cr 330.

She was the only survivor witness at the trial to testify using her complete legal name.

Farmer described:

Meeting Epstein during a visit to New York
Epstein presenting himself as a mentor
Epstein touching her during a movie
The promised educational trip to New Mexico
Discovering that no other students were at the ranch
Maxwell pressuring her to massage Epstein
Epstein touching her in Maxwell’s presence
Maxwell exposing and touching her breasts during a massage
Epstein entering her bedroom and climbing into bed
Her fear, confusion, and inability to leave the ranch independently

Reuters reported that Farmer was the fourth survivor witness presented by prosecutors before the government rested its case.

Supporting Witnesses

Prosecutors called Farmer’s mother, Janice Swain.

Swain testified that Epstein represented the New Mexico visit as an educational gathering involving approximately twenty to twenty five students.

That testimony supported Farmer’s account that the trip had been presented to her family as a legitimate group program.

Prosecutors also called David Mulligan, Farmer’s former boyfriend.

Mulligan testified that Farmer had told him about being touched on her breast during the New Mexico massage and had described feeling fearful, uncomfortable, and helpless.

These witnesses did not observe the alleged assaults. Their testimony was offered to show that Farmer had previously described relevant parts of the experience and that her mother had received the educational explanation before authorizing the trip.

The Defense Cross Examination

Maxwell’s defense questioned Farmer about her memories, the passage of time, her compensation, and differences in how she had described particular details.

The defense emphasized that Farmer was uncertain about whether she had been completely unclothed during the massage. Farmer remained certain that Maxwell had exposed and touched her breasts.

The defense also argued that Maxwell was not responsible for Epstein’s most serious conduct and attempted to separate Maxwell’s actions from Epstein’s behavior.

Farmer’s receipt of $1.5 million from the compensation program was disclosed to the jury.

The defense was entitled to challenge Farmer’s credibility. Cross examination does not by itself establish that a witness’s testimony was false.

Maxwell’s Conviction

On December 29, 2021, the jury convicted Maxwell on five of six federal charges.

She was convicted of conspiracy offenses, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.

She was acquitted on one enticement charge.

The verdict did not provide a separate finding for every factual allegation made by every survivor witness. It therefore should not be described as a specific civil judgment validating each paragraph of Farmer’s complaint.

The verdict established that the jury found Maxwell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on five federal charges after hearing the complete prosecution and defense presentations.

Maxwell was later sentenced to twenty years in federal prison.

The complete criminal docket is available through CourtListener’s United States v. Maxwell record.

Farmer’s Sentencing Statement

Farmer remained involved during Maxwell’s sentencing.

She described the long term effects of Maxwell’s conduct and urged the court to impose a sentence reflecting the harm caused to girls and young women.

Other survivors, including Virginia Giuffre, Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, and additional women, submitted or delivered statements.

Maxwell attempted to limit some survivor testimony at sentencing. Reuters reported on the dispute before the court imposed the twenty year sentence.

The Civil Case and Criminal Case Were Different

Farmer’s civil lawsuit and Maxwell’s criminal prosecution served different purposes.

The civil case sought financial compensation and damages for Farmer’s personal injuries.

The criminal case was brought by the United States to determine whether Maxwell violated federal criminal laws.

The standards also differed.

In a civil trial, Farmer generally would have needed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

In the criminal trial, prosecutors had to prove the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

The dismissal of Farmer’s civil case did not prevent her from testifying in the criminal prosecution. The release resolved civil liability. It did not erase her experiences, prevent federal prosecutors from calling her, or require her to remain silent.

What the Civil Case Established

The public court record establishes that:

Annie Farmer filed a federal civil lawsuit on November 12, 2019.
She sued Maxwell and the executors of Epstein’s estate.
The formal case number was 1:19 cv 10475.
Farmer filed the action under her own name.
The complaint described events in New York and at Zorro Ranch.
Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell recruited and transported her when she was sixteen.
Farmer alleged that Maxwell sexually touched her during a massage.
Farmer alleged that Epstein sexually touched her in New York and New Mexico.
Farmer asserted claims for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Farmer sought damages and a jury trial.
Farmer accepted compensation through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program.
Maxwell attempted to obtain the confidential compensation amount through the civil case.
Judge Schofield rejected Maxwell’s demand for the unredacted amount.
Farmer dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
No civil trial occurred.
Farmer later testified during Maxwell’s criminal trial.
Maxwell was convicted on five federal charges.

What the Civil Case Did Not Establish

The civil case did not produce:

A jury verdict against Maxwell
A civil finding that every allegation was proven
A civil finding that Farmer’s allegations were false
A damages judgment against Maxwell
A public settlement payment made personally by Maxwell
A ruling that Farmer fabricated her account
A judicial determination concerning every statute of limitation issue
A trial ruling on the false imprisonment claim
A trial ruling on the battery claim
A trial ruling on the emotional distress claim
A finding that Indyke or Kahn personally assaulted Farmer
A finding that accepting compensation undermined Farmer’s credibility

These limitations are essential to describing the case accurately.

Why the Case Matters

Farmer v. Indyke documented conduct that occurred years before the Palm Beach investigation.

Farmer’s account placed Epstein and Maxwell’s alleged grooming activity in 1996, nearly a decade before Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein’s abuse of girls.

The case also demonstrated how Epstein’s system could use:

Educational promises
Paid travel
Adult authority
Financial generosity
Remote properties
Female participation
Massage language
Family trust
Social prestige
Fear of retaliation

The promise of an educational gathering was not incidental. It explained why a parent would permit a sixteen year old to travel and why the teenager might initially believe the trip was legitimate.

The complaint also showed the importance of Maxwell’s presence. Her identification as a host and chaperone helped make the arrangement appear safer.

The Institutional Failure

The Farmer sisters attempted to alert law enforcement and the media years before Epstein faced meaningful federal scrutiny.

Maria reported allegations to police and the FBI in 1996.

Annie disclosed her experience to Maria during the same period.

The sisters later attempted to provide their accounts to Vanity Fair.

No effective intervention followed.

The significance of Annie Farmer’s case therefore extends beyond the conduct attributed to Epstein and Maxwell. It documents how a warning from one sister and the abuse of another could enter law enforcement and media channels without stopping the adults accused of harming them.

By the time Farmer filed her civil action in 2019, Epstein was dead and Maxwell had not yet been arrested.

Investigative Assessment

Annie Farmer’s civil complaint contains detailed allegations concerning recruitment, transportation, isolation, sexual touching, and emotional harm.

Because the action ended through the compensation program, the civil court did not adjudicate those allegations.

However, the civil complaint is not the only evidence supporting Farmer’s account.

The broader record includes:

Maria Farmer’s early report to law enforcement
Annie’s disclosure to Maria during the 1990s
The sisters’ attempt to contact the media
Annie’s sworn criminal trial testimony
Her mother’s testimony about the promised student gathering
Her former boyfriend’s testimony about an earlier disclosure
Maxwell’s criminal prosecution and conviction

The correct classification is:

A survivor civil action resolved through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, followed by sworn testimony in the federal prosecution that convicted Ghislaine Maxwell.

Key Takeaways

Annie Farmer sued Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein’s estate in November 2019.
The formal case title was Farmer v. Indyke because Epstein’s executors represented his estate.
Farmer alleged that Epstein and Maxwell targeted her educational ambitions when she was sixteen.
Her family was told that a group of students would attend an educational event at Zorro Ranch.
Farmer arrived to find that she was alone with Epstein and Maxwell.
Farmer accused Maxwell of exposing and touching her breasts during a massage.
Farmer accused Epstein of unwanted sexual touching in New York and New Mexico.
The complaint asserted battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Farmer accepted compensation from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program.
Maxwell tried to force disclosure of the confidential compensation amount through the civil lawsuit.
Judge Lorna Schofield rejected Maxwell’s demand.
The case was dismissed with prejudice as required by the compensation release.
The dismissal was not a ruling that Farmer’s allegations were false.
Farmer later testified under her own name at Maxwell’s criminal trial.
Maxwell was convicted on five federal charges and sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Primary Court and Evidence Sources

Farmer v. Indyke original complaint contains Farmer’s factual allegations, three civil claims, requested damages, and jury demand.
CourtListener docket for Farmer v. Indyke provides the filings and procedural history for No. 1:19 cv 10475.
Justia docket for Farmer v. Indyke records the filing date, defendants, judicial assignments, motions, and final dismissal.
February 10, 2021 opinion and order explains why Maxwell could not compel disclosure of Farmer’s confidential compensation amount through the civil action.
Department of Justice Farmer v. Indyke collection provides released federal court records from the civil case.
EFTA02819265 contains released court material discussing Farmer’s 2019 complaint and later procedural developments.
EFTA02732040 contains released litigation material associated with Farmer, Maxwell, Epstein’s estate, and Farmer’s counsel.
EFTA02737678 contains additional released court material referencing Farmer’s complaint against Maxwell and the estate executors.
CourtListener docket for United States v. Maxwell provides the criminal trial, verdict, sentencing, and appeal record.
Department of Justice Maxwell court records provides released documents from Maxwell’s federal prosecution.

External Sources

PostedDecember 8, 2025