Debbie Fein
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Recorded names | Debbie Fein in an oral appearance and email headers; Debra Fein in deposition rosters. |
| Historical role | The May and October 2013 deposition rosters identify her as a law clerk. Her October introduction identifies Tonja Haddad, P.A., and Epstein as the client. |
| Civil case | Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards, Palm Beach County case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. |
| Deposition appearances | May 15 and October 10, 2013. Bradley Edwards was the witness. |
| Email records | May 13 news-link circulation and October 18 and 19 correspondence about a press inquiry. Fein appears as recipient or copied recipient. |
| Evidence limit | The sources establish specific professional appearances and distribution lists. They do not establish participation in abuse, knowledge of redacted material, or authorship of another person’s message. |
Introduction
Debbie Fein appears in the reviewed records through a law-office role in Epstein-related civil litigation. Deposition rosters identify her as Debra Fein, a law clerk. At the October 2013 session, she introduced herself as Debbie Fein of Tonja Haddad, P.A., appearing on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
Three separate email records also name her in recipient fields. They show which messages included her, but do not show her writing the substantive content. This profile distinguishes those email layers from her documented deposition appearances and from the allegations discussed by other people.
Key Takeaways
- Both reviewed 2013 deposition rosters list Debra Fein as a law clerk. The October introduction connects the Debbie name form to the same law office and client.
- The news-link email is dated May 13, 2013. Coleman sent and signed it; Fein was a recipient.
- The October 18 record shows Fein copied in Coleman’s quoted forward inside Indyke’s message to Epstein.
- The October 19 record lists Fein in Epstein’s top-level copy field. It repeats the underlying press inquiry but is a separate message.
- None of the three email records contains a visible substantive message authored by Fein.
- The law-clerk description is a historical record of her role, not a finding about her entire career or later licensing status.
Identity and the Civil Case
The court packet containing the deposition transcripts concerns case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG in Florida’s Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The caption identifies Epstein as plaintiff and Rothstein and Edwards as defendants. The covering filing identifies Edwards as counter-plaintiff and Epstein as counter-defendant.
The packet was filed January 17, 2014, as Filing 9301301. It is Edwards’s opposition to Epstein’s summary judgment motion, with exhibits. Its legal arguments are a party’s position, not a court ruling. The 2014 filing date is separate from the dates of the 2013 depositions reproduced inside it.
The historical name match rests on the rosters and the October oral introduction in the same transcript. This profile does not infer a current full professional name, employment history or attorney status from a similar name in an online directory.
May and October 2013: Deposition Appearances
At PDF page 311 of the court packet, Exhibit J contains the May 15, 2013 deposition in a condensed, four-panel layout. The lower-left panel, printed page 2, lists Debra Fein under other people present and describes her as a law clerk. Edwards is separately identified as the witness.
Exhibit I, the October 10 continuation, begins at PDF page 275. PDF page 276 contains printed pages 111 through 114. The upper-left panel, printed page 111, again lists Debra Fein as law clerk. In the upper-right panel, printed page 113, lines 22 and 23, Debbie Fein identifies Tonja Haddad, P.A., and says she is appearing on Epstein’s behalf.
Those passages support her law-office affiliation and the role recorded on those dates. Her introductory appearance is not sworn testimony about the case. Printed page 114 identifies Edwards as the witness and Fred Haddad as the lawyer continuing the examination.
A roster entry does not establish that Fein conducted questioning, made litigation decisions or held a particular license. The reviewed passages also do not establish a household employment role. Public professional status at a different date would require separate verification.
October 18, 2013: A Forwarded Press Inquiry
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023020 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023021 preserve a two-page email chain. Fein’s copy-field entry appears on PDF page 1, Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023020. Its top-level header identifies Darren Indyke as sender and Epstein as recipient on October 18, 2013. Fein appears in the copy field of an earlier message quoted inside that forward.
The quoted message is Tonja Haddad Coleman’s October 18 forward of Sharon Churcher’s request for comment for The Mail on Sunday. Churcher asked about the litigation involving Bradley Edwards and allegations she was reporting. Coleman copied Fein. These are separate layers of the chain: Churcher’s request, Coleman’s distribution, and Indyke’s later forward.
The record shows Fein on a distribution list. It does not show her answering the reporter, endorsing the allegations, or independently verifying them. Material marked privileged is redacted, and its contents cannot be inferred.
October 19, 2013: A Separate Reply
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023067 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023068 preserve another two-page chain. The relevant header is on PDF page 1, Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023067. The top-level header identifies Epstein as sender and Fred Haddad as recipient, with Coleman, Indyke and Fein copied. Its displayed date is October 19, 2013.
This record repeats the underlying Churcher inquiry but has a different outer message. It is therefore a separate reply in the same correspondence, not an independent allegation or a new inquiry from the reporter. No substantive response authored by Fein is visible.
The top-level message and a quoted Haddad response are redacted. The copy list cannot establish what those passages said or whether Fein read or acted on them. The outer timestamps do not display a timezone. Those headers therefore do not establish a converted local-time chronology.
May 13, 2013: Circulation of a News Link
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033575 shows an email sent by Coleman on May 13, 2013. Epstein, Indyke and Fein appear in its recipient field. Coleman included a short comment and a newspaper link concerning litigation over a Trump property.
Coleman’s signature appears below the link. Fein is a recipient, not the sender or signatory. The string referring to April 2013 is part of the linked URL’s tracking information; it is not the email date shown in the header.
The email establishes circulation of that link. It does not establish that Fein worked on the outside property dispute, agreed with the article, or supplied the information. The linked report is distinct from sworn testimony and court findings.
What the Records Establish About Her Role
The deposition evidence identifies a law clerk appearing with the office representing Epstein. The emails identify Fein as included in specified correspondence. These are concrete, limited facts about professional participation.
They do not show that she originated the press inquiry, signed Coleman’s note, or supplied the reporter’s allegations. Being copied does not establish that a recipient read a message, accepted its contents or acted on it. A message sent by Epstein with Fein copied is also different from a message authored by Fein.
The journalist’s request sought a response to allegations and litigation developments. It is evidence of what was asked, not independent proof of the allegations. This profile does not repeat unnecessary accusations about other people or identify redacted individuals.
Source Quality and Privacy
The court packet and email copies were inspected directly, including the relevant page images. They are third-party hosted reproductions. The court pages bear a notice that they are not certified copies, while the email pages bear House Oversight identifiers.
The original DOJ link for court document 795 returned a missing-page notice after its age check. The Roll Call copy allowed the deposition passages to be read, but it could not be matched byte for byte against that unavailable DOJ file. The complete original email production was not independently authenticated against the mirrors.
Redactions and pseudonyms are preserved. A privilege label does not reveal what a redacted passage contains or prove that a court upheld a privilege claim. Private addresses, email addresses and unnecessary survivor details are not reproduced here.
Chronology
| Date | Documented event |
|---|---|
| May 13, 2013 | Coleman email lists Fein among recipients of a news link. The header, not a URL tracking string, supplies the date. |
| May 15, 2013 | Edwards deposition roster lists Debra Fein as law clerk. PDF page 311, printed page 2. |
| October 10, 2013 | Continued deposition lists Fein and records her introduction. PDF pages 275 and 276. |
| October 18, 2013 | Indyke forward preserves Coleman’s earlier message with Fein copied. |
| October 19, 2013 | Epstein reply lists Fein in the top-level copy field and repeats the underlying inquiry. |
| January 17, 2014 | Filing 9301301 includes the earlier deposition transcripts as exhibits. This is the packet’s filing date, not a new Fein appearance. |
Evidence Appearances
| Record and location | What the record supports |
|---|---|
| Court packet 795, PDF pages 1 and 275 | January 17, 2014 opposition filing; separate October 10, 2013 transcript cover. These are separate dates. The covering opposition records a party’s argument, not a court finding. |
| Court packet 795, PDF page 276, printed page 111 in upper-left panel | October roster identifies Debra Fein as law clerk. This is a historical role description. |
| Court packet 795, PDF page 276, printed page 113, lines 22 and 23, upper-right panel | Debbie Fein’s oral appearance identifies Tonja Haddad, P.A., and Epstein as the client. It is not witness testimony. |
| Court packet 795, PDF page 311, printed page 2 in lower-left panel | May 15 roster also lists Debra Fein as law clerk. The title and roster appear on the same condensed PDF page. |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033575 | May 13 email. Coleman is sender and signatory; Fein is a recipient. No Fein-authored note is visible. |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023020 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023021, two-page PDF; header on page 1 | Indyke to Epstein, with a quoted Coleman forward copying Fein. The reporter’s inquiry continues onto the second page. |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023067 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023068, two-page PDF; header on page 1 | Epstein to Haddad, with Fein copied. A distinct reply reproducing the same inquiry, not a second independent allegation. |
Limitations and Open Questions
- The reviewed court passages establish the role recorded in 2013. They do not establish every task Fein performed, her full employment history or later licensing status.
- The three email records show recipient fields. They do not establish reading, agreement, a substantive reply by Fein or action on the contents.
- Redacted passages cannot be reconstructed from a distribution list or privilege label.
- Nothing in these cited passages establishes that Fein participated in abuse or had a personal financial relationship with Epstein.
- The records are not a complete audit of all appearances, correspondence or proceedings involving Fein.
- The cited copies have the provenance limits described above. A searchable name match alone is not authentication.
Conclusion
Fein’s documented role is a specific professional one: a law clerk listed at two 2013 depositions and a recipient in several law-office email chains. Accurate attribution changes the meaning of the records. Coleman wrote the May note, Indyke forwarded the October inquiry, and Epstein sent the later reply with Fein copied. Those distinctions prevent another person’s words or allegations from being assigned to her.
Questions and Answers
Why do the records use both Debbie and Debra?
The deposition roster uses Debra Fein. In the same October transcript, the speaker identified as Ms. Fein introduces herself as Debbie Fein of Tonja Haddad, P.A.
Was Fein the witness at the deposition?
No. Edwards was the witness. Fein appears on the roster as a law clerk and makes a brief introduction.
Did Fein write the May 2013 news-link email?
No. The visible header and signature identify Coleman. Fein is in the recipient field.
Are the October records duplicate proof of an allegation?
They are different messages in a chain that repeats the same underlying press inquiry. Repetition does not independently corroborate its claims.
Does the law-clerk label establish her status throughout her career?
No. It identifies the role recorded at those proceedings. It does not resolve later employment or licensing questions.
Do these records establish misconduct by Fein?
No. The cited passages support the professional appearances and distribution-list entries described here, not that broader conclusion.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
Sources
- Edwards opposition packet, Filing 9301301, filed January 17, 2014. Court document 795, mirrored by Roll Call. PDF page 275 introduces the October 10 transcript; page 276 contains printed pages 111 through 114. PDF page 311 contains the May 15 transcript title and roster. The locations above identify both PDF pages and printed transcript pages within the condensed layout.
- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033575. May 13, 2013 Coleman email. Header, recipient list and signature inspected in the mirrored image.
- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023020 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023021. October 18, 2013 Indyke forward containing Coleman’s quoted forward and Churcher’s inquiry. Two-page Roll Call reproduction; Fein copy entry on page 1.
- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023067 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023068. October 19, 2013 Epstein reply, with Fein copied. Two-page Roll Call reproduction; relevant header on page 1.