EFTA00725932: Civil Interrogatory Responses Describing Recruitment of Minors by Jeffrey Epstein

UpdatedSeptember 10, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Details
Record	EFTA00725932 through EFTA00725951
Document	Notice of Service of Plaintiff’s Unverified Better Answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories, with answers to interrogatories 1 through 26
Case	E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXX-MB
Court	Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
Service date shown	August 4, 2009
Record type	Civil discovery responses
Verification status	Expressly titled “unverified”; the notary block on the final page is incomplete
Central allegation	E.W. stated that Epstein paid her for sexualized encounters while she was a minor and paid her to bring other minor girls to his Palm Beach residence
Evidentiary caution	These are a plaintiff’s discovery answers and allegations, not judicial findings or a criminal verdict

This 20-page filing records a survivor’s answers to interrogatories served by Jeffrey Epstein in a Palm Beach County civil case. E.W. stated that she first went to Epstein’s residence in July 2002, remained a minor throughout the relevant period, visited more than 100 times, and brought more than 50 minor girls there after Epstein offered payment for referrals. She also described alleged abuse, educational disruption, psychological harm, law-enforcement interviews, and conduct she understood as intimidation.

The filing is especially important because it describes an alleged recruitment mechanism in the plaintiff’s own civil discovery responses: payment after sexualized encounters, payment for bringing another minor, and repetition of that process over several years. The record must still be read with precision. Its answers were labeled unverified, some names and personal details are redacted, and the filing does not itself adjudicate the allegations.

Document Identification

The first page is a notice of service for the plaintiff’s “Unverified Better Answers” to Epstein’s first interrogatories, numbered 1 through 26. The answers follow on the remaining pages. The case number shown is 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXX-MB. A separate filing in the same action, EFTA00614588, identifies the plaintiff by the pseudonym E.W.

Although one database label may classify the file as an FBI FD-302, the document itself is not an FBI interview report. It is a civil court filing prepared in response to interrogatories. That distinction matters because discovery answers, investigative reports, sworn testimony, and judicial findings carry different procedural and evidentiary meanings.

Procedural Status: Unverified Discovery Responses

The title on both the notice and the answer set calls the responses “unverified.” On the final page, counsel states that he personally witnessed the plaintiff execute a jurat page, but the date, notary name, signature, commission information, and seal fields are blank. The scan therefore does not support describing the document as notarized or as sworn testimony.

The answers are nevertheless a contemporaneous litigation record of what E.W. alleged and disclosed during civil discovery. They can establish what was asserted, what Epstein’s interrogatories asked, and what information the plaintiff supplied. Standing alone, they do not establish that every allegation is true, that every named person possessed the knowledge attributed to them, or that a court adopted the statements as findings.

Survivor’s Account

E.W. stated that she was under 18 during every visit to Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. She alleged that Epstein paid her after sexualized encounters and that he induced or coerced her into commercial sexual activity while she was a child. The answers describe emotional and psychological injuries, fear, humiliation, reduced self-worth, and harm she considered permanent.

The record also says E.W. was an eighth-grade student before meeting Epstein. She alleged that his influence diverted her from school, affected her education, and reduced her future earning capacity. Her responses identify treatment for anxiety, depression, trauma, and substance-related problems. This article does not republish provider names, addresses, phone numbers, employment history, or other private details that are unnecessary to understand the evidence.

Recruitment and Payment Allegations

The most significant recruitment account appears on EFTA00725947, EFTA00725948, and EFTA00725949.

E.W. stated that:

she first went to Epstein’s residence in July 2002 and stopped going around September 2005;
she was a minor throughout that period;
she visited the residence more than 100 times;
Epstein generally paid her $200 after encounters involving sexual touching, and once paid $300;
Epstein paid her $200 for each minor girl she brought to the residence;
she brought more than 50 minor girls, although she did not know or remember every name; and
Epstein sexually abused the girls she brought, according to her answer.

These statements describe an alleged referral system in which a child was paid both for her own exploitation and for bringing additional minors into the same environment. The scale, dates, payments, and abuse remain allegations in an unverified civil filing. The record does not supply a complete roster of the girls, and names that do appear are redacted in the public copy.

Timeline and Scale Alleged

Period or figure	What E.W. stated	Source
July 2002	First visit to Epstein’s Palm Beach residence	EFTA00725947
July 2002 to September 2005	Period in which she said she went to the residence	EFTA00725947 and EFTA00725949
More than 100 visits	Her estimate of how often she went to the residence	EFTA00725947 and EFTA00725948
More than 50 minors	Her estimate of how many minor girls she brought	EFTA00725947
Approximately 50 girls	Her answer when asked to identify those she brought	EFTA00725949
$200 per referral	Amount she alleged Epstein paid for each minor girl brought to his residence	EFTA00725948
8 to 10 interviews	Approximate number of contacts she reported with the FBI and/or U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2007 and 2008	EFTA00725949 and EFTA00725950

The difference between “more than 50” and “approximately 50” reflects the wording of separate answers, not necessarily a contradiction. Both are estimates supplied by E.W., not counts independently established by this filing.

Education, Health, and Long-Term Harm

In response to damages questions, E.W. alleged that Epstein’s conduct caused lasting psychological trauma and affected her ability to pursue a conventional education and career. She said she had been in eighth grade before meeting him and had lost earning capacity because she was influenced away from normal school life.

The filing also contains detailed medical and treatment information. Those details are not necessary to document the alleged recruitment system and are not reproduced here. Their evidentiary significance is that E.W. connected her treatment, anxiety, depression, substance-related problems, and other claimed harms to the abuse alleged in the lawsuit.

Law-Enforcement Contact and Alleged Intimidation

E.W. stated that she spoke with the FBI and/or the U.S. Attorney’s Office approximately eight to ten times during 2007 and 2008. She believed one statement may have been recorded and that notes were taken during most interviews. According to her answers, she told investigators about Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse, his payments to her, and his payments for bringing other minor girls.

She also alleged that Epstein sent investigators to her home, where they banged on the door and photographed the home and a car. The filing records her account of that conduct; it does not include an independent investigative finding about who directed the individuals or why they were there.

When asked whether law-enforcement officers or prosecutors had told her about civil remedies or benefits from cooperating, E.W. answered that no such statements had been made.

Epstein’s Interrogatories and the Plaintiff’s Objections

Several interrogatories sought highly personal information, including E.W.’s current address, medical history, and sexual history beginning at age ten. E.W. objected to disclosing her current address directly to Epstein because he was a registered sex offender, she identified herself as his victim, and she believed disclosure could endanger her safety and privacy.

She also objected to the request for the identities and details of sexual partners other than Epstein, describing it as harassing, irrelevant, and invasive of privacy. In separate answers, she stated that Epstein was the only person against whom she was asserting the forms of sexual misconduct described by the interrogatories.

These exchanges are relevant not only to the underlying allegations but also to the discovery burdens placed on a survivor who was a minor during the alleged events.

Witness and Knowledge List

Interrogatory 5 asked E.W. to identify people believed to have knowledge of issues in the lawsuit. Across EFTA00725936 through EFTA00725943, the answers provide a broad list that includes employees, pilots, household staff, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, financial professionals, acquaintances, alleged victims, litigants, and public figures.

Many entries use repeated or formulaic descriptions, including alleged knowledge of Epstein’s finances or his sexual interest in minor girls. Some entries contain a more specific claimed connection, such as employment, travel, household access, investigative work, or contact with Epstein. The list includes legible references to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, Larry Visoski, David Rodgers, Juan Alessi, Alfredo Rodriguez, Leslie Wexner, Mark Epstein, Leon Black, Donald Trump, David Copperfield, Bill Richardson, and others.

Inclusion in this discovery answer is not proof that a listed person had the alleged knowledge, witnessed abuse, participated in wrongdoing, or was accused of a crime. The filing does not show how each assertion was sourced, and several names are redacted or difficult to read. Any article about an individual entry should return to the scan and seek independent corroboration before drawing conclusions.

Related and Overlapping Records

EFTA02744463 through EFTA02744465 preserve a shorter set of E.W.’s interrogatory answers as an exhibit filed in federal court. The excerpt repeats the alleged $200 payments, the one $300 payment, the $200 referral payment, the estimate of more than 100 visits, and E.W.’s objection to the intrusive sexual-history request. It overlaps with this record but is not a duplicate of the full 20-page answer set.

EFTA00727684 begins a separate set of unverified interrogatory answers in L.M. v. Epstein, a different Palm Beach County civil action. L.M.’s answers also describe repeated visits and the recruitment of more than 50 minor girls. That record is not a duplicate and concerns a different survivor. Its similarity may support further research into an alleged recurring recruitment model, but each plaintiff’s account must be attributed separately.

EFTA00614588 is a third amended complaint in E.W.’s action and confirms the pseudonym and case number associated with the interrogatory responses.

Evidence Appearances

EFTA page	Contents
EFTA00725932	Notice of service; identifies the 26 answers as unverified and shows the Palm Beach County case number
EFTA00725933	Counsel’s assistance; safety objection to disclosure of E.W.’s address; employment inquiry begins
EFTA00725934	Employment and personal-history responses, much of which is private or redacted
EFTA00725935	Response concerning criminal convictions; witness-knowledge interrogatory begins
EFTA00725936	Continuation of persons and entities alleged to possess relevant knowledge
EFTA00725937	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725938	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725939	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725940	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725941	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725942	Continuation of the witness and knowledge list
EFTA00725943	Final categories of potential knowledge sources; medication and health response begins
EFTA00725944	Alleged abuse, minor status, psychological injuries, and claimed damages
EFTA00725945	Alleged disruption of education and earning capacity; treatment response begins
EFTA00725946	Sensitive medical and treatment history, summarized here without republishing private details
EFTA00725947	July 2002 to September 2005 period; minor status; more than 100 visits; more than 50 minor girls allegedly brought to Epstein
EFTA00725948	Alleged encounter and referral payments; more than 100 visits; objection to sexual-history request
EFTA00725949	Law-enforcement contacts; alleged intimidation; estimate of approximately 50 recruited girls
EFTA00725950	Further FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office interview details; no claimed promise concerning civil remedies or cooperation
EFTA00725951	Execution page and incomplete notary block

What the Record Establishes

The filing establishes that:

a plaintiff in the Palm Beach County case served better answers to 26 interrogatories directed by Epstein;
the filing itself labels those answers unverified;
the answers contain E.W.’s allegations about minor status, abuse, payments, recruitment, harm, and investigative contact;
Epstein’s discovery requests sought her address, treatment information, and extensive sexual-history information; and
a public scan exists under EFTA00725932 through EFTA00725951.

What the Record Does Not Establish

The filing does not by itself establish:

that the answers were notarized or sworn;
that a judge or jury found every allegation true;
the identities of every minor E.W. said she brought to Epstein;
that every person in the witness and knowledge list actually knew about abuse or committed wrongdoing;
the independent accuracy of the estimated visit and recruitment totals; or
the outcome of every investigative lead referenced in the answers.

Authentication and Limitations

The record bears sequential EFTA page identifiers, a Palm Beach County Circuit Court caption, a case number, a service notice, and a law-firm signature block. Related filings independently connect the case number to the pseudonym E.W. The scan contains extensive redactions and some text that is difficult to read.

The answer set’s own title and the incomplete notary block require caution. It should be cited as an unverified civil discovery response, not as an affidavit, deposition, sworn statement, FBI FD-302, court finding, or criminal conviction. The safest use is to document the plaintiff’s allegations and the litigation questions placed before her, while seeking corroboration for broader factual claims.

Survivor-Centered Reading Note

This filing contains intimate medical, sexual, family, employment, and location information about a person who said she was abused as a child. Public access to a court record does not make every detail necessary to republish. The evidentiary value lies in the alleged recruitment process, chronology, payments, harm, and investigative contact. Private identifiers and treatment details should remain minimized.

The language of the interrogatories also reflects older legal terminology that can place responsibility on exploited minors. Describing E.W. as a child recruited and allegedly paid by an adult preserves the substance of her account without suggesting that a minor could meaningfully consent to her own commercial sexual exploitation.

Fact Check

Claim	Assessment	Basis
The record is an FBI FD-302	Incorrect	The scan is a civil notice of service and interrogatory answer set
The answers are sworn testimony	Not supported by this scan	The document repeatedly says “unverified,” and the notary fields are blank on EFTA00725951
E.W. said she was a minor during every visit	Accurately attributed allegation	Stated on EFTA00725944 and EFTA00725947
E.W. said she visited more than 100 times	Accurately attributed allegation	Stated on EFTA00725947 and EFTA00725948
E.W. said she brought more than 50 minor girls	Accurately attributed allegation	Stated on EFTA00725947; approximately 50 is stated on EFTA00725949
E.W. alleged a $200 referral payment	Accurately attributed allegation	Stated on EFTA00725948
Every person listed in response to Interrogatory 5 knew about abuse	Not established	The list records E.W.’s discovery assertions, often in formulaic language, and supplies no finding as to each person
The E.W. case number is 50-2008-CA-028058	Confirmed by related records	Shown in this scan and connected to E.W. by EFTA00614588

Questions Still Unanswered

Were the answers later verified, corrected, supplemented, or withdrawn?
What records support or refine the estimates of more than 100 visits and more than 50 recruited minors?
Can schedules, telephone records, transportation records, payment records, or household logs corroborate the timeline?
What became of the recorded or written statements E.W. believed federal investigators retained?
Was the alleged visit by private investigators documented or independently investigated?
Which Interrogatory 5 entries were based on firsthand knowledge, documents, reports from others, or counsel’s investigation?
How did the court rule on the objections concerning E.W.’s address, medical history, and sexual history?
Are there later orders, depositions, settlement papers, or trial records that clarify the evidentiary status of these answers?

Source List

EFTA00725932 Download

PostedFebruary 16, 2026