Sarah Kellen and Lesley Groff Litigation

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Sarah Kellen and Lesley Groff were longtime employees within Jeffrey Epstein’s organization. Their names frequently appear together in survivor lawsuits, government records, discovery disputes, and the controversial federal non prosecution agreement negotiated in 2007.

Their legal histories are related but not identical.

Kellen was personally named as a defendant in several civil actions filed by survivors in Florida, including cases alleging that she prepared massage rooms, coordinated appointments, and participated in Epstein’s recruitment and abuse system. She was also a defendant, with Groff, in Sarah Ransome’s federal trafficking lawsuit.

Groff was personally sued in the Ransome case and in Jennifer Araoz’s New York lawsuit. Other survivor complaints described Groff’s scheduling and administrative work without naming her as a defendant. The Government of the United States Virgin Islands later served Groff with a broad third party subpoena seeking communications, scheduling records, travel information, payment records, and documents identifying women who provided massages to Epstein.

Neither Kellen nor Groff has been convicted of an Epstein related crime. As of August 2026, neither has been criminally charged in the United States.

Several civil claims against them ended through settlements, stipulated dismissals, or discontinuances. Those outcomes did not produce jury verdicts deciding whether every allegation was true. They also did not amount to findings that the allegations were false.

The released evidence establishes that both women occupied important operational positions around Epstein and were repeatedly identified in litigation concerning his abuse. The nature of their knowledge and legal responsibility has remained contested.

Why Their Litigation Histories Are Often Combined

Kellen and Groff are frequently discussed together because both worked in Epstein’s administrative structure and both were expressly named in the 2007 federal agreement as potential co-conspirators.

Their responsibilities nevertheless appear to have been different.

Kellen, who has also used the names Sarah Kensington and Sarah Vickers, was described in survivor testimony as working more directly around Epstein’s residences, massage appointments, travel, and personal arrangements.

Groff served as an executive assistant and controlled substantial parts of Epstein’s calendar, communications, business appointments, and travel logistics. Records show that she remained employed by Epstein for years after his 2008 conviction.

The distinction matters because evidence that one assistant performed an act cannot automatically be attributed to the other. A complaint that names both women may also contain different allegations against each.

The 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement

The most consequential legal document concerning both women is the federal non prosecution agreement negotiated between Epstein’s attorneys and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

The agreement provided that federal prosecutors would not bring charges against Epstein if he satisfied specified conditions, including pleading guilty to state offenses. It also stated that the government would not institute criminal charges against Epstein’s potential co-conspirators, expressly naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova.

A released copy and analysis of the agreement appears in EFTA00027666. Additional material concerning the protected co-conspirators appears in EFTA00040089.

The agreement is significant because it placed Kellen and Groff inside the official federal resolution of the Epstein investigation even though neither woman signed the agreement as a defendant.

The term “potential co-conspirator” did not constitute a conviction. It did not result from a trial, guilty plea, or judicial determination that either woman committed a crime.

At the same time, the language cannot accurately be treated as a meaningless reference. Federal prosecutors agreed to a provision specifically protecting possible participants in the conduct under investigation.

The subsequent survivor challenge to the agreement can be followed through the Doe v. United States court docket. In 2019, the district court concluded that prosecutors had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by concealing the agreement from victims. Later appellate litigation limited the remedy available because no federal indictment had been filed before the agreement was made.

The victims’ rights litigation did not determine whether Kellen or Groff was individually guilty. It exposed how the agreement prevented an ordinary federal prosecution from testing the evidence.

What the Agreement Protected

The agreement promised that the United States Attorney’s Office would not institute criminal charges against Epstein’s potential co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida.

That protection was unusually broad because it was not limited to people who had cooperated with prosecutors or entered their own plea agreements.

The provision did not necessarily provide universal immunity from:

Prosecution in another federal district
State criminal prosecution
Civil lawsuits filed by survivors
Investigative subpoenas
Congressional investigations
Prosecution for unrelated or later conduct

The scope of the agreement later became a major issue in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell argued that the agreement protected her from prosecution in New York. The courts rejected that interpretation.

Neither Kellen nor Groff has received a public criminal judgment testing how the agreement would apply specifically to charges against her.

Early Florida Litigation Against Sarah Kellen

Kellen was personally named as a defendant in multiple civil cases filed by women who alleged that Epstein abused them while they were minors.

These were not simply complaints against Epstein that mentioned Kellen in passing. In several cases, she appeared in the caption as a defendant and was represented by counsel.

Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80804

In Doe v. Epstein, the plaintiff named Epstein and Kellen as defendants.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was fourteen when she was brought to Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. According to the allegations summarized in the federal remand order, Kellen led the plaintiff to the massage room, prepared the table and oils, and left before Epstein entered.

The federal court remanded the action to the Palm Beach County Circuit Court because federal subject matter jurisdiction was absent. The remand did not decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations against Kellen were true.

This distinction is important. A remand determines where a case should be heard. It is not a ruling on liability.

C.M.A. v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80811

Kellen was also a defendant in C.M.A. v. Epstein.

The case contained civil claims arising from alleged sexual abuse and the operation of Epstein’s recruitment system. Kellen and Epstein challenged the complaint through dismissal motions.

Released filings include EFTA00201298, which contains allegations from the action, and EFTA00201190, which contains dismissal arguments presented by the defense.

The docket later recorded a resolution and settlement. No public jury verdict determined Kellen’s liability.

Doe II v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80469

The complaint in Doe II v. Epstein named both Epstein and Kellen as defendants.

The action ended in July 2010 with a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a settlement. A dismissal with prejudice prevents the same claim from being refiled, but it does not establish that the plaintiff’s factual allegations were false.

The publicly available order did not contain an admission of liability by Kellen.

M.J. v. Epstein, No. 9:10-cv-81111

In M.J. v. Epstein, the plaintiff again named Epstein and Kellen as defendants.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was sixteen when she was brought into Epstein’s Palm Beach residence and that Kellen escorted her inside. It alleged repeated abuse by Epstein and presented Kellen as a participant in the broader civil conspiracy.

The case included civil claims for battery, emotional distress, conspiracy, federal sexual exploitation violations, and racketeering related conduct. Ghislaine Maxwell and other Epstein associates were identified as alleged participants in the enterprise even though not all were named defendants.

The case ended through a stipulated dismissal in December 2010. The stipulation of dismissal confirms that the action concluded without a public trial verdict.

What the Early Kellen Cases Establish

The early Florida cases establish that multiple survivors independently placed Kellen inside the physical and administrative process surrounding Epstein’s massage appointments.

They also establish that Kellen was exposed to personal civil liability, retained attorneys, filed motions, and entered resolutions that ended the claims against her.

The cases did not result in a public trial against Kellen.

The repeated appearance of similar allegations across different complaints is relevant corroborative context. It is not the same as a judgment establishing every allegation as fact.

Confidential settlements also limit the historical record. They may provide survivors with compensation and finality, but they generally prevent the public from learning what evidence would have been presented at trial.

Sarah Ransome’s Lawsuit

The most important case naming both Kellen and Groff as defendants was Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, No. 1:17-cv-00616.

Jane Doe 43 was later publicly identified as survivor Sarah Ransome.

Ransome’s complaint named:

Jeffrey Epstein
Ghislaine Maxwell
Sarah Kellen
Lesley Groff
Natalya Malyshev

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants participated in a commercial sex trafficking venture that exploited Ransome in New York and the United States Virgin Islands.

Ransome alleged that Epstein and Maxwell used promises of education, career assistance, and financial support to gain control over her. She alleged that employees and associates supported the system through recruitment, scheduling, transportation, surveillance, and control.

The federal docket shows that Kellen and Groff filed separate motions seeking dismissal.

In August 2018, Judge John Koeltl denied the motions to dismiss filed by Epstein, Kellen, Groff, and Maxwell. That ruling allowed the case to proceed. It did not determine that the allegations were true, but it rejected the defendants’ attempt to terminate the case at that stage.

Kellen and Groff subsequently filed answers to the amended complaint.

The Ransome Resolution

On December 20, 2018, Ransome, Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and Groff entered into a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

The final dismissal order dismissed every claim against those defendants, with each party responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

The terms underlying the resolution were not placed on the public docket.

The dismissal means:

Ransome could not refile the same claims against Kellen and Groff.
The defendants avoided a public trial.
No jury returned a verdict against either woman.
The dismissal did not declare Ransome’s allegations false.
The dismissal did not contain a public admission of liability.

The court had already denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The final resolution therefore occurred after the claims survived that initial challenge but before a trial could determine liability.

Jennifer Araoz’s Lawsuit Against Lesley Groff

In August 2019, survivor Jennifer Araoz filed a civil action under New York’s Child Victims Act.

Araoz alleged that she was recruited outside her high school when she was fourteen and was subsequently groomed and sexually abused by Epstein at his Manhattan residence.

Her initial complaint used placeholder names for several Epstein employees. An amended complaint later identified Lesley Groff, Cimberly Espinosa, and Rosalyn Fontanilla among the people and entities allegedly responsible for supporting Epstein’s operation.

The amended allegations were described in Reuters’ contemporary report on the expanded lawsuit and in a report reproducing the amended complaint.

Araoz alleged that Groff’s administrative position helped maintain Epstein’s schedule and make young women available to him. Groff strongly denied that she knowingly facilitated any abuse.

Sarah Kellen was not a named defendant in the amended Araoz action. The case therefore should not be described as a joint Kellen and Groff lawsuit.

Discontinuance of the Araoz Claim Against Groff

In 2020, the claim against Groff was permanently discontinued after her attorneys filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss.

According to the public report concerning the discontinuance, Groff’s attorneys stated that she made no financial contribution to the settlement of the wider Araoz case.

The discontinuance did not result from a jury verdict. The court did not enter a public factual finding that Groff knowingly participated in Epstein’s crimes.

It is therefore accurate to say that the claim against Groff ended permanently. It is not accurate to say that a court conducted a trial and exonerated her.

Araoz’s litigation continued against other defendants and Epstein related entities. Her case eventually ended through settlements and other resolutions.

Araoz died in 2021. Her advocacy and legal action remain an important part of the public record concerning Epstein’s abuse in New York.

Estate Lawsuits That Named Kellen and Groff in Their Allegations

After Epstein’s death, numerous survivors filed lawsuits against estate executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn.

Some of those cases described Kellen and Groff as alleged facilitators without naming either woman as a defendant.

Examples include:

One estate claim alleged that scheduling calls were handled through Kellen and Groff and that appointments were described using coded or ordinary business language. The Virgin Islands court filing preserves those allegations.

These complaints are evidence of what survivors formally alleged. Unless Kellen or Groff appeared as a defendant, the complaints did not place her personal liability directly before the court.

This distinction prevents the number of lawsuits against either woman from being artificially inflated.

The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program

The Epstein estate established a voluntary compensation program that ultimately distributed more than $121 million to 135 claimants.

Claimants who accepted compensation were generally required to release claims against the estate and protected individuals or entities covered by the program’s release.

That release structure affected possible litigation against former Epstein employees, including Kellen and Groff. Some survivors who entered the compensation program could not continue separate litigation against people covered by their releases.

A released estate filing discussing the program and its litigation consequences is available through the Virgin Islands Superior Court.

A release is a contractual barrier to future litigation. It is not a judicial determination that the released person did nothing wrong.

The compensation program provided significant financial recovery without requiring survivors to endure depositions and trials. Its use of broad releases also reduced the number of claims through which the conduct of Epstein’s employees might otherwise have been publicly examined.

Giuffre v. Maxwell Discovery

Kellen became a significant nonparty witness in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre’s 2015 defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell.

Giuffre sought testimony from Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Court filings show disputes concerning their depositions, subpoenas, and invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.

A released filing containing references to Kellen’s deposition appears in EFTA00191396. The filing records that Kellen invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about Epstein, massage appointments, visitors to his residences, and other subjects.

Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt. The privilege exists to prevent compelled testimony that could expose a witness to criminal liability.

In civil litigation, a court may sometimes permit an adverse inference from a witness’s invocation, depending on the relationship between the witness and the parties. No criminal conviction can be based simply on the use of the privilege.

Groff also became involved in the Giuffre litigation through discovery and disputes over confidential materials. Epstein and Groff sought to intervene in proceedings concerning protected records. The Giuffre docket documents those disputes.

Neither Kellen nor Groff was a defendant in Giuffre’s defamation claim against Maxwell.

United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell

Kellen and Groff were not defendants in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.

Their names nevertheless appeared in evidence and testimony concerning Epstein’s staff, scheduling system, travel, residences, and massage appointments.

Witnesses at Maxwell’s trial described Kellen as arranging massage appointments and travel. One witness testified that Kellen took nude photographs of her before an appointment with Epstein.

At Maxwell’s 2022 sentencing, Judge Alison Nathan described Kellen as a knowing and criminally responsible participant in the conspiracy when evaluating Maxwell’s leadership role.

That statement is more significant than an allegation in a private complaint because it was made by a federal judge based on the record in a criminal case.

It still was not a criminal judgment against Kellen. Kellen was not charged, tried, or sentenced in the Maxwell proceeding, and the finding was made for purposes of determining Maxwell’s sentence.

Groff was discussed in the documentary and scheduling record, but no comparable criminal judgment was entered against her.

The Virgin Islands Enforcement Action

In 2020, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands sued Epstein’s estate, its executors, trusts, and affiliated companies.

The government alleged that Epstein used Virgin Islands properties and corporate entities to support and conceal a trafficking enterprise.

The complaint and later amendments discussed employees and associates who allegedly helped arrange transportation, housing, payments, communications, and access to Epstein’s properties. A released version of the government’s complaint is available as EFTA00018778, with additional allegations in EFTA02806857.

Kellen and Groff were not individually named defendants in the enforcement action.

Groff was, however, served with an extensive third party subpoena. The official subpoena to Lesley Groff demanded records covering the period from January 1998 forward.

The subpoena sought:

Communications with Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, Indyke, Kahn, and other associates
Employment and severance agreements
Nondisclosure agreements
Appointment calendars and schedules
Travel arrangements for women and girls
Names and contact information for massage providers
Records of payments to massage providers
Immigration related communications
Housing and living arrangements
Records of visitors to Little St. James
Documents concerning gifts or payments from Epstein
Financial transactions performed for Epstein or his entities

The subpoena proves that Virgin Islands investigators considered Groff’s records relevant to the trafficking enforcement action.

It does not prove that Groff personally committed a crime or that every category of requested documents existed.

The Virgin Islands case ended in a settlement exceeding $105 million. The settlement resolved claims against the estate and named defendants. It did not create a separate judgment against Kellen or Groff.

Payment and Financial Evidence

Released federal material also contains a government timeline of substantial payments made to or on behalf of people investigators described as potential co-conspirators.

EFTA00092643 records payments exceeding $10,000 and includes payments associated with Groff.

The document is significant because it shows that investigators examined Epstein’s continuing financial relationships with staff and associates after his 2008 conviction.

A payment can establish an ongoing financial connection. It does not, without additional evidence, establish that the payment was made for trafficking, silence, obstruction, or another illegal purpose.

The nature of each payment must be determined from bank records, employment records, tax documents, communications, and witness testimony.

Kellen’s and Groff’s Positions

Kellen has denied that she was a willing accomplice to Epstein.

During a May 2026 interview with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Kellen testified that Epstein sexually and psychologically abused her, controlled her, and manipulated her during her employment. The Committee released information about the interview and her allegations through its official statement and transcript page.

Kellen’s testimony presents her as both an employee within Epstein’s system and a survivor of his abuse. Those categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A person may be victimized while also performing acts that affect other victims. The legal significance depends on knowledge, intent, coercion, and the specific conduct proved.

Groff has consistently denied knowingly facilitating Epstein’s crimes.

In June 2026, Groff testified before the same House committee that Epstein concealed his abusive conduct from her and separated his legitimate professional activities from his private crimes. The Committee released Groff’s testimony through its official transcript announcement.

Congressional testimony is part of the evidentiary record, but it is not a court judgment. Neither woman’s testimony has yet been tested through a criminal trial against her.

No Criminal Prosecution

As of August 2026:

Sarah Kellen has not been federally or state criminally charged in connection with Epstein’s trafficking operation.
Lesley Groff has not been federally or state criminally charged in connection with Epstein’s trafficking operation.
Neither woman has entered a criminal guilty plea concerning Epstein.
Neither woman has been acquitted after a criminal trial.
Neither woman has received a criminal sentence.

The absence of charges is legally important. It means neither woman should be described as a convicted Epstein co-conspirator.

It does not erase the civil complaints, testimony, scheduling records, financial records, subpoenas, or the federal agreement identifying them as potential co-conspirators.

Being Named Is Not the Same as Being Found Liable

The Kellen and Groff record contains several different kinds of legal involvement.

Named as a Defendant

This means a plaintiff asserted claims directly against the person and sought a legal remedy from her.

Kellen was a defendant in several Florida survivor cases. Kellen and Groff were both defendants in Ransome’s lawsuit. Groff was a defendant in the Araoz action.

Described in a Complaint

A person may be discussed as part of the factual narrative without being named as a defendant.

Many estate complaints described Kellen and Groff but sought damages from the estate and its executors.

Subpoenaed

A subpoena requires evidence or testimony from a party or nonparty.

Groff’s Virgin Islands subpoena showed that investigators believed her records were relevant. It did not make her a defendant.

Deposed

A deposition records sworn testimony obtained during discovery.

Kellen’s deposition and invocation of the Fifth Amendment became evidence in later litigation. They were not a criminal trial.

Dismissed or Discontinued

A dismissal ends a claim. The reason may be settlement, jurisdiction, procedural defects, a release, or a judicial decision.

A dismissal does not always decide the underlying facts.

Found Liable

A liability finding ordinarily results from a judicial ruling, jury verdict, default judgment, or enforceable admission.

No public civil trial produced a final liability verdict against either Kellen or Groff.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available evidence establishes that:

Kellen and Groff held important positions within Epstein’s organization.
The 2007 non prosecution agreement expressly identified both as potential co-conspirators.
The agreement protected potential co-conspirators from prosecution by the Southern District of Florida under its terms.
Kellen was personally named as a defendant in several survivor lawsuits.
Multiple complaints alleged that Kellen prepared rooms, coordinated appointments, escorted girls or young women, and participated in Epstein’s operations.
Kellen invoked the Fifth Amendment during deposition questioning concerning Epstein and his associates.
Kellen and Groff were both defendants in Sarah Ransome’s federal trafficking lawsuit.
Their motions to dismiss the Ransome case were denied.
The Ransome claims ended through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice before trial.
Groff was named as a defendant in Jennifer Araoz’s amended New York complaint.
The Araoz claim against Groff was permanently discontinued without a trial verdict.
Numerous estate complaints referred to Kellen and Groff without naming them as defendants.
The Virgin Islands government served Groff with a broad third party subpoena.
Maxwell trial testimony and sentencing findings placed Kellen within the operation of the trafficking conspiracy.
Both women have denied knowingly participating in Epstein’s crimes.
Kellen has stated that she was herself sexually and psychologically abused by Epstein.
Neither woman has been criminally charged or convicted in connection with Epstein.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

The available evidence does not establish that:

Every allegation against Kellen or Groff was proven at trial.
The phrase “potential co-conspirator” was a criminal conviction.
Kellen and Groff performed identical roles.
Every appointment scheduled by either woman involved abuse.
Every person transported or housed through Epstein’s office was a trafficking victim.
A settlement proves guilt.
A dismissal proves innocence.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a confession.
A third party subpoena makes the recipient a defendant.
Every survivor who accepted compensation abandoned or withdrew her account of what happened.
The Maxwell verdict was a criminal verdict against Kellen.
Groff was a defendant in every estate lawsuit that mentioned her.
Kellen was a defendant in the Araoz lawsuit.
Either woman has been acquitted after a criminal trial.

Investigative Assessment

The litigation record supports a narrower and more substantial conclusion than either complete exoneration or automatic guilt.

Kellen faced repeated, direct allegations from survivors who placed her inside Epstein’s massage and recruitment process. She was personally sued multiple times, invoked the Fifth Amendment during deposition questioning, appeared in evidence at Maxwell’s trial, and was described by the sentencing judge as a knowing participant in the conspiracy. Those facts create a stronger evidentiary record concerning Kellen than the mere appearance of her name in an address book or email.

Kellen has also stated under oath to Congress that Epstein abused and controlled her. Her claimed victimization must be documented alongside the allegations concerning her conduct toward other survivors.

Groff’s record is more heavily centered on administration, communications, scheduling, and logistics. She was directly sued by Ransome and Araoz, but the claims ended without a public liability verdict. Her extensive communications and the Virgin Islands subpoena demonstrate her operational importance, while her knowledge of Epstein’s abuse remains disputed.

Neither history can be resolved responsibly through slogans.

The public record documents significant questions about both women’s roles. It also documents the failure of federal prosecutors to test those questions in an ordinary criminal proceeding.

Key Takeaways

Sarah Kellen and Lesley Groff have related but distinct litigation histories.
Both were identified as potential co-conspirators in Epstein’s 2007 federal agreement.
Kellen was directly sued in several early Florida survivor cases.
Kellen and Groff were both defendants in Sarah Ransome’s trafficking lawsuit.
The Ransome case survived dismissal motions but ended through a stipulated dismissal before trial.
Groff was sued by Jennifer Araoz, while Kellen was not a named defendant in that case.
The Araoz claim against Groff was discontinued permanently without a trial verdict.
Estate complaints frequently described Kellen and Groff even when they were not defendants.
Groff received a broad Virgin Islands subpoena seeking scheduling, travel, payment, and massage related records.
Kellen invoked the Fifth Amendment during civil deposition questioning.
A federal judge later described Kellen as a knowing participant when sentencing Maxwell, but Kellen was not herself on trial.
Kellen now states that Epstein abused and controlled her.
Groff maintains that she did not know Epstein was abusing women and girls.
Neither woman has been criminally charged or convicted in connection with Epstein.
Settlements and dismissals prevented many of the allegations from being fully tested at public trials.

Primary Court Records and Evidence

Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80804 documents an early civil action naming Kellen as a defendant.
The federal remand order in Doe v. Epstein summarizes allegations concerning Kellen and explains why the case returned to state court.
C.M.A. v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80811 documents another survivor action against Epstein and Kellen.
EFTA00201298 contains released material from the C.M.A. litigation.
Doe II v. Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-80469 records a complaint and settlement involving Epstein and Kellen.
M.J. v. Epstein, No. 9:10-cv-81111 documents civil trafficking and conspiracy claims against Epstein and Kellen.
The M.J. stipulation of dismissal records the conclusion of that case.
Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, No. 1:17-cv-00616 is the federal docket for Sarah Ransome’s action against Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and Groff.
The Justia docket for the Ransome action records the denial of defendants’ dismissal motions and the later stipulated dismissal.
The Ransome final dismissal order confirms dismissal with prejudice.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 contains discovery proceedings involving Kellen and Groff.
EFTA00191396 contains references to Kellen’s deposition and invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 contains the criminal trial and sentencing record in which Kellen’s alleged role was discussed.
EFTA00027666 discusses the non prosecution agreement and its co-conspirator provision.
EFTA00040089 contains additional released material concerning the people named in the agreement.
Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 contains the survivors’ Crime Victims’ Rights Act challenge.
EFTA00018778 contains the Virgin Islands government’s allegations against the Epstein estate and related entities.
EFTA02806857 contains an expanded version of the Virgin Islands allegations.
The Virgin Islands subpoena to Lesley Groff identifies the extensive categories of evidence sought from her.
EFTA00092643 contains a government timeline of substantial payments to or on behalf of potential co-conspirators.
The House Oversight release concerning Sarah Kellen provides access to her 2026 transcribed interview.
The House Oversight release concerning Lesley Groff provides access to her 2026 transcribed interview.

PostedDecember 8, 2025