Sid Garcia

Snapshot

Introduction

Sid Garcia’s signed court filings identify him as counsel for Jane Doe II in civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Hearing transcripts, discovery records, and the final dismissal document his work for that plaintiff. This profile follows those records from 2009 through the 2010 resolution, with a later privilege log describing earlier correspondence.

The records matter because they show how a plaintiff’s lawyer pursued claims, participated in related discovery, and recorded the case’s resolution. Similar Doe designations appear across the litigation. Each must remain attached to its own case and attorney rather than being treated as the same person.

Key Takeaways

• The Kellen deposition excerpt identifies the lawyer as Isidro Manuel Garcia and records him introducing himself as Sid Garcia for Jane Doe, Roman Numeral II.
• The federal hearing took place on June 12, 2009. June 24 is the transcript’s filing date.
• Garcia’s signed pleading and the court’s later ruling document advocacy and a decision about pleading requirements. They are different kinds of evidence.
• The Mark Epstein deposition mentions Garcia in a discussion about access to video. It does not show that he received or improperly distributed a copy.
• The dismissal stipulation and the final order establish the federal case’s resolution. The cited records do not disclose the settlement amount or the complete private agreement.

Identity and Professional Role

The March 24, 2010 deposition of Sarah Kellen supplies a direct identity match. Its appearances page lists Isidro Manuel Garcia for Jane Doe II, and the next page of the excerpt records Sid Garcia identifying that client with the Roman numeral II. The excerpt was later filed as Document 36-1 in Giuffre v. Maxwell on February 26, 2016.

His May 22, 2009 signature block uses Isidro M. Garcia, Florida Bar number 437883, and Garcia Law Firm, P.A. The Kellen transcript lists Garcia, Elkins & Boehringer. Those are descriptions in the particular records, not a claim that the firm name remained unchanged throughout his career. Garcia Labor Law’s own website also identifies him as Isidro, known as Sid, and describes a practice primarily representing employees in labor matters.

Jane Doe II and the Separate Doe Cases

The federal caption identifies Garcia’s client as Jane Doe II in case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM. The hearing’s appearance page separately records other attorneys identifying their own plaintiffs. Their presence at the same hearing does not make each lawyer counsel for every plaintiff.

Jane Doe II must not be merged with a litigant labeled Jane Doe No. 2 or Jane Doe No. 101. The Roman numeral is explicit in Garcia’s recorded introduction. A shared attorney, service list, or related proceeding is not a basis for identifying a protected plaintiff.

Federal Claims and the Motion to Dismiss

Garcia’s May 22, 2009 memorandum opposed Epstein’s motion to dismiss Jane Doe II’s federal lawsuit. It argued for claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides a civil remedy for specified offenses, and requested permission to amend if the court found the pleading insufficient. Garcia signed the filing on page 19. These were arguments made for his client, not findings by the judge.

Judge Kenneth A. Marra’s August 11, 2009 order declined to defer the federal action to the related state case. The court nevertheless found that the complaint had not alleged use of the mail or a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. It granted dismissal on that ground without prejudice and allowed an amended complaint. The remaining dismissal arguments were denied, except that the court reserved whether the plaintiff could recover only one statutory damages award. This was a ruling about whether and how the case could proceed, not a trial verdict on the underlying allegations.

The June 12, 2009 Federal Hearing

EFTA00014192 is the transcript of the June 12 hearing, filed on June 24 as Document 180 in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM. On page 3, lines 10 and 11, Garcia identifies himself for Jane Doe II. The same page lists attorneys appearing for other plaintiffs, including Adam Horowitz, Bradley Edwards, Richard Willits, Katherine Ezell, and Robert Josefsberg.

Later in the hearing, Garcia withdraws a particular argument in his memorandum that contesting the court’s jurisdiction could breach the federal nonprosecution agreement. He explains that the argument does not apply to his case because his client already had a state action. The judge asks him to submit the withdrawal in writing, and he agrees. This exchange concerns a specific legal contention; it does not withdraw the lawsuit or decide its merits.

Discovery Procedures and Deposition Records

The defense’s account of an Epstein deposition

Epstein’s September 11, 2009 emergency motion states in paragraph 9 that Garcia had deposed Epstein while Jane Doe II was present. This is an assertion by Epstein’s attorneys. It should not be presented as a neutral judicial finding about Garcia or his client.

The attached July 31, 2009 order prohibits Epstein from communicating directly or indirectly with the plaintiffs except through their attorneys. That order provides context for the dispute but does not by itself settle every question about attendance at depositions. The cited motion does not supply a final ruling on its own requested relief.

Confidentiality and the Mark Epstein video

Mark Epstein’s September 21, 2009 deposition records counsel discussing conditions for access to the deposition video. On transcript pages 6 and 7, they address written agreement to confidentiality conditions. Bradley Edwards says Garcia is not there; another lawyer says a copy should not go to Garcia until he has agreed in writing through Mark Cohen.

This exchange establishes a proposed condition on distribution. It does not establish that Garcia requested the video, received a copy, or violated a restriction. It also does not establish his presence at that part of the deposition.

A direct appearance at the Kellen deposition

The Sarah Kellen deposition excerpt provides a different kind of evidence: Garcia himself appears as counsel for Jane Doe II on March 24, 2010. His recorded introduction supports the professional identity and client designation used here. The excerpt is not treated as proof of every allegation discussed in the wider litigation.

Privilege Logs and Service Lists

The February 23, 2011 privilege log lists an October 16, 2009 entry numbered 07060 concerning L.M. v. Epstein. The columns identify Sid Garcia as the recipient and Bradley J. Edwards as the sender. The entry asserts joint privilege. It describes a communication but does not disclose the underlying message or legal advice.

A separate entry in the same log, numbered 05727 and dated May 29, 2009, runs in the other direction, from Garcia to Edwards, and describes a motion for a status conference. Neither brief description supports reconstructing a survivor’s identity or the contents of withheld communications.

EFTA01089193 contains a May 1, 2009 amended complaint for Jane Doe No. 101. Garcia appears on its service list as counsel in a related case. That is not evidence that he represented Doe No. 101. The service list prints the related number as 08-80469; Jane Doe II’s own federal filings identify her case as 09-80469. The caption in her own case controls the identification used in this profile.

Settlement and Final Disposition

The stipulation filed June 30, 2010 bears Garcia’s signature and requests dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorney fees and costs. It also provides for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The filing date is distinct from the handwritten June 29 date on the stipulation.

Garcia’s July 2, 2010 response to a court order reports that the claims in both the federal case and its state companion had been resolved that week. This is counsel’s report of the state proceeding. A separate final state court order has not been established by the sources cited here.

Marra’s final order, signed July 7 and entered July 8, 2010, dismisses the federal case with prejudice, retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement, denies pending motions as moot, and closes the case. The disposition ended this action; it was not a verdict establishing the allegations. Neither the order nor the cited stipulation states the settlement amount or supplies the full agreement.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

The register separates direct appearances, party advocacy, service records, and judicial decisions. A second copy or later filing of the same record is not independent corroboration.

• EFTA00014192; 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Document 180. June 12, 2009 hearing, filed June 24. PDF page 3, lines 10 and 11, identifies Garcia’s client; pages 27 and 28 record his withdrawal of a particular legal argument.
• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 20. May 22, 2009 opposition memorandum. Pages 1 and 19 identify the case and Garcia’s signature. This is plaintiff advocacy.
• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 57. August 11, 2009 order. Pages 7 through 9 explain the ruling and permission to amend. This is a judicial decision on the motion to dismiss.
• 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Document 296. September 11, 2009 defense motion. Page 3, paragraph 9, describes Garcia’s deposition of Epstein. The attached July 31 order appears at PDF pages 16 through 20. A motion’s assertions are not findings.
• EFTA01249325. September 21, 2009 Mark Epstein deposition. PDF pages 8 and 9, transcript pages 6 and 7, discuss confidentiality and Garcia as a possible video recipient.
• EFTA01129575. February 23, 2011 privilege log. PDF page 19, printed page 18, entry 07060, runs from Edwards to Garcia; PDF page 27, printed page 26, entry 05727, runs from Garcia to Edwards. Neither entry supplies the communication itself.
• EFTA01089193. PDF page 153 begins the May 1, 2009 amended complaint, Document 9 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM. PDF page 174, embedded page 22, Bates EFTA01089366, lists Garcia for a related case. This is a service list appearance.
• 1:15-cv-07433-LAP, Document 36-1, Exhibit 1. Filed February 26, 2016, containing a March 24, 2010 Kellen deposition excerpt. PDF pages 3 and 4, transcript pages 6 and 9, establish the full professional name and Sid introduction for Jane Doe II.
• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 80. Filed June 30, 2010. Page 1 records the stipulated dismissal terms and Garcia’s signature.
• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 81. July 2, 2010. Page 1, paragraph 3, reports resolution of federal and state claims; page 2 bears Garcia’s signature.
• 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 82. Signed July 7 and entered July 8, 2010. Page 1 is the final dismissal order, rather than the proposed order attached to the stipulation.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Reading Epstein Files: What a Name Does and Doesn’t Prove, for distinctions between a document mention and evidence of conduct.
• Jane Doe No. 2 and Florida civil litigation, a separately designated plaintiff who should not be merged with Jane Doe II.
• Jack Scarola and survivor litigation, for another attorney’s documented role.

Limitations and Open Questions

• This account is limited to the cited records. It is not a complete review of every federal or state filing involving Garcia.
• The full settlement agreement, settlement amount, legal fee arrangements, and final state court disposition are not established by these sources.
• The defense’s deposition account is attributed advocacy. The final ruling on the specific September 11 motion is not established here.
• A privilege log supplies descriptions and privilege claims, not the contents of withheld communications.
• Jane Doe II’s protected identity is not reconstructed. Other Doe labels remain separate.
• The cited records show plaintiff representation and procedural work. They do not establish that Garcia participated in Epstein’s abuse.

Conclusion

Garcia’s documented connection is his work as Jane Doe II’s attorney. His signed filings, recorded appearances, and dismissal documents show a federal case that proceeded through contested pleading and discovery before a stipulated resolution in 2010. That professional role is the supported subject of this profile. The sources do not justify assigning his clients’ allegations, the defense’s claims, or Epstein’s conduct to him.

Questions and Answers

Is Sid Garcia’s full professional name verified?

Yes. The Kellen deposition excerpt lists Isidro Manuel Garcia and records the same client’s lawyer introducing himself as Sid Garcia. His signed filings also use Isidro M. Garcia.

Was the hearing on June 24, 2009?

No. The transcript cover and docket header distinguish the June 12 hearing from the June 24 filing date.

Does Jane Doe II mean Jane Doe No. 2?

They cannot be treated as the same person based on those labels. Garcia’s recorded introduction expressly uses Roman Numeral II. Each plaintiff must be followed through the correct case records.

Did Garcia receive Mark Epstein’s deposition video?

The cited exchange sets a written confidentiality condition before a copy could be supplied to him. It does not establish that he actually received a copy.

What happened to the federal case?

The final order dismissed it with prejudice following the parties’ stipulation and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The cited documents do not disclose a settlement amount or establish a trial verdict.

Sources

1. Transcript of motion hearing before Kenneth A. Marra. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida; Total Access Courtroom Network. 2009-06-12; filed 2009-06-24. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Document 180; EFTA00014192. PDF pp.1,3,27,28; p.3 lines 10 and 11; pp.27 and 28 regarding withdrawal.
2. Deposition of Mark Epstein. Esquire Deposition Solutions. 2009-09-21. 9:08-cv-80893; EFTA01249325. PDF pp.8 and 9; transcript pp.6 and 7; Bates EFTA01249332 and EFTA01249333.
3. Privilege Log, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman. 2011-02-23. Bankruptcy No. 09-34791-RBR; EFTA01129575. PDF p.19, printed p.18, entry 07060; PDF p.27, printed p.26, entry 05727.
4. Epstein Breach Correspondence binder containing Jane Doe No. 101 amended complaint. Compiled binder; embedded U.S. District Court filing. Undated compilation; filed 2009-05-01. EFTA01089193; embedded 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, Document 9. PDF pp.153 and 174; embedded pp.1 and 22; relevant Bates EFTA01089366.
5. Sarah Kellen deposition excerpt, Exhibit 1. Prose Court Reporting Agency; subsequently filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 2010-03-24; filed 2016-02-26. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP, Document 36-1. PDF p.3, transcript p.6 lines 2 to 5; PDF p.4, transcript p.9 lines 1 and 2.
6. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Dismiss. Isidro M. Garcia for Jane Doe II. 2009-05-22. 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 20. PDF pp.1,18 to 20; signature and bar number p.19.
7. Defendant Epstein’s emergency motion concerning attendance at plaintiffs’ depositions. Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. 2009-09-11. 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Document 296. PDF pp.1 and 3 paragraph 9; attached July 31 order at PDF pp.16 to 20.
8. Order and Opinion on Motion to Dismiss. U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra. 2009-08-11. 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 57. PDF pp.1,7 to 9; operative ruling p.9.
9. Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. Counsel for the parties. 2010-06-29; filed 2010-06-30. 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 80. PDF p.1, party agreement and Garcia signature; p.2 Kellen counsel signature.
10. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Response to Court’s Order to Show Cause. Isidro M. Garcia for Jane Doe II. 2010-07-02. 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 81. PDF p. 1, paragraph 3; signature and service certificate p.2.
11. Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra. 2010-07-07; filed 2010-07-08. 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, Document 82. PDF p.1; handwritten July correction and signed date.
12. Garcia Labor Law, firm home page. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. Professional biography and practice description, accessed October 18, 2026.

The PDF links above provide the underlying records. Additional record indexes include EFTA00014192, EFTA01249325, EFTA01129575, and EFTA01089193. The hearing also has a DOJ court record URL. Except for the government hosted August 11 order, the linked PDFs are public Roll Call mirrors of primary records.