Stuart Mermelstein

Snapshot

Principal records: Doe No. 4, Doc. 27-1, p. 1; Doc. 73, p. 7; Rodriguez excerpts, PDF p. 5, transcript p. 11.

Introduction

Stuart S. Mermelstein represented plaintiffs who sued Jeffrey Epstein in Florida federal court. His documented work included discovery motions, efforts to coordinate related cases and questioning a witness. The filings place him on the plaintiffs’ legal team. They do not support treating his name in Epstein records as evidence of participation in Epstein’s offenses. March 27, 2009 motion, pp. 1–7; July 29, 2009 testimony, transcript pp. 11–12.

The record is most useful when read in sequence: what the plaintiffs requested, what Epstein’s lawyers disputed and what the court actually ordered. Survivor pseudonyms are retained here, and private contact information in the source copies is not repeated.

Important Points and Key Takeaways

• Mermelstein represented Jane Doe plaintiffs, including Does 2 through 7 at the July 2009 Rodriguez deposition.
• He signed the March 27, 2009 motion seeking protection against repeated depositions and consolidation for discovery.
• Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted protective relief in April 2009 and expanded coordinated discovery procedures in May. Those were procedural rulings, not findings on the underlying abuse claims.
• EFTA00728201 is a plaintiff motion electronically signed by Adam D. Horowitz, with Mermelstein listed as co-counsel.
• The Richard Kahn subpoena was dated March 24, 2010 and scheduled testimony for April 20. Its blank service return does not establish compliance.
• Later docket compilations and repeated service lists should not be counted as separate substantive events.

The dated records and exact page references appear below.

Professional background and early cases

Herman Law’s professional biography describes Mermelstein as a civil litigator who joined Jeff Herman in the mid-1990s and later focused on representing sexual abuse victims. That firm biography supplies professional background; the case filings establish his role in the Epstein litigation.

The Doe No. 4 docket preserved in Doc. 27-1, pp. 1–2 records an April 14, 2008 filing date. It lists Mermelstein, Jeffrey Marc Herman and Adam D. Horowitz as plaintiff attorneys at Herman & Mermelstein. By contrast, the March 2009 motion identifies Mermelstein & Horowitz. These are document-specific affiliations, not a complete history of either firm. Doc. 73, p. 7.

The released docket collection EFTA00226849 also includes individual case sections. Its Doe No. 4 section begins at PDF p. 25, Bates EFTA00226873, and was retrieved in January 2011. A later docket report can reproduce earlier events, but its retrieval date should not be confused with the date of each event.

March 2009 motions and coordinated discovery

Two different plaintiff motions help explain the discovery dispute. On March 2, Jane Doe No. 2 moved to compel answers to interrogatories and document requests. EFTA00728201, Doc. 57, p. 13 / EFTA00728213 bears Horowitz’s electronic signature and lists Mermelstein alongside him as counsel. The PDF package includes exhibits, including defense responses; that does not turn the plaintiff motion into a defense pleading.

On March 27, Mermelstein signed Doe No. 4, Doc. 73, seeking protection against piecemeal depositions and consolidation for discovery. The plaintiffs argued that repeated questioning in separate but related cases would impose an unnecessary burden. The requested relief included limiting Jane Doe No. 4 to one deposition covering the related cases and quashing a subpoena directed to Jane Doe No. 4 in the Doe No. 7 case. The signature and requested relief appear on pp. 6–7.

The motion also described an earlier September 25, 2008 planning report in which the parties disagreed over consolidation. That history is the motion’s account on p. 3, rather than a separate finding made by the court. The motion’s allegations about burdens and litigation conduct must likewise be distinguished from the later orders.

What the court ordered in April and May 2009

Judge Marra signed Doe No. 4, Doc. 93, pp. 3–4 on April 28, 2009; it entered the docket on April 29. The order granted protection against repeated plaintiff depositions across the ten cases listed in its caption. It allowed each plaintiff to be questioned as both a party and a witness, while reserving the possibility of another deposition on a showing of good cause if new cases were filed.

The same order initially consolidated four cases for discovery: 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380 and 08-80993. It directed parties in six other cases to explain why those cases should not also be consolidated. The initial order therefore should not be described as immediately consolidating all ten.

The May 14, 2009 order, master Doc. 98, pp. 4–5 consolidated the captioned cases for discovery and procedural motions affecting multiple cases. It required those filings in the Doe No. 2 master case, 08-80119, while leaving individual substantive motions in their own cases. It limited depositions of plaintiffs, defendants and common witnesses to one per person.

There was an important qualification: the May order waived the local rule limiting a deposition to one day of seven hours. The court allowed adequate time to develop the record and warned against unnecessarily long questioning or abuse. A single deposition did not necessarily mean a single seven-hour session. Neither order resolved the underlying abuse claims.

June 2009 service lists and opposing positions

Epstein’s response filed June 10, 2009 appears as EFTA00222291, master Doc. 152. Its service list, PDF p. 7 / EFTA00222297, identifies Mermelstein and Horowitz as counsel for plaintiffs in seven related case numbers. The filing was Epstein’s response, not a motion authored by Mermelstein.

Service lists identify recipients and counsel designations. They do not establish attendance at a deposition, knowledge of events at Epstein’s properties or representation of every plaintiff named in a consolidated caption. Likewise, assertions made by either side about discovery conduct remain advocacy unless a court adopts them in an identified ruling.

July 29, 2009 Alfredo Rodriguez deposition

In the July 29 portion of Rodriguez’s deposition excerpts, Mermelstein identified himself as counsel for Jane Does 2 through 7. That statement appears at transcript p. 11, lines 15–18, reproduced on PDF p. 5. He began the direct examination on transcript p. 12, lines 10–14, on the same PDF page.

These excerpts were later filed as Exhibit 19, Doc. 291-18, in Doe v. United States, case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, on January 21, 2015. The 14-page exhibit includes excerpts from both July 29 and August 7, 2009. The cited pages establish Mermelstein’s role on July 29; they do not establish that he attended the later session or provide a full transcript of either day.

The testimony record establishes counsel’s appearance and attributed questioning. It does not make the lawyer a firsthand witness to the events discussed by the deponent.

The March 2010 Richard Kahn subpoena

The subpoena in EFTA00730334, PDF p. 1 is dated March 24, 2010. It commands Richard Kahn to appear for a deposition on April 20, 2010, and lists Stuart Mermelstein, Adam Horowitz and Jessica Arbour in the field for attorneys representing Jane Doe No. 2. Its attached Schedule A, PDF p. 8 / EFTA00730341, requests financial and transaction records.

The date the subpoena was issued and the scheduled appearance date are different events. The proof-of-service form on PDF p. 2 / EFTA00730335 is uncompleted. This copy therefore does not establish that service occurred, that Kahn appeared, that documents were produced or which listed lawyer signed the handwritten signature.

Documented Chronology

Evidence Appearances

These entries distinguish the original legal event from the type and date of the released copy. Repeated names in service lists or later compilations are not separate findings about a person.

What the Record Does Not Establish

• The reviewed selection does not establish a complete count of Mermelstein’s cases, hearings, settlements or clients.
• A motion states a party’s position. A discovery order establishes the relief granted, not a merits judgment on all allegations.
• The Kahn subpoena does not establish service or compliance, and the Rodriguez exhibit is not a full transcript.
• Later compilations may repeat earlier court data. Their appearance does not establish a new client relationship or participation in preparing the compilation.
• Pseudonymous plaintiffs remain distinct unless reliable records expressly establish otherwise. Their private identities are not needed to explain counsel’s work.

The court documents linked here were inspected through public Internet Archive captures of DOJ files and, for Doc. 291-18, a Roll Call PDF mirror. Their docket headers and relevant pages were checked, but the copies were not compared byte for byte with the current DOJ files. This is a selected procedural history, not a complete audit of every case or an authentication of every statement in the released collection.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Jane Doe No. 3 v. Epstein
• Jane Doe No. 2 Florida Litigation
• The Federal Epstein Investigation

Conclusion

Mermelstein’s documented significance lies in his work for civil plaintiffs: seeking discovery, pressing for coordinated depositions and questioning Rodriguez. Reading his filings alongside Judge Marra’s orders shows both the relief sought and the limits of the relief granted. The strongest evidence of his role is the signed motion and attributed deposition appearance, rather than the number of times his name appears in later collections. Doc. 73, p. 7; Doc. 93, pp. 3–4; Doc. 98, pp. 4–5; transcript pp. 11–12.

Questions and Answers

Whom did Mermelstein represent?

The July 29, 2009 testimony identifies him as counsel for Jane Does 2 through 7. The individual case dockets provide additional case-specific listings. PDF p. 5, transcript p. 11.

Did the court grant his March 2009 request?

The April 28 order granted protective relief and initially consolidated four cases for discovery. The May 14 order expanded coordinated procedures and included a waiver of the usual one-day, seven-hour deposition limit. Doc. 93; Doc. 98.

Does the 2010 subpoena prove Richard Kahn testified?

No. It schedules testimony, but its service return is blank and it is not a transcript. EFTA00730334, pp. 1–2.

Why does Mermelstein appear in a bank due-diligence file?

The reviewed file includes summaries of litigation and counsel listings. That placement does not establish that he represented the bank or authored its report. EFTA01481978, pp. 1–2, 25.

Sources

• Herman Law: Stuart Mermelstein professional biography. Background only.
• Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, Doc. 27-1. July 2008 docket snapshot, pp. 1–2. Public archive of DOJ file.
• Doe No. 4, Doc. 73. March 27, 2009 plaintiff motion, pp. 1–7. Public archive of DOJ file.
• Doe No. 4, Doc. 93. Order signed April 28, entered April 29, 2009, pp. 3–4. Public archive of DOJ file.
• Doe v. Epstein, master Doc. 98. May 14, 2009 order, pp. 4–5. Public archive of DOJ file.
• Rodriguez deposition excerpts, July 29 and August 7, 2009. Doc. 291-18, filed January 21, 2015. Roll Call mirror; Mermelstein’s July 29 appearance at PDF pp. 3–5.
• EFTA00728201; EFTA00222291; EFTA00730334. Motion, service list and subpoena; locators above. Public archives of DOJ files.
• EFTA00226849; EFTA01660040. Later docket reports, used with their retrieval dates and actual orders.
• EFTA01377939; EFTA01481978. Limited corroboration and document context only, as explained in Evidence Appearances.