What is E.D. Pa. in the Epstein files?

E.D. Pa. stands for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a federal court jurisdiction. In these documents, it's cited as legal precedent in cases related to victim privacy rights and constitutional protections, not as an active participant in Epstein litigation.

Why is a Pennsylvania court cited in New York/Epstein cases?

Federal courts often cite precedents from other jurisdictions when they establish relevant legal principles. The E.D. Pa. cases mentioned here set important standards for victim anonymity and Fifth Amendment rights that apply broadly across federal cases, including those involving Epstein.

Does E.D. Pa. have direct ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

Based on the available documents, no. All 10 mentions are purely legal citations without evidence that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania handled Epstein-related cases or that Epstein had direct connections to that jurisdiction.

What is E.D. Pa. in the Epstein files?

E.D. Pa. stands for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a federal court jurisdiction. In these documents, it's cited as legal precedent in cases related to victim privacy rights and constitutional protections, not as an active participant in Epstein litigation.

Why is a Pennsylvania court cited in New York/Epstein cases?

Federal courts often cite precedents from other jurisdictions when they establish relevant legal principles. The E.D. Pa. cases mentioned here set important standards for victim anonymity and Fifth Amendment rights that apply broadly across federal cases, including those involving Epstein.

Does E.D. Pa. have direct ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

Based on the available documents, no. All 10 mentions are purely legal citations without evidence that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania handled Epstein-related cases or that Epstein had direct connections to that jurisdiction.

Back to People & Entities

E.D. Pa.

Location

Total Mentions

Documents

127

Connected Entities

E.D. Pa. appears in 10 legal documents as a jurisdictional abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it is cited in court precedents related to victim anonymity in sexual assault cases and Fifth Amendment protections.

All 10 mentions are in legal citations within court filings, primarily referencing case law from E.D. Pa. courts. The documents cite E.D. Pa. rulings on topics like granting pseudonyms to sexual assault victims (Doe v. Evans) and Fifth Amendment protections in SEC cases (SEC v. Leach). No flight logs, personal correspondence, or direct involvement by the court itself in Epstein-related matters appear in these snippets.

Key Highlights

•Cited in legal precedents supporting victim anonymity in sexual assault cases, relevant to Epstein litigation context
•Referenced in multiple documents discussing Fifth Amendment protections in SEC investigations
•All mentions are jurisdictional citations, not direct evidence of court involvement in Epstein cases

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Bradley J. Edwards

Victims' attorney's firsthand account

Document Mentions (10)

124.pdf

DOJ-COURT-124

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

as a child, was entitled to proceed anonymously because he feared retaliation and ostracism from his community); Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (sexual assault victim granted use of pseudonym); Doe v. Smith, 105 F. Supp. 2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (victim of assault, molestation, and s

282.pdf

DOJ-COURT-282

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

mony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial records that would provide leads

339.pdf

DOJ-COURT-339

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself ma

Sponsored

390.pdf

DOJ-COURT-390

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d49!, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Court has already ruled on questions

488.pdf

DOJ-COURT-488

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fifth Amendment privilege also encomp

511.pdf

DOJ-COURT-511

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

se there is a compelling need. , 1991 WL 275767 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (“[m]ost courts that have considered this i

Sponsored

552.pdf

DOJ-COURT-552

Source: DOJ First Production

1 mention

Universal Health Services, Inc., 1991 WL 275767 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (“[m]ost courts that have considered this

EFTA00011452 - EFTA00011474

1 mention

8 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel.

Page: EFTA00011454 →