208 01

PDF Document Uploaded Feb 2, 2026 by Unknown Updated by admin 1 views 1.59 MB
Folders as described
epstein court records
Extracted Text

Case Document Filed Page of EXHIBITL Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE JANE DO I and JANE DO Petitioners vs UNITE ST A TES OF AMERICA Respondent I ORDER DENYI Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of On December two other unnamed victims Jane Doe and Jane Doc moved to join as petitioners in tbis action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure I DE Petit i oners Jane Doe I and Jane Doe suppot1 the Rule Motion fl at Jane Doe and Jane Doe argue that they have suffered the same violations of their 1ights under the CVRA as the Petitioners and tbey desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well at The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule DE The Government argues that Rule is the proper procedural device for adding pa11ies to an action not Rule Mat I Out of an abundance of caution Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition under Rule conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe and Jane Doe as petitioners DE a The Government opposes the Rule Motion as well DE Among other things the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe and Jane Doe should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking join the proceedings and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause ffil After considering the parties submissions and the proposed amended petition the Court finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny the amend ent II isc ss ion The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the dish 267ict court aUtie Ala Ct Crim Apps F.3d th Cir Th court should freely i ve leav when justice so requires Fed Civ I a Justice does not require amendm nt in several instances including undue dela bad faith dilatot motive GfUFFRE002845 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of on the patt of the movant undue prejudice to the opposing party by vi1tue of allowance of the amendment and futility of amendment Lawie 3d at quoting Foman Davis In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the paities he court mus consider he importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute Wright Mille Fed Prac Fed 3d ed Justice does not requ i re amendment where the addition of patties wit duplicative claims will not materially advance the resolution of the litigation on the mer i ts See HetTing Delta Air Lines Inc F.2d 9th Cir A Rul otion Jane Doe and Jane Doe first attempt to join in th is proceeding was rought under Rule DE If patties seek to add a party under Rule cou1ts generally use the standard of Rule governing amendments to pleadings to determine whether to allow the addition Wti gbt Miller Fed Prac Fed 3d ed see also Galustian Peter F.3d 4th Cir collecting cases and not i ng that Rule a appl i es to amendments seeking to add pa1ties Frank West Inc F.3d 10th Cir A motion to add a party is governed by Fed Civ a Rule Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties provides the coutt with a tool for co1Tecting the misjoinder of parties that would otherwise result in dismissal Fed Civ Insofar as Rule relates to the addition of patties it is intended to permit the brin ing in of a person who rough inadvertence i take or fo some other reason bad not been made a pa1ty and whose presence as a pa ty is later found necessary or desirable United States Com Bank ofN Am F.R.D N.Y internal quotation marks omitted GfUFFRE002846 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entere on FLS ocket Page of In their Rule Motion Jane Doe and Jane oe not claim that they were omitted from this proceeding due to any inadve1tence or mistake by Petitioners rather they seek to join this proceeding as patties that could have been perm i ssively joined in the original petition under Rule Permissive Joinder of Parties As couits generally use the standards of Rule to evaluate such circumstances the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the Rule I Motion The Court will consider the arguments presented in he Rule Motion as if they are set f01th in the Rule Motion as wel I Because the arguments are presented in the Rule Motion and because the Cou1t is denying the Rule I Mo ion on its merits as discussed below the Ru Motion will be denied The Court a so concludes that portions of the Rule Mot i on and re ated filings should be stricken from record Pending for this Courts consideration is a Motion for Limited I ntervention filed by Alan Dershowitz who seeks to intervene to strike the outrageous and impe1tinent allegations made against him and to request a ow cause order to the attorneys that have made them DE at The Co rt has cons i dered Mr Dershowitzs arguments but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure empowers the Court on its own to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Fed Civ Petitioners Rule Motion consists ofrelatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit them to join in this action they argue that they were sexually abused by The Court notes that regardless of which motion i considers the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule and Rule See Goston Potter No FJS ATB WL at N.D.N citing Bridgep01t Music Inc Universal Music Grp Inc R.D N.Y Gf UFF RE Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Jeffrey Epstein and the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the non prosecution agreement with them DE at see id at However the bu of the Rule Motion consists of copious factua details that Jane Doe and Jane Doe would prove if allowed to join this act i on at Specifically Jane Doe proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr Epstein and how Mr Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-pa11y ind ividuals including numerous prominent American politicians powerful business executives foreign presidents a well-known Prime Minister and other world leaders at She name several individuals and sbe offers details about the type of sex acts performed and wbere they took place See id at At this juncture in the proceedings these lurid details are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane Doe and Jane Doe should be permitted to join Petitioners claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA The factual detaj regarrung witb whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immate ial and impertinent to this central claim i that they were known victims of Mr Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties especially considering that these details involve non-pa11ies who are not related to the respondent Governm nt These urn1ecessary details shall be stricken The original Rule Motion DE shall be stricken in its entirety as it is wholly superseded by the coITected version of the Ruic Motion DE From the corr cted Rule Motion the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Jane Doe between the following sentences The Government then concealed from Jane Doe the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr Epstein and herself See DE at GfUFFRE00 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entere on FLS ocket Page of Jane Doc in violation of her rights under the CVRA i at and The Government was well aware of Jane Doe when it was negotiating the NPA as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA id at As none of Jane Doe factual details relate to non-parties the Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule Motion related to her circumstances Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners response to Mr Dershowitzs motion to intervene DE the Court shall sttike paragraphs I through and as they contain impertinent details regarding non-patties Regarding the Declaration of Jane Doe in suppo1t of the Rule Motion DE I the Court shall strike paragraphs through and as they contain impe1tinent details regarding 11on pa1ties Jane Doe is free to reasse1t these factua detai through proper evidentiary proof should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are ettinent to a matter presented for the Courts consideration As mentioned Mr Dersbowitz moves to intervene for the limited purposes of moving to stt 267ike the outrageous and impert i nent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them DE at As the Cou1t has taken it upon itself to sttike the impe1tinent factual deta i ls from the Rule Motion and related filings the Cou1t concludes that Mr Derschowitzs intervent i on in this case is unnecessary Accordingly bis motion to intervene will be denied as moot Regarding whether a show cause order should This also moots Mr Dershowitzs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rep in Support of Motion for i mited Intervention DE Denying Mr Dersbowitz motion to intervene also renders moot Petitioners motion DE to file a sealed doc ment suppo1ting its response to Mr Dershowi zs motion It will accordingly be denied as moot and the sealed response will be stt 267icken from the record Gf UFF RE Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of issue the Cowt finds that its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners submissions is sanction enough However the Court cautions that all counsel are subject to Rule mandate that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual content i ons have evidentiary suppo1t Fed Civ I and and that the Court may on its own strike from any pleading any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter Fed Civ Rul Motion Between their two motions the Rule Motion and Rule Motion Jane Doe and Jane Do a sert that they esire to join in this action to i ndicate their rights und er the CVRA as well DE at Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr Epsteins non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all other sim ilarl y-situated victims DE at I DE at Jane Doe and Jane Doe argue that th ey should be fellow travelers in this pursuit le st they be forced to file a eparate sui raising their claims resulting in duplicative litigation DE at The Court finds that justice does not require adding new patties th i late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly duplicative the claims already presented by et i tioners The Does submissions demonstrate that it is ent ir ely unnecessary for Jane Doe and Jane Do to proceed as patties in this action rather than as fact witnesses available to offer relevant admissible and non-cumulative testimony See e.g DE at Jane Doe and Jane Do are in many respect similarly situa ed to the cunent victims The new ictims will establish at trial that the Government violated th ir CVRA tights in the same way as i violated the rights of the other victims IO Jane Doe and Jane oe ill simply join in motions that the cun-ent victims were going to file in any event litigating Jane Doe and GfUFFRE00 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entere on FLS ocket Page of Jane Doc 4s claims would be dup icative DE at As promised Jane Doe No and Jane Doe No do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case If allowed to join this action they would simp support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No I and Jane Doe No DE at A II four vict i ms represented by the same legal counsel intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings Jane Doe and Jane Doe challenge the same secret agreement i.e tbe NPA that the Government executed with Epstein and then concealed from the victims Thi is made clear by the proposed amendment itself in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts As the Does argue at length in their Rule Motion Jane Doe Is original petition specifically alleges that Government was violating not only her rights but the tights of other imilarl y-situated victims DE at The Cowt fails to see why the addition of other similarly-situated victims is now necessary to vindicate their rights as well DE at Of course Jane Doe and Jane Doe can pa1ticipate in thi litigated effort to vindicate the ri ghts of similarly situated victims there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof submitted in this case come only from the named parties Petitioners point out as much noting that regardless of whether this Cou,t grants the Rule Mot io they will call Jane Doe No as a witness at any trial DE at Tbe necessary participation of Jane Doe and Jane oe in this case can be satisfied by offe ing their properly suppo1ted and relevant admissible and non-cumulative testimony as needed whether through testimony at trial see DE at or affidavits submitte to support the relevancy of discovery requests see The non-patty Jane Does clearly understand bow to submit affidavits See DEs Gf UF FRE Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of id at Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe and Jane Doe 4s pa1ticipation in this case can only be achieved by listing them as pa1ties As it stands under the origina petition the merits of this case will be decided based on a determinat i on of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane oe I Jane Doe and all other similarly situated victims un er the CVRA Jane Doe and Jane Doe may offer relevant admissible and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination but their pa1ticipation as listed part i es is not necessary in that regard See Hen-ing 2d at I District cou1t did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where addition of more aintiffs would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment cf Arthur Stern WL at S.D Tex Under Rule courts have held that leave to amend to asse,t a aim already at issue in another lawsuit should not be granted if the same parties are involved the same substantive claim is raised an the same relief is sought And as to Jane Doe at least adding her as a pa1ty raises unnecessary questions about wheth she is a proper party to this action Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the evidence by including references to the non-prosecution agreement its lf is unnecessary as the existing petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case DE The Court The Court expresses no opinion at this time whethe any of the attestations made by Jane oe and Jane oe in suppo,t of their motion will be relevant admissible and non cumulative The Governmen contends that Jane Doe is not a true victim i his case because she was not known at the time the Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement and according she was not entitled to notification rights und the CVRA See DE at Any duplicative litigation filed by Jane oe would necessarily raise the i ssue of whether she has standing under the CYRA under these circumstances GfUFFRE00 Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of agrees and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the proceedings I II Co nclu ion Accordingly it is hereby ORD ERE AN A JU GE as follows the Rule Mot i on DE is ENIE the Rule Motion DE i EN I Intervenor Dershowitzs Motion for i mited Intervention DE and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for i mited Intervention DE are EN I AS MO OT Petitioners Motion to Seal DE is ENIE AS OO the following materials are hereby TRI EN from the record DE in its entirety DE all sentences between the following sentences The Government then concealed from Jane Doe the existence of its NPA from Jane Doc in violation of her rights under the CVRA DE at and The Government was well aware of Jane Doe when it was negotiating the NPA as it listed her as a victim i the attachment to the NPA DE at DE paragraphs JI through and DE paragraphs tbmugh and DE in its entirety DO NE AN ORD RED in chambers at West Palm Beach Palm Beach County Flo1ida this day of Ap il ff
16,171 characters