EFTA01249131

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 6 of 10 
Jane Doe M, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (iLl. at 3); and "The Government was 
well aware of Jane Doe s when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the 
attachment to the NPA" (LL at 6). As none of Jane Doe l's factual details relate to non-parties, 
the Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule 21 Motion related to her 
circumstances. Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners' response to Mr. 
Dershowitz's motion to intervene (DE 291-1), the Court shall strike paragraphs 4, 5, 7, I I, 13, 
15, 19 through 53, and 59, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties. Regarding 
the Declaration of Jane Doel in support of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 310-1), the Court shall strike 
paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-
parties. Jane Doe. is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, 
should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a 
matter presented for the Court's consideration. 
As mentioned, Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene "for the limited purposes of moving to 
strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause 
order to the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at I). As the Court has taken it upon itself 
to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court 
concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his 
motion to intervene will be denied as moot' Regarding whether a show cause order should 
This also moms Mr. Dershowitz's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in 
Support of Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 317). Denying Mr. Dershowitz's motion to 
intervene also renders moot Petitioners' motion (DE 292) to file a sealed document supporting its 
response to Mr. Dershowitz's motion. It will accordingly be denied as moot, and DE 293 (the 
sealed response) will be stricken from the record. 
6 
3501.226-117 
Page 21 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076133 
EFTA01249151

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 7 of 10 
issue, the Court 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 I I's mandate 
that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have evidentiary 
support, Fed. R. Civ. P. I I (b)( 1 ) and (3), and that the Court may, on its own, strike from any 
pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(1). 
B. 
Rule 15 Motion 
Between their two motions (the Rule 21 Motion and Rule 15 Motion), Jane Doe land 
Jane Doc assert that "they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights [under the 
CVRA) as well." (DE 280 at 1). Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr. 
Epstein's non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all "other similarly-situated victims" (DE 189 
at I; DE 311 at 2, 12, 15, 18.19), Jane Doc I and Jane Doe argue that they should be fellow 
travelers in this pursuit, lest they "be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims" resulting 
in "duplicative litigation" (DE 280 at I I). The Court finds that justice does not require adding 
new parties this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly "duplicative" of 
the claims already presented by Petitioners. 
The Docs' submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doe and 
Jane Doe to proceed as parties in this action, rather than as fact witnesses available to oiler 
relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony. (See. e.g., DE 280 at 2 (Jane Dotiand 
Jane Doe l"are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims"), 9 ("The new victims 
will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it 
violated the rights of the other victims."), 10 (Jane Doeland Jane Doeltwill simply join in 
motions that the current victims were going to file in any event."), I I (litigating Jane Doe. and 
7 
3501.226-117 
Page 22 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076134 
EFTA01249152

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 8 of 10 
Jane Does claims would be "duplicative"); DE 298 at I n.1 ("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 simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No.l. 
and Jane Doc No. t"); DE 311 at 5 n.3 ("[A]ll four victims (represented by the same legal 
counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings."), 15 (Jane Doe. and Jane 
Doe' "challenge the same secret agreement—i.e., the NPA that the Government executed with 
Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This 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 15 Motion, Jane Doel's original petition "specifically allege[s] that the 
Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims." 
(DE 311 at 2). The Court fails to see why the addition of "other similarly-situated victims" is 
now necessary to "vindicate their rights as well." (DE 280 at I). 
Of course, Jane Doe. and Jane Doeican participate in this litigated effort to vindicate 
the rights of similarly situated victims—there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof 
submitted in this case come only from the named panics. Petitioners point out as much, noting 
that, regardless of whether this Court grants the Rule 15 Motion, "they will call Jane Doe No.. 
as a witness at any trial." (DE 311 at 17 n.7). The necessary "participation" of Jane Dociand 
Jane Doe I in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported—and relevant 
admissible, and non-cumulative—testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial 
(Les DE 280 at 9) or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests' (s
The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits. See DEs 291-1, 
310.1). 
8 
3501.226-117 
Page 23 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFrA_00076135 
EFTA01249153

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/0712015 Page 9 of 10 
id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe I and Jane Doe Is "participation in this 
case" can only be achieved by listing them as parties. 
As it stands under the original petition, the merits of this case will be decided based on a 
determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doi, Jane Doe. and all 
"other similarly situated victims" under the CVRA. Jane Doe l and Jane Doel may offer 
relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their 
participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard. Sec Herring, 894 F.2d at 1024 
(District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where "addition of more 
plaintiffs .. . would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment."); cf 
Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, "courts have held 
that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if 
the same parties are involved, the same substantive claim is raised, and the same relief is 
sought.").3 And, as to Jane Doellat least, adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions 
about whether 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 itself—is "unnecessary" as the "existing 
petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case." (DE 311). The Court 
The Court expresses no opinion at this time whcthcr any of the attestations made by 
Jane Doe land Jane Does in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and non-
cumulative.
6 The Government contends that Jane Doel is not a true "victim" in this case because 
she was not known at the time die Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement, and 
accordingly she was not entitled to notification rights under the CVRA. (ace DE 290 at 10). 
Any "duplicative" litigation filed by Jane Doe I would necessarily raise the issue of whcthcr she 
has standing under the CVRA under these circumstances. 
9 
3501.226-117 
Page 24 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076136 
EFTA01249154

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 10 of 10 
agrees, and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the 
proceedings. 
III. Conclusion 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: the Rule 21 Motion 
(DE 280) is DENIED; the Rule 15 Motion (DE 311) is DENIED; Intervenor Dcrshowitz's 
Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282) and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in 
Support of Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 317) are DENIED AS MOOT; Petitioners' 
Motion to Seal (DE 292) is DENIED AS MOOT; the following materials are hereby 
STRICKEN from the record: 
• 
DE 279, in its entirety. 
• 
DE 280, all sentences between the following sentences: 
"The Government then concealed from Jane Doe 
the 
existence of its NPA from Jane Doe., in violation of her 
rights under the CVRA" (DE 280 at 3); 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" (DE 280 at 6). 
• 
DE 291-1, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19 through 53, 
and 59. 
DE 310-1, paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49. 
DE 293, in its entirety. 
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, 
Florida, this 611 day of April, 2015. 
KENNETH A. MARRA 
United States District Judge 
10 
3501.226-117 
Page 25 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFrA_00076137 
EFTA01249155

Case 1:15•cv-07433•RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 12 
United States District Court 
Southern District of New York 
Plaintiff, 
CASE NO: 
v. 
GIIISLAINE MAXWELL 
Defendant. 
COMPLAINT 
3501.226-117 
Page 26 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076138 
EFTA01249156

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 12 
3501.226-117 
Page 27 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 0({)76139 
EFTA01249157

3501.226-117 
Page 28 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00076140 
EFTA01249158

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 12 
4 
3501.226-117 
Page 29 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076141 
EFTA01249159

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 12 
3501 226-117 
Page 30 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076142 
EFTA01249160

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 0112 
6 
3501.226-117 
Page 31 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076143 
EFTA01249161

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 12 
7 
3501.226-117 
Page 32 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076144 
EFTA01249162

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 12 
COUNT I 
DEFAMATION 
8 
3501.226-117 
Page 33 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076145 
EFTA01249163

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09121/15 Page 9 of 12 
9 
3501.226-117 
Page 34 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076146 
EFTA01249164

Case 1:15•cv-07433•RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 12 
10 
3501.226-117 
Page 35 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076147 
EFTA01249165

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 12 
I I 
3501.226-117 
Page 36 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076148 
EFTA01249166

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 12 
12 
3501.226-117 
Page 37 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076149 
EFTA01249167

3501 226-117 
Page 38 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076150 
EFTA01249168

AD-006932 
3501.226-117 
Page 39 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA_00076151 
EFTA01249169

AD•006933 
3501.226-117 
Page 40 of 45 
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 
EFTA 00076152 
EFTA01249170