Procedural dispute over plaintiff standing and amendment in CVRA case

The passage discusses routine litigation procedural issues—whether additional anonymous plaintiffs (Jane Doe 3 and 4) should be added and standing under the CVRA. It mentions no high‑profile individua Petitioners argue Jane Doe 3 and 4 need not be listed as parties for the case to proceed. Government claims Jane Doe 4 lacks standing because she was unknown when the non‑prosecution agreeme Court ha

Date

November 11, 2025

Source

House Oversight

Reference

House Oversight #014685

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.

Case 9:Gase-bd PaevOKS ERM cRegumenhesee of HeGOLINGLE: Ragr/AOiof Ibage 9 of 10 id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4’s “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 Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all “other similarly situated victims” under the CVRA. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 may offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard. See 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.”)” And, as to Jane Doe 4 at 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 whether any of the attestations made by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and non- cumulative. ° The Government contends that Jane Doe 4 is not a true “victim” in this case because she was not known at the time the Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement, and accordingly she was not entitled to notification rights under the CVRA. (See DE 290 at 10). Any “duplicative” litigation filed by Jane Doe 4 would necessarily raise the issue of whether she has standing under the CVRA under these circumstances. 9 GIUFFRE002852

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone2620116

Wire Refreferences

Related Documents (6)

Court UnsealedJun 16, 2023

Deutsche Bank Epstein victim questionnaire

EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:22-cv-10018-JSR Document 90-2 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 12 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No. 1:22-CV-10018 (JSR) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL VICTIMS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S SEX TRAFFICKING VENTURE DURING THE TIME PERIOD AUGUST 19, 2013 TO AUGUST 10, 2019 (THE “CLASS PERIOD”). IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, YOU (OR CLASS COUNSEL ON YOUR BEHALF) MUST TIMELY SUBMIT A TIER ONE FORM BY ___________, 20

12p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

Court UnsealedMar 17, 2016

Usg-Lavabit-Unsealed

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-sw-00522-CMH-1 Case title: USA v. In Re: Information Associated Date Filed: 07/16/2013 Date Terminated: 03/24/2015 with [Redacted] Assigned to: District Judge Claude M. Hilton Appeals court case number: 13-4625 Defendant (1) In Re: Information Associated with [Redacted] TERMINATED: 03/24/2015 Pending Counts Disposition None Highest Offense Level (Opening) None Terminated Counts Disposition None

560p

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p

DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown