Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35326House OversightOther

Court strikes portions of filings and denies Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene in Jane Doe case

The passage merely documents routine procedural rulings—striking impertinent paragraphs and denying a motion to intervene by attorney Alan Dershowitz. It contains no concrete allegations, financial fl Court ordered removal of numerous paragraphs deemed impertinent to non‑parties. Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene was denied as moot. A sealed response filing was also struck from the record.

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #014682
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage merely documents routine procedural rulings—striking impertinent paragraphs and denying a motion to intervene by attorney Alan Dershowitz. It contains no concrete allegations, financial fl Court ordered removal of numerous paragraphs deemed impertinent to non‑parties. Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene was denied as moot. A sealed response filing was also struck from the record.

Tags

legal-documentintervention-motioncourt-filingprocedurallegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural-ruling

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:8ase-doPeeKaMdsSbs eR aaumentieaaoniied 9 Weeldet oF age20 26 1 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA” (id. at 3); and “The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA” (id. at 6). As none of Jane Doe 4’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, 11, 13, 15, 19 through 53, and 59, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties. Regarding the Declaration of Jane Doe 3 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 3 1s 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 1). 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 moots 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. GIUFFRE002849

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.