Court denies amendment to add two additional Jane Doe petitioners under Rule 15

Date

November 11, 2025

Source

House Oversight

Reference

House Oversight #014848

Pages

Persons

Integrity

No Hash Available

Summary

The passage details routine procedural arguments in a civil rights case, mentioning only unnamed petitioners and the government’s opposition. It provides no concrete leads on influential actors, finan Two additional Jane Doe victims sought to join the lawsuit under Rule 21 and later Rule 15. The government opposed joinder, arguing procedural impropriety and undue delay. The district court exercise

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure

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

Case 9:08 a8 07E5-d0A07 4 oR nilaetinteniterésd-49 FES@ DSGCkét104/P7dge15 ofPidge 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (Id. at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they “have suffered the same violations of their rights under the [CVRA] as the” Petitioners, and they “desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well.” (Id. at 1). The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule 21. (DE 290). The Government argues that Rule 15 is the proper procedural device for adding parties to an action, not Rule 21. (Id. at 1). “TOJut of an abundance of caution,” Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition under Rule 15, conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as petitioners. (DE 311 at 2). The Government opposes the Rule 15 Motion as well. (DE 314). Among other things, the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings, and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. (Id.). 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 amendment. II. Discussion “The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. Crim. Apps., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Justice does not require amendment in several instances, “includ[ing] undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive

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

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

EFTA00016005

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01660111

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

Forum Discussions

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

Donate More ways to support →

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