4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
ssible, 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 affecte
n 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 becau
ssible, 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 affecte
n 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 becau
ssible, 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 affecte
n 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 becau
issible 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
n 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 becau
Entities connected to both Herring and the Rule 15 Motion

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONLaurie
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONRule 21 Motion
ORGANIZATIONSupport of Motion for Limited Intervention
ORGANIZATIONthe Rule 21 Motion and Rule 15 Motion
ORGANIZATIONMotion for Leave to File Supplemental
ORGANIZATIONWright & Miller
ORGANIZATIONMotion for Limited Intervention
ORGANIZATIONPrac. & Fed
ORGANIZATIONBank of N. Am.
ORGANIZATIONLimited Intervention
ORGANIZATIONFederal Rule of Civil Procedure
ORGANIZATIONBridgeport Music, Inc.
ORGANIZATION
Goston
PERSONMusic Grp.
ORGANIZATIONFoman v. Davis
PERSON