Epstein Secrets

verns the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 4 EFTA00074997 Case 9:08Ce;14€410WW4MAIPReV94101WalThagit Pairogumksof Ili

ule 21 Motion, the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Jane Doe 3 between the following sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe 4's proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr. Epstein and herself. (See DE 280 at 7-8). 5 EFTA00074

overns the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at •5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc. 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 4 GIUFFRE0021347 EFTA00097410 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered o

n.3 ("[A]ll four victims (represented by the same legal counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings."), 15 (Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 "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

to trial. She was just 15 years old when she was drawn into Epstein’s exploitative world in 1998. In her civil writ against him, under the pseudonym Jane Doe 102’ she alleged that her duties included being ‘sexually exploited by Epstein’s adult male peers including royalty’. Now, horrified by the evidence

overns the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 4 GIUFFRE002847 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014680 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:6ase-doFee

overns the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014850 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:0&aé807E5-d0A07 4 oA nilk

e 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 Doe 1’s original petition “specifically allege[s] that the Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims.