Epstein Secrets

. ." DE 189 at 1. The Court went on to rule for the victims on the rescission issue, explaining that "in their petition and supplemental pleadings, Jane Doe 1 and 2 have identified a remedy which is likely to redress the injury complained of — the setting aside of the non-prosecution agreement as a prelude

frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Joshlin v. Gannett River States Pub. Corp., 152 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Ark. 1993) (amendment to name all purported class members as plaintiffs); Otto v. Milwaukee Ouy., No. 07-C-427, 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 30, 20

. ." DE 189 at 1. The Court went on to rule for the victims on the rescission issue, explaining that "in their petition and supplemental pleadings, Jane Doe 1 and 2 have identified a remedy which is likely to redress the injury complained of — the setting aside of the non-prosecution agreement as a prelude

frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Joshlin I Gannett River States Pub. Corp., 152 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Ark. 1993) (amendment to name all purported class members as plaintiffs); Otto'. Milwaukee Cnty., No. 07-C-427, 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 30, 20

.." DE 189 at I. The Court went on to rule for the victims on the rescission issue, explaining that "in their petition and supplemental pleadings, Jane Doe 1 and 2 have identified a remedy which is likely to redress the injury complained of — the setting aside of the non-prosecution agreement as a prelude

frequently allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading to add new plaintiffs. See, e.g., Joshlin v. Gannett River States Pub. Corp., 152 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Ark. 1993) (amendment to name all purported class members as plaintiffs); Otto v. Milwaukee Cnty., No. 07-C-427, 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (ED. Wis. Oct. 30, 20