Epstein Secrets

investigation against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. 7. During the criminal investigation, and up and through this point in time, the Plaintiff, Jane Doe's identity has been sealed, as all parties recognize the highly sensitive subject matter of the charges and the need to protect the privacy interest o

EN M. LARIM0RE CLERK U.S. GIST. CT. S.D. FLA. • MIAMI highly sensitive nature — i.e., allegations involving sexual abuse of a minor. Additionany, Jane Doe's name was kept anonymous in the Federal Court criminal case and all documents containing her name were redacted by the United States Government and D

curity against the public's interest in identification of the litigants and the harm to the defendant stemming from suppression of Plaintiffs name." Doe v. Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has a substanti

no waiver in submitting the Rule 26(f) report in the form attached here. Anonymous Proceeding We believe there are substantial grounds to challenge Jane Doe's efforts to proceed with this case using her pseudonym. The basic principle in this regard is that judicial proceedings are presumed to be conducted

l molestation and abuse cannot proceed anonymously without a sufficient showing of particularized harm to the plaintiff if anonymity is not allowed. Doe v. Smith, 189 FRD 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (anonymous action alleging sexual molestation against psychiatrist not allowed), vacated on reconsideration based on n

public disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to "proceed in this action under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' ", by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in

(4th Cir.I 993); Ill v. New York Blood Center, 213 F.R.D. 108, 110-12 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Javier v. Garcia-Botello, 211 F.R.D. 194, 196 (W.D.N.Y.2002); Doe v. Smith, 105 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Doe v. United Servs. Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradi