Epstein Secrets

ly believes that the current victims should have filed a motion sooner. But "delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 6 EFTA00613649 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 21 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)

Building on all these allegations, at the first hearing in this case, the Court allowed an additional victim — Jane Doe No. 2 — to join the action. See DE 115 (tr. July 11, 2008) at 14. The current motion for an amended pleading simply builds on that elaboration, naming two additional victims who were in t

ly believes that the current victims should have filed a motion sooner. But "delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend." DCD Programs, Ltd.I Leighton, 833 6 EFTA00210700 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 21 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

Building on all these allegations, at the first hearing in this case, the Court allowed an additional victim — Jane Doe No. 2 — to join the action. See DE 115 (tr. July 11, 2008) at 14. The current motion for an amended pleading simply builds on that elaboration, naming two additional victims who were in t

ly believes that the current victims should have filed a motion sooner. But "delay, by itself, is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend." DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 6 EFTA01626120 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 7 of 21 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)

Building on all these allegations, at the first hearing in this case, the Court allowed an additional victim — Jane Doe No. 2 — to join the action. See DE 115 (tr. July 11, 2008) at 14. The current motion for an amended pleading simply builds on that elaboration, naming two additional victims who were in t