vance of the Jane Doe Evidence to the Jane Doe Matter, Jane Doe should not be permitted to limit Intervenors' legal arguments by dictating which of the Jane Doe Evidence Intervenors should be allowed to include in their pleadings in that matter. Finally, Mr. Epstein already possesses the Jane Doe Evidence,

ter ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Jane Doe Evidence is highly probative of the issues the Intervenors intend to raise in the Motion to Dismiss. To use the Jane Doe Evidence to support the Motion to Dismiss, however, the Intervenors need relief from the Protective Order. Judge Koeltl instructed the Intervenors

Yet Would Otherwise Evade Review. For all the reasons just explained, the Court clearly is in a position to address the CVRA violations alleged by the Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Even assuming for sake of argument it was not, however, the Court would still clearly possess the ability to review the Governme

Yet Would Otherwise Evade Review. For all the reasons just explained, the Court clearly is in a position to address the CVRA violations alleged by the Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Even assuming for sake of argument it was not, however, the Court would still clearly possess the ability to review the Governme

f the,/ Letter, please confirm whether Jane Doe consents to the defendants' application in the Matter for relief from the Protective Order to use the Jane Doe Evidence in support of their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Jane Doe Matter. In addition to sending the July 7 Letter in the midst