DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00035.png

Case 18-2868, Document 275, 08/09/2019, 2628223, Page4 of 18 provocative and “lurid details” of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. 8. At the time they filed the motion, Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing Ms. Giuffre’s name, claiming the need for privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly. 9. As the district court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, Ms. Giuffre “name[d] several individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place.” The court ruled that “these lurid details are unnecessary”: “The factual details regarding whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent . . ., especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” Accordingly, “[t]hese unnecessary details shall be stricken.” Id. The court then struck all Ms. Giuffre’s factual allegations relating to her alleged sexual activities and her allegations of misconduct by non-parties. The court said the striking of the “lurid details” was a sanction for Ms. Giuffre’s improper inclusion of them in the motion. 10. The district court found not only that the “lurid details” were unnecessary but also that the entire joinder motion was “entirely unnecessary.” Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers knew the motion with all its “lurid details” was unnecessary because the motion itself recognized that she would be able to participate as a fact witness to achieve the same result she sought as a party. The court denied plaintiff's joinder motion. 11. One of the non-parties Ms. Giuffre “named” repeatedly in the joinder motion was Ms. Maxwell. According to the “lurid details” of Ms. Giuffre included in the motion,