DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01956.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page8 of 76 Marra’s ruling concluded that certain allegations were not necessary “at this juncture in the proceedings,” adding that “Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration.” CVRA Mot. Op. at 5-6. Giuffre notes that the CVRA litigation continues and no trial has been held as of the filing of this motion so that the extent to which these factual details will be used at trial has not yet been determined. See Docket Sheet, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM. 8. At the time they filed the motion, 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 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. Giuffre has noted her denial as set forth to Statement 7 above.