DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01955.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page7 of 76 Action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically, whether she was a “known victim[] of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties.” Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Docket No. 324 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2015) (“CVRA Mot. Op.”) at 5. Yet, “the bulk of the [motion] consists of copious factual details that [Ms. Giuffre] and [her co-movant] ‘would prove . . . if allowed to join.’” Id. Giuffre gratuitously included provocative and “lurid details” of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Giuffre has denied that the issues presented in her joinder motion were narrow and has noted that the issues presented by the joinder motion and related pleadings were multiple and complex, requiring numerous details about Giuffre’s sexual abuse and the listing of the perpetrators of her abuse. In a pleading explaining why the motion was filed, see Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Docket No. 291 at 18-26 & n.17 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2015), Giuffre’s lawyers specifically listed nine separate reasons why Jane Doe 3's allegations that Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz”) had sexually abused her were relevant to the case and appropriately included in the relevant filings. Additionally, Giuffre states that Judge