DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01957.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page9 of 76 9. As the district court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, Giuffre “name[d] several individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place.” CVRA Mot. Op. at 5. The court ruled that " “these lurid details are unnecessary,” explaining that “[t]he factual details regarding whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent ... , especially considering that these details involve nonparties who are not related to the respondent Government.” Id. Accordingly, “[t]hese unnecessary details shall be stricken.” Id. The court then struck all Giuffre’s factual allegations relating to her alleged sexual activities and her allegations of misconduct by non-parties. Id. at 6. The court said the striking of the “lurid details” was a sanction for Giuffre’s improper inclusion of them in the motion. Id. at 7. Giuffre has noted her denial as set forth in Statement 7 above. 10. The district court in the CVRA Action found not only that the “lurid details” were unnecessary but also that the joinder motion itself was “entirely unnecessary.” Id. at 7. Giuffre and her lawyers knew the motion with all its “lurid