Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Jane Doe # 3 And Her Unredacted Motion For Anonymity Against Indyke, Kahn And The Epstein Estate (10/2/26)

Transcript

Jane Doe # 3 And Her Unredacted Motion For Anonymity Against Indyke, Kahn And The Epstein Estate (10/2/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're going to continue taking a look
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: at the lawsuit filed by Danielle Bensky and Jane Doe
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: 3 on behalf of all the others similarly situated against
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. And to do
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: that we're going to take a look at the Memorandum
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: of Law. in support of plaintiff Jane Doe 3's motion
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: for leave to proceed anonymously. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3, by
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: her undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: support of her motion for leave to proceed anonymously. Introduction.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: This lawsuit arises out of Jeffrey Epstein's years-long sexual abuse
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: of Jane Doe 3 and Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn's
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: personal hand in that scheme. Releasing Jane Doe 3's name
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: to the public will expose some of her darkest moments,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: and tie those moments to her name in perpetuity. Using
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: her real name in this litigation, therefore, would cause her
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: significant harm and distress and would inhibit her ability to heal.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: For these and similar reasons, other courts have allowed Epstein's
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: victims to proceed anonymously in numerous cases. See Deutsche Bank,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: et al. No. 22, Civ 10018, SDNY, December 5, 2022.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise, along with Indyk and Khan's involvement,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: has become highly publicized. The egregiousness of his crimes is
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: escaped from proportionate punishment. Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: with a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: in 2008 and died in prison after the U.S. attorney
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: for the Southern District of New York indicted him for
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: federal sex trafficking crimes. And the recently unsealed documents in
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Roberts v. Maxwell... has made his case one of public fascination.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: The names of the victims who have come forward against
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein thus far have been widely publicized and discussed by
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: the media. Jane Doe III should, therefore, be permitted to
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: file proceed anonymously in this litigation. The argument. Although Rule
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: 10a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the title of a complaint must name all the parties,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the Second Circuit has recognized that the use of a
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: pseudonym in appropriate and certain circumstances. See Sealed Plaintiff for
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: a Sealed Defendant, 537 F. 3D 185, 188 and 89, 2nd Circuit, 2008.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: In determining whether a grant a motion for leave to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: proceed anonymously, the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: to the defendant. The Second Circuit has noted with approval
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: the following list of the ten non-exhaustive factors. 1. Whether
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: a personal nature, whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: physical or mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: or even more critically to innocent non-parties, 3. Whether identification
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: presents other harms, and the likely severity of those harms
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. 4.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: of disclosure. Particularity in light of his or her age. 5.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: or that of the private parties. 6. Whether the defendant
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: whether the nature of that prejudice, if any, differs any
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: particular stage of the litigation, and whether the prejudice can
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: be mitigated by the district court. 7. Whether the plaintiff's
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: identity has thus far been kept confidential. 8. Whether the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: public's interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: plaintiff to disclose his identity. 9. whether because of purely
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: a typically weak public interest in knowing the litigant's identities,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: and 10. whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the confidentiality of the plaintiff. Courts are not required to
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: list each of the factors or use any particular formulation
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: as long as it's clear that the court balanced the
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: interest at stake in reaching its conclusion. Taking those factors
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: into account, Jane Doe 3's interest in anonymity substantially outweighs
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: both the public interest in disclosure and potential prejudice to defendants,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: if any, and she should be allowed to proceed as
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 3 in this case. 1. Plaintiff's interest in
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: anonymity favors allowing her to proceed as Jane Doe 3.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: The first three factors of the Second Circuit's test weigh
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: heavily in favor of Jane Doe 3 proceeding anonymously. The
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: first factor is whether the litigation involves matters that are
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: highly sensitive and of a personal nature. ID at 190.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Sexual assault victims are an example of those entitled to
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a grant of anonymity. Jane Doe 3's allegation of sexual
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: assault and abuse could not be more sensitive. She alleges
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that Jeffrey Epstein sexually trafficked, abused, and exploited her for
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: years in a humiliating and degrading manner. Those were some
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: of the most sensitive, degrading, and painful moments of Jane
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Doe 3's life, warranting anonymity in this case. The second factor,
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory, physical, or mental
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously, also weighs
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: in favor of Jane Doe 3 proceeding anonymously. The identification
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: of Jane Doe 3 in this matter would create a
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: serious risk of retaliation. Epstein's vast wealth and far-reaching connections
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: made it clear that retaliation could be employed against individuals
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: pursuing claims against individuals affiliated with them. In addition to
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: exposing plaintiff to physical or psychological harm, retaliation could also
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: silence potential witnesses from coming forward. The second factor, therefore,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: weighs in favor of allowing Jane Doe III to proceed anonymously.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: The third factor, whether identification presents other harms... and the
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: likely severity of those harms including whether the injury litigated
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: of the plaintiff's identity. Exposing Jane Doe 3's identity would
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: cause her precisely the injuries for which she is seeking
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: redress in this case. Extreme emotional distress, psychological trauma, pain
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: and suffering. Further, unlike most sexual assault cases, Epstein's crimes
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: and victims have been the subject of extraordinary amounts of
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: media attention, and many of his victims have been heavily
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: scrutinized by the public. There's no reason to believe that
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 3 would be subject to any less scrutiny
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: than the other women who have already spoken out against Epstein,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: and if she were to proceed under her real name.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Such scrutiny... would have both personal and professional consequences for
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 3. Her relationship would suffer, and as for
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: her career, Jane Doe 3 has significant concern that the
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: public scrutiny could cause her professional harm. 2. Defendants will
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: not suffer any prejudice if plaintiff proceeds as Jane Doe 3.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: The sixth factor of the Second Circuit's test for deciding
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: whether to grant a motion for leave to appear anonymously
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: is whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: to press her claims anonymously. whether the nature of that prejudice,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: if any, differs at any particular stage of the litigation,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court. Specifically,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: courts look at the damage to a defendant's reputation caused
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: by the anonymous proceeding, the difficulties in discovery, as well
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: as the fundamental fairness of proceeding in this manner. Jane
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Doe III proceeding anonymously in this matter will have little
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: effect on Indyk and Khan's reputation, Epstein's crimes have been
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: widely publicized, as has his modus operandi of recruiting and
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: sexually abusing young, vulnerable women by offering to pay them
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: for massages turned into unwelcome sexual encounters. And Indykin Khan's
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: alleged involvement in the scheme and subsequent mismanagement of estate
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: funds is similarly public. With respect to difficulties in conducting
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: discovery to investigate Jane Doe 3's claims, Jane Doe 3
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: would be willing to cooperate with defendants to ensure that
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: they could effectively conduct discovery and defend against Jane Doe
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: 3's claims. There would therefore be little to no prejudice
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: to the defendants if Jane Doe 3 were to remain anonymous.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 3 has also remained anonymous since Epstein abused her,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: which favors anonymity and under the Second Circuit's seventh factor,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: whether plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept confidential. Until now,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: she has never spoken out against Epstein, Indyk, or Kahn,
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: nor are the details in the complaint unique enough to
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: make her identity discernible to the public or Epstein's cohorts. Unfortunately,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: countless victims have stories that are extremely similar to hers.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: This is therefore not a case in which a plaintiff
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: attempts to gain an advantage by making accusations to the media,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: but then shields her name in court. 3. The public
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: has little to no interest in disclosure of plaintiff's name.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: The 8th and 9th factors of the Second Circuit's test
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: for deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: appear anonymously ask the court to weigh the public's interest
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: in disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. See Sealed Plaintiff 537F. 3d
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: at 190. Those factors weigh in favor of allowing Jane
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Doe 3 to proceed anonymously here. Epstein had many victims
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: and the total number is still unknown. Although the public
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: has an interest in Epstein's life and crimes generally, as
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: well as the executor's involvement in the sex trafficking scheme,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the identity of Jane Doe 3 is of no particular
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: importance to the public. Jane Doe 3 is not a
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: public figure and she had never spoken out against Epstein
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: or his co-conspirators before filing her lawsuit. The public interest
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: in this case is therefore not in Jane Doe 3's identity,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: but rather in the crimes Epstein committed against Jane Doe
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: 3 and countless other victims. The fact the public interest
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: would be better served by protecting Jane Doe 3's identity.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: The public generally has a strong interest in protecting the
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: not be deterred from reporting such crimes. Keeping Jane Doe
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: 3's name from the public will ensure that media scrutiny
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: of her story will not deter other Epstein victims from
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: sharing their own experiences. 4. There are no adequate alternatives
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: for protecting Jane Doe 3's confidentiality. The final factor is
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: whether there are alternative mechanisms for protecting the plaintiff's identity.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: In this case, anything less than full protection of Jane
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: Doe 3's identity would further the harms that Jane Doe
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: 3 has already suffered due to the conduct described in
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: the complaint. There is no adequate alternative mechanism for protecting
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: her confidentiality. Jane Doe 3 should therefore be granted leave
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: to proceed anonymously in the case. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 3 respectfully requests that the court grant her
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: motion to proceed anonymously. This was dated February 22nd, 2024,
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: and it was signed by David Boies. All of the
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: the description box.