Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Jane Doe And Her Unredacted Memo Of Law In Opposition To Being Unmasked By Leon Black (Part 1) (10/5/26)

Transcript

Jane Doe And Her Unredacted Memo Of Law In Opposition To Being Unmasked By Leon Black (Part 1) (10/5/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're diving right back in
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: to the lawsuit filed against Leon Black by Jane Doe.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Case number 123-CV-06418-JGLC Jane Doe vs. Leon Black Plaintiff's Memorandum
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Force Jane
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Doe to Disclose Her Full Name Publicly. Plaintiff Jane Doe
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: to prevent her from continuing to proceed in this action
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: as Ms. Doe, a motion he disingenuously characterizes as a
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: motion to amend the caption of the case. For the
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: reasons set forth below, The request should be denied and Ms.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Doe should be allowed to continue in the case under
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: a pseudonym. Preliminary Statement It's within the court's discretion to
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: permit plaintiff to continue in this action as Jane Doe.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: She has not requested that the docket be sealed from
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: the public nor asked that the public is denied access
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to filings. Instead, as a victim of sex trafficking seeking
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: justice for a brutal rape that took place when she
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: was a minor, she previously asked that the public docket
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: does not contain her name. On August 18th, 2023, the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: court granted this request and defendant did not object. ECF
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: 15 and 16. Suddenly, now that this motion to dismiss
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: was denied, Black asked that the plaintiff no longer be
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: able to use the pseudonym. Black's basis for the newfound
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: objection is as meritless as it would have been had
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: he made it in late August of 2023 when it
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: appears that he was in possession of the same information
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: offered to the court presently. Plaintiff's request to proceed at
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: this juncture, as misdo, must be balanced with Federal Rule
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: of Civil Procedure 10A, which requires that a complaint include
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: the names of all the parties. FedR Civ P10A While
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: federal courts allow a party to proceed under a pseudonym
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: when a special circumstance warrants anonymity. Sexual assault victims are
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: a example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 FRD 193-195, EDNY 2006.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has held that, short of homicide, rape
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: is the ultimate violation of self. Kolker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584-597-1977.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: Sexual assault victims should not be violated again by being
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: forced to relive their trauma through the publication of their
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: identities in civil actions. This relief granted by countless courts
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: to victims of rape is currently what plaintiff is receiving.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: Defendant fails to offer persuasive necessity to alter her dose
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: status and a denial of her ability to proceed using
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: a pseudonym would be manifest injustice given the facts in
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: this specific case. As detailed below, defendant's argument relies upon
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: a misapplication of the relevant Second Circuit legal principles and
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: his motion should be denied. The Procedural History On July 25, 2023,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff Jane Doe commenced this action by filing a complaint
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: against defendant Leon Black, alleging that he raped her in
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse in New York City when she was 16.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Simultaneous with her complaint, she filed a motion to proceed
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: using a pseudonym. Defendant did not file an opposition. Instead,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: he filed a motion for sanctions under FedR-Civ P-11 against
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: counsel for plaintiff, but not against plaintiff. Defendant thereafter filed
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: stay discovery. On September 27, 2024, the court issued an
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: order that denied defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: denied his motion for sanctions, and mooted his motion to
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: stay discovery. Presently, a pretrial scheduling conference is scheduled for
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: October 29, 2024, and the defendant filed his instant motion
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: on October 7, 2024. The Legal Argument Applicable Second Circuit
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Law Sealed Plaintiff for Sealed Defendant In Sealed Plaintiff for
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: Sealed Defendant 537F, Second Circuit 2008, the Second Circuit established
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: the guidelines for determining when a party may be allowed
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: to maintain an action under a pseudonym. The Second Circuit
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: held that to determine whether a plaintiff may be allowed
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: to maintain an action under a pseudonym, courts must balance
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff's interests in anonymity. against both the public interest
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. In arriving
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: at this result, the Second Circuit reasoned, We endorse the
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit's formulation and hold that when determining whether a
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced against both
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: This balancing of interests entails the consideration of several factors
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: including that have been identified by our sister circuits and
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the district courts in this circuit. We note with approval
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: the following factors, with caution that this list is non-exhaustive,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: and district courts should take into account other factors relevant
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: to the particular case under consideration. Following the Ninth Circuit,
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: the Second Circuit provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: a court may consider in determining whether a plaintiff may
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: proceed under a pseudonym. 1. Whether the litigation involves matters
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature, and 2.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: Whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously, or even
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: more critically, to innocent non-parties. 3. Whether identification presents other harms,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: and the likely severity of those harms, including whether the
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: injury litigated against, would be incurred as a result of
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. 4. whether the plaintiff
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: in light of his age. 5. Whether the suit is
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties. 6.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: if any, differs at any particular stage of the litigation,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court. 7.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: Whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept confidential. 8.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity. 9. Whether, because
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: litigant's identities. 10. Whether there are any alternative mechanisms for
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: protecting confidentiality of the plaintiff. Sealed plaintiff did not issue
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: a multi-factor test for mechanical application. Rather, it directed a
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: court to engage in a subjective balancing test based upon
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: the unique facts before it making clear that it would
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: be highly unlikely that all 10 factors applied to a
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: given case, in which instance it should apply only those
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: relevant factors, as well as all additional factors the court,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: in its discretion determined, were needed. Indeed, the sealed plaintiff
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: decision suggests that a district court should not apply non-relevant
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: factors listed as potential considerations as the factors set forth
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: should not be applied as a mechanical test. To do
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: so would create prejudice to the moving party by taking
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: what is not relevant yet assigning value where none exists,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: and subsequently weighing it as part of an equation. There
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: can be no question about the Second Circuit's intent when
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: it was wrote. Of course, a district court It is
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: not required to list each of the factors or use
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: any particular formulation, as long as it's clear that the
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: court balanced the interests at stake in reaching its conclusion. Thus,
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: a court has discretion to assign more weight or importance
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: to certain facts in a particular case and unquestionably is
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: not expected, too much less required, to analyze all ten
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: factors listed in seal plaintiff. 2. Defendant Black's misapplication of
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: seal plaintiff for seal defendant. Using the non-exhaustive list in
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: seal plaintiff defendant attempts to argue the various factors as
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: if a mechanical test is with cursory application of the facts.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Despite citing to seal plaintiff's directives that courts are not
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: required to list each factor as long as it's clear
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: that the court balanced the interests at stake, defendant's motion
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: does exactly that. Further discussed infra Defendant attempts to assign
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: weight to multiple factors with no relevance to this action.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: Contrary to CO plaintiff's instructions, defendant's motion rigidly lists the
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: ten considerations, claiming that they are the relevant facts. In addition,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: defendant failed to adhere to the Second Circuit's instructions that
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: we caution that this list is not exhaustive and district
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: courts should take into account other factors relevant to the
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: particular case under consideration. Here, a clear majority of still
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: plaintiff factors relevant weigh in favor of the court extending
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: permission for plaintiff to proceed anonymously. Overall, the public interest
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: in disclosure and the potential prejudice to defendant that may
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: result from Ms. Doe's anonymity pale in comparison to her
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: interest in remaining anonymous. Factor 1 indisputably weighs in favor
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: of anonymity, Dover Zomer, No. 23, Civ, 10-26, A.T., 2024, WL1586032,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: At 1, SDNY, March 6, 2024. In this case, the
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: allegations concern sexual assault of a particularly violent and sensitive nature.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: As set forth in the complaint, Black threw Ms. Doe
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: down the massage table on her back so hard he
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: knocked the wind out of her, proceeded to rip off
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: her clothing, called her demeaning, shameful, disgusting names as he
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: pinned her down, used adult toys to penetrate multiple orifices,
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: bit Ms. Doe's vagina, and then used his excessive weight
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: to anally rape Ms. Doe with such force, she felt
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: as if he was crushing her pelvic and hip bones.
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: This vicious attack caused Ms. Doe serious physical and mental harm,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: including internal abrasions and panic attacks. There is thus no
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: question that the first sealed plaintiff factor is satisfied here. Indeed,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: the extreme nature of the alleged statutory rape makes this
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: factor especially important in the court's consideration of defendant's request
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: to reveal her identity to the public. Although factor one
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: is not sufficient to justify anonymity on its own, courts
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: in this circuit have given it relatively strong weight. Notably, Ms.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: Doe is unable to locate a case in which a
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: court in this circuit has applied seal plaintiff and granted
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: anonymity without finding that factor one favors such a finding. Further,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: defendant mischaracterizes both the facts of the case and several
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: of the seal plaintiff factors. His motion is nothing but
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: a feeble, coercive attempt to retaliate against Ms. Doe after
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: the court denied his motion to dismiss. All right, we're
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with three. Defendant's history of
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: retaliation illustrates the extremely high risk of harm to Ms.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: Doe and innocent non-parties. All of the information that goes
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.