Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Jane Doe # 1 And Her Motion To File Anonymously (9/26/26)

Transcript

Jane Doe # 1 And Her Motion To File Anonymously (9/26/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: In today's episode, we're going to continue looking behind the
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: curtain and into the dark, shadowy room known as the
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Enterprise. And to do that, we have
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the motion to proceed anonymously by Jane Doe, number one,
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: case number ST-19-PB-80. Notice of filing of motion to proceed
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: anonymously in filing a notice of claim for unliquidated and
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: unsecured damages. Comes now the undersigned counsel on behalf of
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: claimant Jane Doe No. 1, a victim of the estate
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and submit for the consideration of
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: the court the attached motion to proceed anonymously in filing
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: a notice of claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages. This
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: was signed by Melody D. Westfall, and it was signed
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: on January 31st of 2020. 1. This motion and the
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: subsequent notice of claim are timely and properly filed pursuant
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: to Virgin Islands Probate and Fiduciary Rule 11, titled Notice
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: to Creditors and Persons Indebted to the Estate, which notes
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: that all persons having claims against the estate are to
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: present or deliver the to the executor or administrator their
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: claims verified by affidavit to a place within the territory
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: specific in the notice within six months from the date
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: of the notice, as such as the notice was dated
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: September 13, 2019 and filed on September 18, 2019 and
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: directed such claims to be presented to the offices of
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: their attorneys or the clerk of this court. See also,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Virgin Island Code 15, Section 391, publication of notice of administration.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: Number two, the undersigned currently represents 12 victims, including claimant,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: who has a claim to be made against the estate
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: of Jeffrey E. Epstein. On December 3rd, 2019, nine of
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: those 12 victims, including claimant, filed suit against the above-referenced
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: estate and its executors in the Supreme Court of the
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: State of New York, County of New York. See Jane Doe, one,
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: versus Darren K. Indyke, Index number 9502302019. Honorable George J. Silver, JSC.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: A true and correct copy of the summons and verified
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: complaint are attached here too as Exhibit 1. Number 3.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: It's important to note that in that complaint, claimant filed
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: anonymously using the Jane Doe pseudonym. Number 4. Furthermore, on
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: December 5th, 2019, Bennett J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders, LLP,
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Attorneys for the executors of the estate filed a stipulation
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: with a request to so order claimant's request for anonymity
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: on consent from all parties involved in that litigation. Attached
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: here to, as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: of the fully executed stipulation. 5. The only reason that
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: this stipulation has not been so ordered at this time
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: is due to the current administrative stay placed on the case.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: and all other cases of similar nature, pending in the
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Attached hereto, as Exhibit No. 3, is a
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: true and correct copy of the Administrative Order of Honorable
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: George J. Silver, J.S.C. No. 6. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: requests that this Court also grant claimant the ability to
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: present her notice of claim anonymously under pseudonym. No. 7.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: If the fact that both of the parties in this
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: proceedings have already agreed for a claimant to file anonymously
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: is not persuasive enough. Courts in this circuit have also
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: granted such relief, even when it's opposed. Number 8. First
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: and foremost, this sort of decision is within the direct
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: purview of this court. See Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: 527 F. 3D 358 371 3rd Circuit Court 2008 The decision
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: whether to allow a claimant to proceed anonymously rests within
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the sound discretion of the court. 9. Indeed, in making
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: such decisions, courts in this circuit have continually applied a
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: balancing test type approach using several factors outlined by the
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Third Circuit in the case of Doe v. Meglis and
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: its progeny. See Doe v. Meglis 654 F. 3D 404 Third
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: Circuit 2011. Megalus. See also, DM vs. City of Berks, 929F. SUPP. 2D, 390E. D, PA. 2013.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Doe vs. Rutgers, 2019, U.S. District, Lexus, 75139, DNJ, 2019, Rutgers. 10.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: In this case, it's clear, that when applying the nine
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: Meglis factors, six that favor anonymity and three that disfavor anonymity,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: an overwhelming majority of them support claimant's use of a pseudonym,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: while the few that do not are either not applicable
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: to the case or do not do enough to tip
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: the scales. See Meglis 654 F. 3d at 409. 11. Regarding
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the first factor, in favor of anonymity, the facts of
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: this case stand in sharp contrast to instances where the
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: court have found that anonymity would be futile because the
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: move-in's name was already widely known. See Rutgers at 5
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: and 6, citing Meglis at 410, move-in's name, picture, and
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: home address had been disclosed on a publicly circulated flyer. Here,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: the facts align more with Rutgers, as claimant has gone
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: above and beyond to maintain her confidentiality, which has never
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: been made public, including by filing her lawsuit as a
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe and stipulating with the estate to do the same.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: See Meglis at 410. See also Rutgers 2019, U.S. District
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Court Lexus 75139 at 5. 12. Second, as for the
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: reasonableness of the harm the litigant is seeking to avoid here,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: similar to the facts of Rutgers, claimant wishes to proceed
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: anonymously in order to protect her mental and physical health
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: and right to fully and fairly litigate this action. See
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Rutgers at 6 and 7. See also Doe v. Roman
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Catholic Archdiocese of New York, 64 Miscellaneous, 3D, 1220A, Superior Court,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Westchester County, 2019, 13. Indeed, as opposed to using a
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: pseudonym merely to avoid the annoyance of criticism that may
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: attend any litigation, claimant seeks to proceed anonymously to preserve
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: her privacy in this matter of a sensitive and highly
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: personal nature, and will have a lifelong impact on her
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: and her family's lives. See Rutgers at 6 and 7.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: See also Doe vs. Zool Jewelry Incorporated, 2008, New York Miscellaneous, Lexus, 8733,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: Superior Court, New York City, 2008. Doe vs. New York University,
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: 6 Miscellaneous, 3D, 866, Superior Court, New York City, 2004.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: Sealed Plaintiff vs. Sealed Defendant, 537 F. 3D 185 2nd Circuit 2008. 14. Third,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: unlike Meglis where the district court recognizes there is no
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: allegation that falsely creates suspicious personal alert or a widespread problem,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: here the facts are more similar to Burke's in that
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: disallowing anonymity would likely deter those who have falsely accused
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: of sexual abuse from vindicating their rights due to the
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: stigma that invariably attaches to from having one's name publicly
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: attached to such a deplorable act. See Meglis at 410.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: See also Burks at 929. F.Supp.2d at 402. 15. Fourth,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: similar to Rutgers, there is a strong chance that this
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: claim will not be resolved on its merits if the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: litigant is denied the opportunity to proceed using a pseudonym
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: as a claimant will potentially sacrifice a potentially valid claim
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: simply to preserve her anonymity. See Rutgers at 7 and 8.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: The court here should decide in conformity with the court
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: in Rutgers, where they agreed with the move-in's argument that
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: the public is harmed when alleged abuse goes unchallenged because
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: move-ins fear litigating publicly. 16. As for the final factor
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: weighing in favor of anonymity, claimant is not seeking to
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: use a pseudonym for nefarious reasons, nor has there been
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: any allegations that claimant has an illegal or ulterior motive
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: in her desire to hide her name. See Meglis at 4.11.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: See also Rutgers at 10. As opposed to simple public
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: humiliation and embarrassment, which have been determined not to be
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: sufficient grounds for allowing a claimant to proceed anonymously, in
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: this case there is no illegitimate ulterior motive because as
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: referenced above, identification of claimant's true identity poses a risk
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: of mental or physical harm and the case involves information
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: of the utmost intimacy. See Meglis at 411. See also
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: Rutgers at 10. Doe, 2008, New York Miscellaneous, Lexus, at
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: 16 and 17. Doe, 6, Miscellaneous,. 3d, at 879. Sealed Plaintiff, 537, f. 3d,
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: at 189 and 90. 1991, McKinney's Session Laws of New York,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: at 2211 and 2212. Sexual assault victims have unfortunately had
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: to endure a terrible invasion of their physical privacy. They
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: have a right to expect that this violation will not
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: be compounded by a further invasion of their privacy. 17. Furthermore,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: even when turning to the other side, Of the scale
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: and the factors disfavoring anonymity, claimant still comes out ahead. 18.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: While claimant acknowledges that there is a thumb on the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: scale that is the universal interest in favor of open
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: judicial proceedings, she is not asking the record to be sealed,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: rather simply to proceed anonymously. 19. Next, the court must
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: consider whether, because of the subject matter of this litigation,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: the status of a litigant as a public figure or
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: otherwise is There is a particularly strong interest in knowing
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: the litigant's identities. See Meglis at 411. See also Rutgers
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: at 12. Here the claimant is not a public figure. 20.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: This litigation also involves a member of a particularly vulnerable
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: class or the subject matter is highly personal. The public
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: has an interest in protecting the identity of the litigant.
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: See Rutgers at 12. Citing Doe v. Rider University, 2018, U.S.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: District Lexus, 133-146-DNJ-2019. Here, Klayman alleges that she is a
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: victim of sexual assault, so allowing her to proceed as
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: a Jane Doe while preserving the public's right to access
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: the docket and the proceedings in this case strikes the
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: appropriate balance between these competing interests. See Rutgers at 12,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: citing the L.A. v. Hoffman, 2015 U.S. District, Lexus, 94564-DNJ-2015.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: granting move-ins motion to proceed anonymously and observing that although
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: the identities of the move-ins will not be included in
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: the filings in this matter, the public will maintain access
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to the docket and the filings in this case. 21. Finally,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: the last factor weighing against disclosure is not applicable as
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: there is no party opposing the use of a pseudonym. 22.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Applying the factors referenced in the litany of case law
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: to the specific facts of the claimant's case makes clear
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: that she should be permitted to proceed anonymously. She is
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: a victim of sexual abuse, a matter of highly sensitive
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: and personal nature. She is not seeking to avoid mere embarrassment,
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: but rather to protect her physical and mental well-being. It
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: is well known that victims of sexual crimes are often
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: not believed and have their reputations put into question. Thus,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: identification of her poses serious risk of retaliatory harm to her.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: and thus the estate will not be prejudiced because her
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: identity will be known to it and their counsel, and
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: thus they will be able to properly investigate her claim,
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: as such the court here should find that the totality
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: of the factors and circumstances favor anonymity. Wherefore, claimant prays
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: that the court grant her a. her motion, seeking the
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: right to proceeding in this action under pseudonym in its entirety,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: and all other relief as this court may deem just
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and proper. This document was signed by Melody D. Westfall,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: and it was signed on January 3rd of 2020. All right, folks,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: in the description box.