Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Jane Doe #6 And Her Motion To Remain Anonymous In Her Lawsuit Against Epstein (9/2/26)

Transcript

Jane Doe #6 And Her Motion To Remain Anonymous In Her Lawsuit Against Epstein (9/2/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: we're going to continue taking a look at the claims
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: made against Jeffrey Epstein and his estate. And to do that,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at the motion to proceed anonymously
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: in filing a claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages. And
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: this claim is being filed by Jane Doe, number six,
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: case number ST-19-PB-80. motion to proceed anonymously in filing a
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages. Comes now, the undersigned
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: counsel on behalf of claimant Jane Doe, number six, a
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: victim of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and file
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: this motion to proceed anonymously in filing a notice of
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: claim for unliquidated and unsecured damages in support thereof, state, one,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: this motion and the subsequent notice of claim are timely
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: and properly filed, pursuant to the Virgin Islands Probate and
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Fiduciary Rule 11, titled Notice to Creditors and Persons Indebted
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: to the Epstein Estate, which notes that all persons having
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: claims against the estate are to present or deliver to
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the executor or administrator their claims, verified by affidavit, to
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: a place within the territory specific in the notice, within
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: six months from the date of the notice. As such,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: A notice was dated September 13, 2019, filed on September 18, 2019,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: and directed such claims to be presented to the offices
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: of their attorney or the clerk of this court. See
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: also Virgin Island Code 15, Section 391, Publication of Notice
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: of Administration. 2. The undersigned currently represents 12 victims, including
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: claimant who has a claim to be made against the
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. On December 3rd, 2019, nine
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: of those 12 victims, including Klayment, filed suit against the
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: above-referenced estate and its executors in the Supreme Court of
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the State of New York, County of New York. See
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe v. Darren K. Endyke. A true and correct
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: copy of the summons and verified complaint are attached as
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 1. 3. It is important to note that in
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the complaint Klayment filed anonymously, using Jane Doe's pseudonym. 4. Furthermore,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: on December 5, 2019, Bennett J. Moskowitz of Troutman Sanders LLP,
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: attorneys for the executors of the estate, filed a stipulation
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: with request so order claimant's request for anonymity on consent
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: from all parties involved in that litigation. Attached here to,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct of the
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: fully executed stipulation. 5. The only reason that this stipulation
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: has not been so ordered at this time is due
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: to the current administrative stay placed on the case, and
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: all other cases of similar nature pending in the Supreme Court.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: Attached here too, as Exhibit 3, is a true and
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: correct copy of the administrative order of Honorable George J. Silver, JSC. 6. Accordingly,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: The undersigned respectfully requests that this court also grant claimant
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: the ability to present her notice of claim anonymously under pseudonym. 7.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: If the fact that both the parties in this proceeding
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: have already agreed for claimant to file anonymously is not
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: persuasive enough, courts in this circuit have also granted such
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: relief even when it's opposed. 8. First and foremost, this
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: sort of decision is within the direct purview of this court.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: see Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527, F. 3D. 358. 371, 3rd
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Circuit Court, 2008. The decision whether to allow a claimant
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: to proceed anonymously rests within the sound discretion of the court. 9. Indeed,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: in making such decisions, courts in this circuit have continually
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: applied a balancing test type approach using several factors outlined
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: by the 3rd Circuit, in the case of Doe v.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: Meglis and its progeny. See also DM v. City of Berks,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: 929 F. Superior Court, 2D390, F.D., PA, 2013. Also see
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: Doe v. Rutgers, 2019, U.S. District, Lexus, 75139, DNJ, 2019, Rutgers, 10.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: In this case, it's clear that when applying the nine
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Meglis factors, 6 that favor anonymity and 3 that disfavor anonymity.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: An overwhelming majority of them support claimant's use of a pseudonym,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: while the few that do not are either not applicable
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: to the case or do not do enough to tip
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the scales. See Megalith 654 F. 3D at 409. 11. Regarding
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the first factor in favor of anonymity, the facts of
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the case stand in sharp contrast to instances where courts
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: have found that anonymity would be futile because the move-in's
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: name was already widely known. See Rutgers at 5 and 6,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: citing Meglis at 4 and 10, move-in's name. Picture and
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: home address had been disclosed on a publicly circulated flyer. Here,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: the facts align more with Rutgers as claimant has gone
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: above and beyond to maintain her confidentiality, which has never
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: been made public, including by filing her lawsuit as a
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe and stipulating with the estate to do the same.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: See Meglis at 4 and 10, See also Rutgers at
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: 2019 U.S. District Lexus 75139 at 5, 12. Second, as
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: for the reasonableness of the harm that the litigant is
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: seeking to avoid, here similar to the facts of Rutgers'
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: claimant wishes to proceed anonymously in order to protect her
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: mental and physical health and right to fully and fairly
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: litigate this action. See Rutgers at 6 and 7. See
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: also Doe versus Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. Miscellaneous. 3d. 1220a,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: Superior Court, Westchester County, 2019. 13. Indeed, as opposed to
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: using a pseudonym merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: that may attend any litigation, claimant seeks to proceed anonymously
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: to preserve her privacy in this matter of a sensitive
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: and highly personal nature that will have a lifelong impact
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: on her and her family's lives. See Rutgers at 6
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: and 7. See also Doe vs. Zool Jewelry, Inc., 2008,
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: New York Miscellaneous, Lexus, 8733, Superior Court, New York City. 14. Third,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: unlike Meglis, where the district court recognized that there is
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: no allegation that falsely creates suspicious personal alert or a
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: widespread problem, here the facts are more similar to Burke's
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: in that disallowing anonymity. would likely deter those who have
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: been falsely accused of sexual abuse from vindicating their rights
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: due to the stigma that invariably attaches from having one's
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: name publicly attached to such a deplorable act. See Meglis
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: at 410. See also Berks at 929f. supp. 2d at 402. 15. Fourth,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: similar to Rutgers, there is a strong chance that this
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: claim will not be resolved on its merits if the
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: litigant is denied the opportunity to proceed using a pseudonym
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: as claimant will potentially sacrifice a potentially valid claim simply
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to preserve her anonymity. See Rutgers at 7 and 8.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: The court here should decide in conformity with the court
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: in Rutgers where they agreed with the move-in's argument that
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the public is harmed when alleged abuse goes unchallenged because
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: move-in's fear litigating publicly. 16. As for the final factor
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: weighing in favor of anonymity, claimant is not seeking to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: use a pseudonym for nefarious reasons. Nor has there been
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: any allegation that claimant has an illegal or ulterior motive
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: in her desire to hide her name. See Meglis at 411.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: See also Rutgers at 10. As opposed to simple public
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: humiliation and embarrassment, which have been determined not to be
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: sufficient grounds for allowing a claimant to proceed anonymously In
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: this case, there is no illegitimate ulterior motive because as
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: referenced above, identification of claimant's true identity poses a risk
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: of mental or physical harm. And the case involves information
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: of the utmost intimacy. See Meglis at 411. See also
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: Rutgers at 10. Doe 2008, New York miscellaneous, Lexus at 1617.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: Doe 6 miscellaneous, 3D at 879, sealed plaintiff 537F. 3D. At
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: 189 and 90, 1991 McKinney Session Laws of New York
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: at 2211 and 2212. The victim had to endure a
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: terrible invasion of their physical privacy. They have a right
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: to expect that this violation will not be compounded by
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: a further invasion of their privacy. Seventeen. Furthermore, when turning
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: to the other side of the scale and the factors
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: disfavoring anonymity, claimant still comes out ahead. Eighteen. While Klayman
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: acknowledges that there is a thumb on the scale that
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: is the universal interest in favor of open judicial proceedings,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: she is not asking the record to be sealed, rather
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: simply to proceed anonymously. 19. Next, the court must consider whether,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: because of the subject matter of this litigation, the status
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: of a litigant as a public figure or otherwise, there
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: is a particularly strong interest in knowing the litigant's identity.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: See Meglis at 411. See also Rutgers at 12. Here
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: the claimant is not a public figure. 20. This litigation
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: involves a member of a particularly vulnerable class or the
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: subject matter is highly personal. The public has an interest
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: in protecting the identity of the litigant. C. Rutgers at 12,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: citing to L.A. v. Hoffman, 2015, U.S. District Lexus 94564, D.N.J., 2015,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: granting move-ins motion to proceed anonymously and observing that although
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the identities of the move-ins will not be included in
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the filings in this matter, the public will maintain access
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: to the docket and filings in this case. 21. Finally,
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: the last factor weighing against disclosure is not applicable as
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: there is no party opposing the use of a pseudonym. 22.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: Applying factors for the case law to be specific facts
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: of claimant's case makes clear that she should be permitted
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: to proceed under a pseudonym. She is a victim of
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, a matter of a highly sensitive and personal nature.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: She is not seeking to avoid mere embarrassment, but rather
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: to protect her physical and mental well-being. It is well
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: known that victims of sexual crimes are often not believed
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: and their reputations are put into question. Thus, identification of
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: her poses a serious threat of retaliatory harm to her
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: and the estate will not be prejudiced because her identity
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: will be known to it and their counsel, and thus
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: they will be able to properly investigate her claim. As such,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: the court here should find that the totality of the
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: factors and circumstances favor anonymity. Wherefore, claimant prays that the
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: court grant a her motion seeking the right to proceeding
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: in this action under pseudonym in its entirety and all
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: This was signed by Melody D. Westfall and it was
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: signed on January 31st of 2020. All right, folks, that's
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: going to do it for this one. All of the
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: the description box.