The Order Denying The Joinder Motion Of Jane Doe #3 And Jane Doe #4 (9/1/26)

Judge Kenneth Marra denied the effort by Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 to formally join Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case against the federal government, concluding that adding two more petitioners was unnecessary at that stage of the litigation. The court treated the Rule 21 request under the standards governing amendments under Rule 15 and found that the new women were essentially seeking to advance the same claim already being litigated: that federal prosecutors violated the rights of Epstein’s victims by secretly negotiating the non-prosecution agreement and concealing it from them. Because the original petition already asserted violations not only against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 but against other similarly situated Epstein victims, Marra concluded that Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 did not need to become formal parties in order for their experiences to matter. They could still testify, submit affidavits and provide relevant evidence supporting the broader claim that prosecutors had violated victims’ rights. The court also noted that adding Jane Doe #4 could introduce an additional standing dispute because the government maintained that she had not been identified as a victim when the NPA was negotiated.The order also took the extraordinary step of striking large portions of Jane Doe #3’s allegations from the court record. Her filings had described Epstein allegedly trafficking her to prominent politicians, businessmen and other powerful figures and contained allegations involving several non-parties. Marra ruled that those details were immaterial to the immediate legal question of whether the government had violated the CVRA and removed substantial portions of the filings, while making clear that Jane Doe #3 could attempt to introduce the allegations later through proper evidence if their relevance could be established. That decision also effectively mooted Alan Dershowitz’s attempt to intervene for the purpose of striking allegations concerning him. Ultimately, Marra denied both the Rule 21 joinder motion and the Rule 15 motion to amend, reasoning that the existing case was already broad enough to address the rights of similarly situated Epstein victims and that formally adding two more plaintiffs with largely duplicative claims would not materially advance the litigation.to contact me:[email protected]