291.pdf

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80736-KA M JANE DOE #1 a nd JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. _______________________________/ PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe 2, as well as movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 (“the victims” 1 1 As promised in their motion to join (DE 280), Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed to join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 – including this opposition. ), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz’s motio n for limited intervention (DE 282). Dershowitz moves to intervene to strike a proffer made by Jane Doe No. 3 of facts that support her pending motion to join this action. The Court should deny the motion. Dershowitz has not established any direct interest in this Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) action that would entitle him to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Nor has he me t Rule 24(b)’s standards for discretionary intervention for four reasons: First, Dershow itz has a nother for um i n w hic h to litigate a nd defe nd his reputa tional interests – a pending de fa ma tion actio n regarding this very case; second, Dershow itz (and other persons Jane Doe No. 3 specifically alleged abused her) have not availed themselves of other opportunities to defend their reputatio nal interests; third, Dershowitz lacks any basis to strike allegations that are directly relevant to pending issues in this case; a nd fo urth a nd fi nally, Ja ne Doe No. 3 attests i n a Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 40 2 sworn affidavit (attached as Exhibit 1) that all her allegations are true – an affidavit consistent with compelling corroborating evidence. BACKG ROUND AND COURSE O F PROCEEDINGS Because this case has been proceeding for more than six-and-a-half years, it is useful to summarize so me of the eve nts perti ne nt to Ders how itz’s i nterventio n motio n a nd Jane Doe No. 3’s related and pending motion for joinder. As the Court is aware, on July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. 1 filed an emergency petition to enforce her rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide her rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Jeffrey Epstein. The Cour t rapidly held a hearing. During tha t hearing, v i c ti m’s counsel (having previously made a proffer of the relevant circumstances to Government counsel) orally moved to have Jane Doe No. 2 added into the case as another “victim” under the CVRA. Government counsel had no objection to adding her to the case, apparently believing that, in light of the sexual abuse perpetrated against her, she met the “victim” definition in the statute. DE 15 (Tr. July 11, 2008) at 14. The Co ur t the n i nstr ucted the parties to a tte mpt to reach a stip ulated set o f fac ts. Over the next several years, the Government took conflicting positions o n w he ther it w ould s tipulate to facts provided by Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Do. 2, ul ti matel y refusing to s tipulate to a ny facts. See generally DE 225-1 at 2-4. Unable to ob tain stip ulations b y the Government, in 2011 the victims filed a summary judgment motion alleging 53 proposed undisputed facts (DE 48), along w ith a mo tion to have the Court accept those facts because of the Government’s failure to contest them (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court allowed the case to move forward. DE 99. The Court, however, declined to accept victims’ argument that it should simply accept their facts Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 40 3 because of the Government’s failure to contest their facts, directing instead that discovery should proceed. Id. at 11. In light of the Court’s direction, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery followed (see generally DE 225-1 at 4-5), 2 ultimately leading to a further Co urt r uling in J une 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government the n produced about 1,500 pages of irrelevant materials to the victi ms (DE 225-1 at 5), while simultaneo usl y submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane No. 2 objected to those claims of privilege, see generally DE 225 and DE 265, and also to the Government’s failure to specify in its privilege log the na mes of all the persons involved in the materials (DE 265 at 1-2). These issues remain pe ndi ng today. 3 In the summer of 2014, undersigned counsel for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add a n additional victim to this case: a young woman Jeffre y Epstein se xual abused w he n she w as under age. On August 20, 2014, counsel sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Wilfredo Ferrer requesting the Government’s co nsent to a stipulated motio n to s i mp ly add her into the case (as had been done earlier with Jane Doe No. 2). Counsel attac hed a draft proposed motion that would have blandly recounted that she was similarly situated to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. See Exhibit 2. The proposed motion 2 Jeffrey Epstein also attempted to block discovery of materials in this case, leading to an Eleventh Circuit ruling that the victims’ discovery efforts were proper. Doe v. Epstein, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). 3 Remarkably, even though the Court directed the Government to begin producing discovery in June 2013, the Government has yet to finish that production some 19 months later. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 291 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 40 4 did not i nclude a ny o f the facts s urrounding her ab use, relying i nstead o n a stip ulation to secure the Co urt’s anticipated approval. Three months later, having received no response from the Government, v i c ti ms ’ counsel sent an additional letter to Mr. Ferrer, requesting agreement to add an additional victim to the case – a young woman identified in current pleadings as Jane Doe No. 3 4 Dear Mr. Ferrer: : I se nt yo u a letter in A ugust req uesti ng yo ur o ffice’s stipulatio n to o ur adding Jane Doe #[4] in this case. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from your office. We are hopeful that your lack of a response was simple oversight. In addition to following up on the August letter, we are now requesting yo ur Stip ulation to the adding o f Jane Doe #[3] as well. Her true name is [redacted].... As we expressed in our personal meetings a couple years ago, we don’t understand the ta