| As Epstein Victim Jane Doe
3 Sues Indyke Sealing of Some
Filed Denied But Up to Parties
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Nov 4 – Jane Doe 3 sued
Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer
Darren Indyke and accountant
Richard Kahn for their role in
Epstein's rape, sexual assault
and sex
trafficking.
On
November 6, U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Arun Subramanian held a public
proceeding, and Inner City
Press live tweeted it. From
the thread:
Judge
Subramanian: OK, we'll address
the request to depose Doe's
husband
Plaintiff's
lawyer: Ms. Doe does not want
her husband to know about
this. So we are willing at
trial to drop claims having to
do with harm to the marriage.
Jane Doe had not told
anyone...
Judge:
Defendants, what do you want
to ask?
Defense counsel:
He dated her before the
Epstein time, before her
return to [voluntarily
redacted here - see Substack
below the line here].
They got married in 2017,
these alleged incidents took
place in 2014.
Defense lawyer:
We got copies of her texts to
her now-husband, he had moved
to
[voluntarily
redacted here
- see Substack
below the line
here].
Jane Doe 3 appeared to be
having a fine time with
Epstein, Broadway shows and
the like.
Substack here
On December 20,
more bristling at
transparency, thread
On November 4,
2025 after Inner City Press'
ebook about US v. Ghislaine
Maxwell was blocked, Judge
Subramanian ordered some of
this Doe 3 case unsealed - but
not right away, the parties
will have to agree to docket.
From the docket: "Defendants'
motion for further redactions
in plaintiffs' letter motion
is GRANTED IN PART.
Defendants' motion to seal in
their entirety exhibits to the
parties' motion containing
email correspondence, Dkts.
364-1, 364-2, 364-4, 364-5,
364-6, and 369-1 is DENIED.
Defendants' motion to seal in
its entirety an exhibit to
plaintiffs' motion containing
an invoice, Dkt. 364-3, is
DENIED. Defendants' motion to
seal in its entirety an
exhibit to plaintiffs' motion
containing defendants'
privilege log, Dkt. 364-7, is
DENIED. The parties shall meet
and confer regarding
redactions in line with this
order. The Court hopes the
parties can agree on
redactions, which they can
then file on the public
docket. All documents
currently under seal shall
remain under seal. (Signed by
Judge Arun Subramanian on
11/3/2025)."
This case is Doe
3 v. Indyke, et al.,
1:24-cv-1204
(Subramanian)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
