The Court has considered Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) empowers the Court “on its own” to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

... Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene “for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them.” (DE 282 at 1). As the Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Dershowitz’s intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot ...

... The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details shall be stricken.The original Rule 21 Motion (DE 279) shall be stricken in its entirety...

As to the denial of Jane Doe #3 and 4's requests to be added as parties:

Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr. Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all “other similarly-situated victims”, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they should be fellow travelers in this pursuit...

The Court finds that justice does not require adding new parties this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly “duplicative” of the claims already presented by Petitioners.

Jane Does #3 and #4 can be fact witnesses. But Notice the words the court underlined in its order, not once, but four times:

The Does’ submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to proceed as parties in this action, rather than as fact witnesses available to offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony.

... Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate
the rights of similarly situated victims — there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof submitted in this case come only from the named parties....The necessary “participation” of Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported —and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative —testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests.

...the merits of this case will be decided based on a determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all “other similarly situated victims” under the CVRA. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 may offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard.

..The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and noncumulative.

Jane Doe #3's lawyer tries to put a favorable spin on the order, saying the Judge left the door open for her to bring up the allegations again.

Brad Edwards, an attorney for the Jane Does, said the women could still participate in the case later and that the sex abuse allegations may surface again as evidence....."We look forward to those later stages," Edwards said.

I think he's dreaming. When a judge strikes your factual allegations as "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” on his own accord, and writes four times saying future submissions must be relevant, admissible and non-cumulative, underlining those words each time, he's telling you they aren't coming in.

I think these lawyers are lucky the Judge didn't impose sanctions on them beyond striking their pleadings. If they are (in my view) foolish enough to try again, they should at least file them under seal and refrain from tipping off the media until the Judge has decided whether they are relevant and admissible. I doubt the Judge will be as forgiving the second time around.

I also think any publisher considering publishing Roberts' memoirs ought to think long and hard about the cost of defending the libel lawsuits that will surely be filed in response -- as well as the potential for multi-million dollar judgments.

Now that the Court has ordered the allegations against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew and all third persons other than Epstein stricken from the record, they may not be recounted here in comments. Comments containing details of stricken allegations will be deleted.