Doe v. Indyke
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-00484
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Doe v. Indyke, Judge Koeltl conditionally granted Jane Doe’s dismissal motion, requiring fee terms and a protected release before dismissal with prejudice.
The order directly affected Jane Doe, Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, the Epstein Estate, and Ghislaine Maxwell by setting the conditions for dismissing Doe’s case with prejudice. It also protected Doe’s anonymity while requiring disclosure of her unredacted release to Maxwell under limits set by the court.
What happened
In Doe v. Indyke, Jane Doe sued Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, and Ghislaine Maxwell over several alleged torts. After accepting compensation through the Epstein Victim’s Compensation Program, Doe asked to dismiss the case with prejudice, as required by the program’s agreement.
Maxwell did not sign the proposed dismissal and objected to its terms. She asked to preserve her ability to seek costs and fees from Doe and the Epstein Estate, and she asked for an unredacted copy of Doe’s release showing Doe’s identity and compensation amount.
Judge Koeltl granted the dismissal motion subject to conditions. The plaintiff and the Epstein Estate must each bear their own fees and costs, while Maxwell may seek fees and costs from either. Doe must provide Maxwell an authenticated, unredacted, signed release that cannot be disclosed without court approval. Each party had to accept the conditions by March 19, 2021; otherwise, the motion would be denied and the case stayed.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Indyke · No. 1:20-cv-00484
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
Jane Doe brought the action under a pseudonym against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as appointed executors of the estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and against Ghislaine Maxwell. She sought declaratory relief and damages for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment.
Doe filed the complaint on January 17,
- The case was later stayed while Maxwell’s criminal prosecution was pending. The Epstein Estate created the Epstein Victim’s Compensation Program, and the program began accepting claims on June 25,
- Doe accepted an offer of compensation on November 29,
- The offer required her to dismiss her claims against the defendants with prejudice.
Dismissal request and objections
Because Maxwell did not sign the proposed stipulation of dismissal, Doe moved under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by court order on terms the court considers proper when the dismissal cannot proceed by the other methods listed in Rule 41(a)(1).
Maxwell objected to the proposed terms in two respects. First, she asked the court to remove the provision stating that each party would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. She also asked for language preserving her ability to seek fees and costs from Doe and the Epstein Estate, and to bring a later action against Doe for damages based on abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
Second, Maxwell asked for an unredacted copy of Doe’s signed release under the compensation program. The unredacted release allegedly identified Doe and stated the amount of compensation. The court recognized Doe’s interest in maintaining anonymity but also found that Maxwell had an interest in knowing Doe’s identity so she could use the release and dismissal as a defense in any later lawsuit. The court also stated that the release could be relevant if Doe testified in Maxwell’s criminal trial.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, subject to specified conditions. It changed the fee provision so that Doe and the Epstein Estate would each bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. The court also provided that nothing in the dismissal would prevent Maxwell from seeking fees or costs related to the case from the Epstein Estate or Doe.
The court required Doe to provide Maxwell, by March 23, 2021, with an authenticated, unredacted, signed copy of the general release Doe executed with the program. The release remained subject to the court’s order protecting Doe’s anonymity and could not be disclosed except under an order of the court.
Each party had to indicate acceptance of the stipulation and the added conditions by March 19, 2021. If any party failed to agree by that date, the motion to dismiss would be denied and the case would remain stayed. If all parties agreed, the case would be dismissed with prejudice under the stipulation as modified by the court. The opinion addressed the dismissal terms and did not decide the underlying tort claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.