A victim of Jeffrey Epstein is asking a federal judge to remove former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley from his lawsuit against the bank, arguing his ‘real reason’ for dragging Staley into the litigation was to ‘harass and harass’ her. ‘bullied’ along with other survivors.
Last November, Jane Doe sued JPMorgan, alleging the financial giant facilitated Epstein’s smuggling business while keeping him as a client for nearly 15 years. In her complaint, Doe said a “powerful chief financial officer” who was friends with Epstein sexually assaulted her, but she declined to name him “out of fear.”
But last month JPMorgan filed a third-party lawsuit against Staley, saying he should be held accountable if Doe wins his lawsuit against the bank – unmasked him as his alleged attacker. (For his part, Staley denies participating in Epstein’s sex ring.)
Now, Doe and Staley have filed letters in Manhattan federal court asking a judge to try JPMorgan’s third-party claims against him separately from Doe’s lawsuit.
In a letter filed Thursday, Doe’s attorney, Brad Edwards, says Doe believes JPMorgan brought Staley into the legal battle to intimidate him and other Epstein victims who are members of the potential class action lawsuit.
“The effect of adding her to the lawsuit is to force her to share private medical records and her most intimate communications with one of her attackers,” Edwards wrote. “It also sends a message to other victims that JPM will exploit any vulnerabilities in every victim who dares to come forward to hold the bank accountable.”
“As a result, Jane Doe 1 is asking for her sexual abuser to be severed from her trial so that JPM cannot force Staley back into her life.”
Edwards’ letter appears to be the first time Doe has acknowledged that Staley is the “financial executive” she has accused of abuse. “At JPM’s insistence,” Edwards wrote, “she revealed that executive was Jes Staley.”
The filing also suggests a second woman may have information about Staley.
JPMorgan is aware of another anonymous victim in the case, the letter states, “and has already insisted on being provided with his name, again so that they can share it with Staley and continue this mission of ‘intimidation of victims’.
“This bullying litigation strategy should not be allowed,” Edwards wrote.
According to the court filing, JPMorgan “sought an invasive discovery of Jane Doe,” including an “examination of every email account, text message, and other communication device Jane Doe ever owned.” The bank dropped off Doe for an entire day and is seeking an additional day when she — and a family member — would be interviewed by Staley, the letter says.
Edwards’ letter calls such questioning “another maneuver designed primarily to intimidate Jane Doe 1 rather than to shed light on material facts in this case.”
“Not only is this intimidating for Jane Doe 1, but it sends a message to potential members of the class (dozens and dozens of Epstein’s sexual abuse victims) that the same will happen to them if they choose to join. class,” Edwards continued.
Reached by The Daily Beast, Edwards said: “To us, there didn’t seem to be any good reason to involve Staley in the case, and it’s quite telling that they’re more interested in Staley being a part of it. this action only by the principal. event.”
“It’s really letting the tail wag the dog,” he added.
Edwards said the case’s “well-oiled deposition schedule” had now been “thrown into chaos” by JPMorgan’s move to make Staley a third-party defendant.
In a letter filed Thursday, Staley’s attorney, Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., noted that the disgraced executive only became a party to the lawsuits less than a month ago.
“The allegations against him are baseless but serious: Mr. Staley is accused of aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein, one of the most notorious criminals in recent American history,” Sullivan wrote, adding that JPMorgan ” seeks to hold Mr. Staley accountable for the entirety of any judgments rendered in not one but two cases, and seeks to return several years of compensation.
“All that to say: The stakes could hardly be higher for Mr. Staley,” Sullivan added. “Refuting these high-profile and false allegations is of paramount importance to him.”
JPMorgan’s lawsuit against Staley argues the bank’s big boss – who in 2021 resigned as CEO of Barclays over his ties to Epstein – ‘breached his fiduciary duty by engaging in improper conduct in his dealings personal dealings with Epstein outside the scope of his employment which was detrimental to JPMC’s reputation and posed a conflict of interest.The bank is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees and to recover JPMorgan compensation from Staley.
As part of the US Virgin Islands case against JPMorgan, Staley’s chilling and cryptic emails with Epstein have been referenced in court records. In an exchange, Epstein and Staley use the names of Disney princesses to refer to women in the trafficker’s orbit.
Staley also asked the U.S. territory trial judge to drop JPMorgan’s third-party claims against him from the case.
Sullivan asked the court to sever the third-party claims against Staley and have a separate trial from Doe’s case against JPMorgan. He also asked the court to allow Staley “to take 7 a.m. in-person depositions from all witnesses,” waive case discovery deadlines, and set a new trial date for March 2024, instead. than the planned date of October 2023.
“The discovery in this case – which JPMorgan only started sending on March 21 – was voluminous,” Sullivan wrote. “Mr. Staley has, to date, received over 45,000 documents, covering 240,000 pages. We estimate that it would take over 900 hours of attorney time to review this volume (assuming a rate of 50 documents per It looks like JPMorgan and the other parties are continuing to do rolling productions, which means the volume of documents will only grow.
Sullivan argued that Staley is “seriously harmed” by the court’s discovery schedule and left with “grossly insufficient time to mount a defense.”
“The plaintiffs support the separation,” he added. “And JPMorgan should not be heard to complain given that it has the most to gain from the harm done to Mr Staley.”