{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "208-1",
    "date": "04/16/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-1 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 11 Page 4 of 10\n\nIn their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 do not claim that they were omitted from this proceeding due to any \"inadvertence\" or \"mistake\" by Petitioners; rather, they seek to join this proceeding as parties that could have been permissively joined in the original petition under Rule 20 (\"Permissive Joinder of Parties\"). As courts generally use the standards of Rule 15 to evaluate such circumstances, the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the Rule 15 Motion.1 The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule 21 Motion as if they are set forth in the Rule 15 Motion as well. Because the arguments are presented in the Rule 15 Motion (and because the Court is denying the Rule 15 Motion on its merits, as discussed below), the Rule 21 Motion will be denied.\n\nThe Court also concludes that portions of the Rule 21 Motion and related filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to \"strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them.\" (DE 282 at 1). 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).\n\nPetitioners' Rule 21 Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit them to join in this action: they argue that (1) they were sexually abused by\n\n1 The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).\n4\nGIUFFRE002847\nDOJ-OGR-00003729",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-1 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 11 Page 4 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 do not claim that they were omitted from this proceeding due to any \"inadvertence\" or \"mistake\" by Petitioners; rather, they seek to join this proceeding as parties that could have been permissively joined in the original petition under Rule 20 (\"Permissive Joinder of Parties\"). As courts generally use the standards of Rule 15 to evaluate such circumstances, the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the Rule 15 Motion.1 The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule 21 Motion as if they are set forth in the Rule 15 Motion as well. Because the arguments are presented in the Rule 15 Motion (and because the Court is denying the Rule 15 Motion on its merits, as discussed below), the Rule 21 Motion will be denied.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court also concludes that portions of the Rule 21 Motion and related filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to \"strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them.\" (DE 282 at 1). 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).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Petitioners' Rule 21 Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit them to join in this action: they argue that (1) they were sexually abused by",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "GIUFFRE002847",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003729",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane Doe 3",
      "Jane Doe 4",
      "Alan M. Dershowitz"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "N.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/2021",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 208-1",
      "DE 282",
      "08-cv-478"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}