Overview
In American civil litigation, victims of sexual abuse may petition courts to proceed under pseudonymscommonly “Jane Doe” or numbered variants (Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, etc.)to protect their privacy. Dozens of Epstein victims filed suit under such designations, allowing them to pursue legal remedies without being publicly identified.
Scale of Doe Litigation
Civil litigation against Epstein, his estate, and various associates and institutions involved more than 150 identified victims by the time the estate’s Voluntary Compensation Program closed in 2021. Many of these plaintiffs filed under Doe designations. Key proceedings included:
Against Epstein’s Estate (2019-2021) The Epstein estate faced more than 30-40 civil Doe lawsuits filed directly against Epstein’s estate after his death. Most were channeled into the estate’s Voluntary Compensation Program administered by Kenneth Feinberg.
Against JPMorgan Chase (2023) Two major Doe lawsuits were filed against JPMorgan Chase for facilitating Epstein’s trafficking through its banking relationship. One was filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands government; the other by a class represented by named and Doe plaintiffs. JPMorgan settled for million (USVI) and million (victim class).
Against Deutsche Bank (2023) A class action including Doe plaintiffs settled for million.
Against Ghislaine Maxwell Several Doe plaintiffs filed claims against Maxwell relating to her direct role. These were either settled or subsumed into the Maxwell criminal proceedings.
Why Pseudonyms Matter
The courts generally allow Doe designations in cases involving sexual abuse where:
- Victims face substantial risk of re-traumatization from public identification
- Details of the abuse are sensitive
- The power imbalance between victim and defendant remains
The Unsealing Question
Parallel to the civil cases, the District Court in the Southern District of Florida unsealed thousands of pages of deposition transcripts and exhibits beginning in 2024. Many Doe victims whose names appeared in those documents faced renewed anxiety about potential unmasking despite civil pseudonym protections.