A victim of Jeffrey Epstein is asking a federal judge to remove former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley from her lawsuit against the bank, arguing its “true reason” for dragging Staley into the litigation was to “harass and intimidate” her and other survivors.
Last November, Jane Doe sued JPMorgan, alleging the financial giant facilitated Epstein’s trafficking enterprise while keeping him as a client for nearly 15 years. In her complaint, Doe said a “powerful financial executive” who was friends with Epstein had sexually assaulted her but she declined to name him “out of fear.”
But last month, JPMorgan filed a third-party complaint against Staley, saying he should be liable if Doe wins her lawsuit against the bank—and outed him as her alleged attacker. (For his part, Staley denies being a participant in Epstein’s sex ring.)
ADVERTISEMENT
Now both 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 on Thursday, Doe’s attorney Brad Edwards states Doe believes JPMorgan brought Staley into the legal battle to intimidate her and other victims of Epstein who are members of the potential class-action suit.
“The effect of adding him to the suit is to force her to share private medical records and her most intimate communications with one of her abusers,” Edwards wrote. “It also sends a message to other victims that JPM will exploit all vulnerabilities of each victim who dares come forward to hold the bank accountable.”
“Accordingly, Jane Doe 1 seeks severance of her sexual abuser from her lawsuit so that JPM cannot force Staley back into her life.”
Edwards’ letter appears to be the first time Doe acknowledges that Staley is the “financial executive” she accused of abuse. “In response to the insistence of JPM,” Edwards wrote, “she revealed that this executive was Jes Staley.”
The filing also suggests a second woman could have information on Staley.
JPMorgan is aware of another anonymous victim in the case, the letter states, “and has already insisted on being provided her name, again so they can share it with Staley and carry forward this victim intimidation mission.”
“This strategy of litigation-by-intimidation should not be permitted,” Edwards wrote.
According to the court filing, JPMorgan “has sought invasive discovery into Jane Doe” including a “review of every email account, text message, and other communication device that Jane Doe has ever owned.” The bank deposed Doe for a full day and is seeking an additional day where she—and a family member—would be questioned by Staley, the letter states.
Edwards’ letter calls such questioning “another maneuver designed primarily to intimidate Jane Doe 1 rather than shed light on important facts in this case.”
“Not only is this intimidating to Jane Doe 1 but it sends a message to potential class members (dozens and dozens of Epstein sex abuse victims) that the same thing will happen to them if they elect to join the class,” Edwards continued.
Reached by The Daily Beast, Edwards said, “To us there appeared to be no valid reason to bring Staley into the case, and it’s pretty telling that they’re more interested in Staley being a part of this action than they are with the main event.”
“It really is letting the tail wag the dog,” he added.
Edwards said the case’s “well-oiled deposition schedule” has now been “thrown into chaos” by JPMorgan’s maneuver to make Staley a third-party defendant.
In a letter filed on Thursday, Staley’s lawyer 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 liable for the entirety of any judgment entered in not one but two cases. It also seeks to disgorge several years of compensation.
“All that is to say: the stakes could hardly be higher for Mr. Staley,” Sullivan added. “Disproving these false and highly-publicized allegations is of paramount importance to him.”
JPMorgan's suit against Staley argues the banking honcho—who in 2021 stepped down as Barclays’ CEO because of his ties to Epstein—“breached his fiduciary duty by engaging in inappropriate conduct in his personal dealings with Epstein outside the scope of his employment that was harmful to JPMC’s reputation and that posed a conflict of interest.” The bank is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, and to recoup Staley’s JPMorgan compensation.
As part of the U.S. Virgin Islands’ case against JPMorgan, Staley’s creepy and cryptic emails with Epstein were referenced in court records. In one exchange, Epstein and Staley use the names of Disney Princesses when referring to women in the trafficker’s orbit.
Staley has also asked the judge in the U.S. territory's lawsuit to remove 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 requested the court allow Staley “to take 7-hour, in-person depositions of all witnesses,” vacate the case’s discovery deadlines, and set a new trial date for March 2024, rather than the scheduled date of October 2023.
“The discovery in this case—which JPMorgan did not begin sending until March 21—has been voluminous,” Sullivan wrote. “Mr. Staley has, to date, received well over 45,000 documents, spanning 240,000 pages. We estimate that it would take over 900 hours of attorney time to review that volume (assuming a 50 document per hour pace). It appears that JPMorgan and the other parties are continuing to make rolling productions, meaning that the volume of documents will only continue to grow.”
Sullivan argued Staley “is severely prejudiced” by the court’s discovery schedule and is left with “grossly insufficient time to mount a defense.”
“The plaintiffs support severance,” he added. “And JPMorgan should not be heard to complain given that it has the most to gain from the prejudice to Mr. Staley.”
