Lawyers for Deutsche Bank have previously argued the lawsuit against it should be dismissed because the plaintiff previously signed a settlement agreement that protected entities tied to Epstein from being sued thereafter. Staley’s attorney Brendan Sullivan said his client needed to learn the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity in order to test the veracity of her potential testimony in JPMorgan’s action against him. JPMorgan also said Deutsche Bank had already been given the identity of both Jane Does. The US bank also said it believed she was a “percipient witness” to its own Jane Doe’s experiences. In its letter last Friday, JPMorgan pledged that it would not release the Deutsche Bank plaintiff’s identity but said she had relevant information about Staley. Separately on Monday, the judge granted a request by Deutsche Bank for communications between the Jane Doe suing it and the one suing JPMorgan, giving their lawyer one week to comply. US District Judge Jed Rakoff, who is presiding over both cases, hasn’t ruled on the issue.

“Jane Doe 2 has clear privacy interests in not disclosing to them her name as an Epstein sex abuse victim,” Edwards wrote.

Bradley Edwards said she had only limited information relevant to JPMorgan and Staley that did not outweigh her privacy interests. In a Monday court filing, a lawyer representing both victims opposed revealing the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity. Staley also asked for the identity of the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe, saying he needed it to avoid being subject to “ambush” by JPMorgan, which is suing him to cover its potential liability for having Epstein as a client between 19. The US bank said Friday in a letter filed in Manhattan federal court that it needed to know the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity because she may have knowledge of the inner workings of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and his relationships with associates like former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley.

The dry jane