What documents and evidence were filed in the Katie Johnson / Jane Doe lawsuits against Trump and Epstein?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Two related civil actions alleging that Jeffrey Epstein and Donald J. Trump sexually abused a minor were filed in 2016 under the names “Katie Johnson” and later “Jane Doe,” producing multiple complaint filings that include detailed allegations, witness declarations and administrative filings; those suits were subsequently dismissed or withdrawn, and some documents from those filings have circulated separately from other Epstein materials [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The initial complaints: graphic allegations and locations
The core documents filed by the anonymous plaintiff are civil complaints—one initially filed in California under the name Katie Johnson and later refiled in New York under the pseudonym Jane Doe—that allege the plaintiff was recruited as a minor in 1994, forced to disrobe and give massages, and raped by Epstein and, in some versions, by Trump at Epstein-hosted parties in New York and Florida; those allegations and narrative detail appear in the text of the complaints preserved in public archival copies [1] [2] [5].
2. Witness statements and named corroborators in the filings
The lawsuits included purported corroborating statements in the filings: the archived complaint text references a “Tiffany Doe,” described as a former Epstein employee who allegedly agreed to provide sworn testimony verifying the plaintiff’s account and to disclose what she said she witnessed at Epstein’s parties [2]; the presence of such named corroborators is part of what circulated when the complaint pages were reproduced online [2].
3. Court docket and procedural filings: IFP requests, re‑filings, and dismissals
The public court dockets show routine procedural filings tied to these suits: the California matter included an in forma pauperis request and mail-return notices for the Katie Johnson listing, and the subsequent New York case record contains a formal Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by “Jane Doe,” showing the plaintiff dismissed the federal case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(A)(i) [6] [3] [1].
4. Which documents circulated versus what’s absent or unrelated
Portions of the complaint text—approximately the pages containing the allegations—have been posted and archived online and have reappeared at times when other Epstein materials were released, but major media and fact‑checks emphasize that those complaint pages are from dismissed or withdrawn suits and are not the same as grand jury transcripts from the 2006 or later federal investigations into Epstein; Newsweek and Snopes both note that the Johnson/Jane Doe court papers are separate from the 2006 grand jury materials and that the litigation was dismissed or withdrawn months after filing [7] [8] [4].
5. Questions, limitations and competing perspectives from reporters and journalists
Reporters and public records researchers have flagged problems and limitations with the filings: Vox, Snopes and Julie K. Brown’s commentary cited by fact‑checkers note that journalists and investigators encountered inconsistencies, a false address on an early filing and an unwillingness of the anonymous claimant and her initial lawyer to be publicly confirmed, raising questions about veracity and verifiability even as the filings themselves exist in the public record [8] [4]; others—local reporters and later aggregations—have continued to reference the archived complaint material as part of the broader Epstein archive discussion [9] [5].
6. What the filings do and do not prove under law and public scrutiny
Legally, a civil complaint is an allegation and the Katie Johnson / Jane Doe pleadings function as such: they contain sworn‑style narrative assertions and identify potential witnesses, but the subsequent voluntary dismissal and the lack of a public adjudication mean the filings did not produce a court judgment finding liability, and several news analyses stress that inclusion of those pages among released “Epstein files” does not equate to proven criminal conduct or integration with the federal grand‑jury materials [3] [7] [4].