What case or committee did Katie Johnson testify before and when was the hearing?

1. What the court record shows: a 2016 civil suit filed and then dropped

Court dockets and news summaries identify a federal civil complaint brought by a plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” (also reported as “Jane Doe”) that named Jeffrey E. Epstein and Donald J. Trump and was assigned in the Central District of California as case 5:16‑cv‑00797 (Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump) ^[3]. Public reporting and recaps note the suit was first filed in mid‑2016, refiled in October 2016, and was dropped or dismissed in November 2016 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Did she testify before a committee or in a hearing? Sources are silent

A close read of the items provided finds documentation of the federal lawsuit and reporting about a planned news conference, but none of the supplied sources show Katie Johnson appearing before a congressional committee or testifying at a formal legislative hearing. The assembled sources explicitly describe filing and dismissal activity and references to a missed news conference, but they do not report any committee testimony ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Therefore: available sources do not mention Katie Johnson testifying before any committee.

3. The planned November 2016 news conference and why it did not happen

Newsweek’s recap says Trump’s accuser had been expected to appear at a news conference in early November 2016 but that Lis Bloom, the attorney representing another accuser, said the plaintiff had received threats and was too afraid to show up; a notice to dismiss the case was filed thereafter ^[2]. PBS and other recaps convey the same timeline of filings and dismissal in late 2016 ^[1]. This reporting explains why there was public attention in early November 2016, but it describes a press event, not a legislative hearing ^{[2] [1]}.

4. How outlets and docket records frame identity and pseudonyms

Multiple sources emphasize that the plaintiff used a pseudonym — “Katie Johnson” and sometimes “Jane Doe” — in court filings, and that the case contains allegations that the plaintiff was raped at Epstein’s Manhattan residence when she was a minor ^{[1] [4]}. Archive copies of related complaint text appear in public repositories and court‑docket aggregators, which corroborate that “Katie Johnson” was a name used in litigation documents ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Competing interpretations and why the distinction between court filings and committee testimony matters

Some public discussion and social media posts have conflated the existence of the civil suit with broader claims that the plaintiff testified publicly to lawmakers. The sources here draw a clear line: the record shows a federal civil filing and a planned press appearance that did not occur, but there is no evidence in these materials that Katie Johnson testified before a congressional committee or in a public hearing ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Observers should note the difference between litigation filings (private court proceedings and docket activity) and formal legislative testimony (which generates committee transcripts, press releases, or archived video from the relevant committee) — none of which is present in the provided reporting ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Limitations and next steps for verification

This analysis relies only on the provided search results. If you seek definitive proof of any committee appearance, consult official congressional hearing archives, committee calendars, or transcripts (for example, Congress.gov or the specific committee’s hearing pages) because those repositories would record formal testimony; the supplied results do not contain such records ^{[6] [5]}. For deeper court‑level detail, consult the full Central District of California docket and individual filings linked on CourtListener or the archived docket to review dates and document text directly ^{[3] [7]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

The sources confirm a 2016 civil lawsuit by a plaintiff using the name “Katie Johnson” that was filed and later dismissed and that a planned November 2016 press appearance was called off amid reported threats, but they do not show any testimony by that person before a congressional committee or hearing ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Available sources do not mention Katie Johnson testifying before a committee.