Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has Katie Johnson given a sworn affidavit and when was it filed?
Executive Summary
Katie Johnson (also referred to as Jane Doe in filings) is the named plaintiff in a 2016 civil complaint against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein filed in the Central District of California; the complaint was filed April 26, 2016, but public summaries do not consistently show a standalone sworn affidavit by Johnson attached to that docket entry. Public reporting and document copies indicate an affidavit and sworn declarations attributed to Johnson and witness Tiffany Doe exist in related filings dated later in 2016, including a document indexed as filed October 3, 2016, which lists a sworn affidavit and supporting declarations; court summaries and docket extracts, however, either omit or do not uniformly describe that affidavit, and the case was administratively terminated in early May 2016 [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the affidavit question matters and what the court record plainly shows
The core claim is procedural and evidentiary: did Katie Johnson give a sworn affidavit, and when was it filed? Federal public dockets record a complaint filed April 26, 2016, in the Central District of California (Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS) naming Katie Johnson as plaintiff; that filing contains the allegations but public docket summaries do not uniformly list an attached sworn affidavit from Johnson at that date. Court summary services note the complaint filing and the case’s rapid administrative termination in May 2016, and they list Johnson as the plaintiff with contact information; these summaries do not conclusively show a contemporaneous sworn affidavit attached to the April 26 complaint [1] [2]. The absence of a clear affidavit entry on the public docket does not prove none exists; it indicates the publicly accessible summaries are incomplete for establishing the affidavit timeline.
2. Evidence that a sworn affidavit was later filed and the October 3, 2016 document
Multiple document snapshots and a specific case document image indicate a sworn affidavit by Katie Johnson (Jane Doe) and declarations by Tiffany Doe and Joan Doe were filed as part of related litigation, with a filing date shown as October 3, 2016 in at least one docketed document copy. That document is described in available text as containing detailed allegations and sworn statements supporting the complaint, and it explicitly lists sworn affidavits and declarations as evidentiary attachments; the document text dates to 2016 and functions as supporting material for claims of rape and sexual misconduct alleged to have occurred in 1994 [3]. This provides a plausible timeline: initial complaint in April 2016 and later affidavit/supporting declarations filed or entered into a related docket record by October 2016.
3. Conflicting public summaries and the limitations of third‑party aggregators
Commercial and public case aggregators such as CourtListener and other summaries are valuable for parties and researchers but sometimes omit attachments and later supporting documents, producing conflicting impressions about whether sworn affidavits were filed and when. CourtListener entries for the April 26, 2016 case show plaintiff information and docket status and note termination on or about May 2, 2016, but do not show the October affidavit entry seen in separate document captures; other public explanations also state that affidavits exist but do not reconcile dates [2]. The divergence between document-level captures (which indicate an October 3, 2016 filing of sworn statements) and docket summaries (which focus on the initial complaint and termination) explains why different sources answer the question differently.
4. Multiple viewpoints: plaintiffs’ documentary claims versus public verification
Plaintiff-side filings and captured documents assert sworn affidavits and witness declarations supporting Johnson’s allegations, pointing to an October 3, 2016 filing of such statements; these filings present detailed allegations and supporting witness declarations and are part of the public materials attributed to the litigation [3]. By contrast, court summaries and secondary reporting stress that the primary complaint was filed April 26, 2016, and that the case was administratively closed soon thereafter, and those summaries do not uniformly show the later affidavit attachment; they also caution that public summaries are incomplete and recommend PACER-level review to verify exact docket entries and filing dates [2]. These contrasting emphases reflect different emphases: document capture of affidavit content versus docket‑level overviews that may not display attachments.
5. What a definitive verification requires and how to obtain it
A definitive, court-authoritative answer requires inspecting the official docket entries and PDF filings on PACER or retrieving certified docket sheets and filed documents from the Central District of California for Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS. Available secondary documents and captured PDFs indicate a sworn affidavit and supporting declarations exist and were filed or entered into related records with a document date shown as October 3, 2016, while the complaint itself was filed April 26, 2016; public aggregators note the April 2016 filing and subsequent termination but do not consistently display the later affidavit [1] [2] [3]. To resolve remaining uncertainty about exact filing attachments and docket timestamps, obtain the certified PACER docket and the PDFs of the April 26, 2016 complaint and any docketed filings dated October 3, 2016.