Case 9:0€-ase8D T5é6cK AWK 3B RU BenDs6edmémieieh bh ALB De/dk4i 04/BAGH15 oP&ébe 9 of 10

Case 9:0€-ase8D T5é6cK AWK 3B RU BenDs6edmémieieh bh ALB De/dk4i 04/BAGH15 oP&ébe 9 of 10 id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4’s “participation in this case” can only be achieved by listing them as parties. As it stands under the original petition, the merits of this case will be decided based on a determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all “other similarly situated victims” under the CVRA. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 may offer relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard. See Herring, 894 F.2d at 1024 (District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where “addition of more plaintiffs .. . would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment.”’); cf. Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, “courts have held that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if the same parties are involved, the same substantive claim is raised, and the same relief is sought.”).° And, as to Jane Doe 4 at least, adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions about whether she is a proper party to this action.° Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the evidence—by including references to the non-prosecution agreement itself—is “unnecessary” as the “existing petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case.” (DE 311). The Court > The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and non- cumulative. ° The Government contends that Jane Doe 4 is not a true “victim” in this case because she was not known at the time the Government negotiated the non-prosecution agreement, and accordingly she was not entitled to notification rights under the CVRA. (See DE 290 at 10). Any “duplicative” litigation filed by Jane Doe 4 would necessarily raise the issue of whether she has standing under the CVRA under these circumstances. 9 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014855