text
stringlengths
0
145k
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018820
"
IMAGES-009-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027193.txt,"Time: 03/01/17 04:45:15 AM (510065115)
Flags: 1060865
Is Read: Yes
Is Invitation: No
GUID: D79S5CSCB-2EC2-4082-BCS5D-23939C85878B
Message: So they will rally
Sender: e:jeeitunes@gmail.com
Time: 03/01/17 05:10:11 AM (510066611)
Flags: 1085445
Is Read: No
Is Invitation: No
GUID: C84121CF-45C6-483D-B6B4-085595A43BC5
Message: HSN health security number
Sender: e:jeeitunes@gmail.com
Time: 03/01/17 05:13:24 AM (510066804)
Flags: 1085445
Is Read: No
Is Invitation: No
GUID: 315CC679-0793-4DA2-A3EE-FBIAD7EBIE61
Message: in fact embed the social number in the new encrypted personal health seciurty number . think of how
outdated a social security number is for “ security “ , that a fun idea
Sender:
Time: 03/01/17 06:30:00 AM (510071400)
Flags: 1060865
Is Read: Yes
Is Invitation: No
GUID: 24FC9CAD-9BE1-42B7-A7C4-CE8F79DDD8A9
Message: Yes
Sender:
Time: 03/01/17 06:30:03 AM (510071403)
Flags: 1060865
Is Read: Yes
Is Invitation: No
GUID: FA11432F-2EEB-4884-9B34-EAF54D 1 C6680
Message: Start w health
Sender: a
Time: 03/01/17 06:33:58 AM (510071638)
Flags: 1060865
Is Read: Yes
Is Invitation: No
GUID: 2A4530E0-A455-4025-9F00-0D358355C834
Message: The magic is to make all the systems communicate
Time: 0 ""38:27 AM (510071907)
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027193
"
IMAGES-003-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014855.txt,"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