The US bank said Friday in a letter filed in Manhattan federal court that it needed to know the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity because she may have knowledge of the inner workings of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and his relationships with associates like former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley.

Staley also asked for the identity of the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe, saying he needed it to avoid being subject to “ambush” by JPMorgan, which is suing him to cover its potential liability for having Epstein as a client between 1998 and 2013.

In a Monday court filing, a lawyer representing both victims opposed revealing the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity. Bradley Edwards said she had only limited information relevant to JPMorgan and Staley that did not outweigh her privacy interests.

“Jane Doe 2 has clear privacy interests in not disclosing to them her name as an Epstein sex abuse victim,” Edwards wrote. 

US District Judge Jed Rakoff, who is presiding over both cases, hasn’t ruled on the issue. Separately on Monday, the judge granted a request by Deutsche Bank for communications between the Jane Doe suing it and the one suing JPMorgan, giving their lawyer one week to comply. 

Epstein moved most of his accounts to Deutsche Bank after JPMorgan cut ties with him in 2013. The German bank also dropped Epstein as a client in 2018. The lawsuits against both banks accuse them of knowingly benefiting from Epstein’s sex-trafficking. JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank have denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

The JPMorgan litigation has attracted more attention than the suit against Deutsche Bank, in part because of the allegations concerning the depths of Staley’s relationship with Epstein. The plaintiffs suing JPMorgan claim Staley had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes that can be imputed to the bank.

Staley, who went on to become chief executive officer of Barclays Plc before stepping down in 2021 over his Epstein ties, has called the allegations baseless and slanderous in a court filing. 

In its letter last Friday, JPMorgan pledged that it would not release the Deutsche Bank plaintiff’s identity but said she had relevant information about Staley. The US bank also said it believed she was a “percipient witness” to its own Jane Doe’s experiences. JPMorgan also said Deutsche Bank had already been given the identity of both Jane Does.

Staley’s attorney Brendan Sullivan said his client needed to learn the Deutsche Bank Jane Doe’s identity in order to test the veracity of her potential testimony in JPMorgan’s action against him.

Lawyers for Deutsche Bank have previously argued the lawsuit against it should be dismissed because the plaintiff previously signed a settlement agreement that protected entities tied to Epstein from being sued thereafter. Her lawyers claim that protection did not extend to financial institutions. 

The cases are Jane Doe 1 v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 22-cv-10019, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) and Jane Doe 1 v. Deutsche Bank, 22-cv-10018, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)