Epstein Secrets

t to the assertion in question' ") (citation omitted). Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRC Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1303-05 (11th Cir. 2009). Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700. 709-10 (2d Cir. 1983). Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma. No. CV-87- 3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165, at *4-5

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

t to the assertion in question' ") (citation omitted). Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRC Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1303-05 (11th Cir. 2009). Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700. 709-10 (2d Cir. 1983). Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma. No. CV-87- 3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165, at *4-5

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

hat we proposed to the Court about the 18 financial status comes from the very cases that are in the 19 Second Circuit, and that's the words that the Second Circuit 20 and district courts in the Southern District use. And I quote 21 from Tillery: No evidence as to defendant's financial status 22 may be pres

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

And they take the Fifth. So there we are. The question is, are we going to conceal that from the jury or are we going to present it to them? Well, the Second Circuit case that your Honor is well familiar with, LiButti, sets out the factors that have determined that issue, and one of the things we hear from the

a. I. In July 2001, Blazek entered an intemet "male for male" chat room from his computer in Des Moines and then sent an instant message asking "Brian" for his age and location. Brian responded that he was a 15 year old male in Chicago. Brian was in fact Inspector Dan Everett of the Chicago Page

f- fense, which applies? United States, ev rel. Harris' Daniels, 279 Fed. 844 (2nd Cir.I992), provides guidance on this issue. In Ex. rel. Harris, the Second Circuit was faced with a potential conflict between two senten- cing provisions, one which permitted " 'all sen- tences' of summary court-martial [to] be ca

g the Long Island office while Towers was still in business, be- ginning in May 1993, it seemed "like there was a higher management above Larry and Brian [Lowy]." During his first meeting with Loveless, Hoffenberg discussed with her "strategy and tactics" for the ac- counts assigned to her, instructe

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid