Epstein Secrets

lows: 1. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States Dis

Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D

multina- tional insurance arrangement’ present in the State of New York”); Im re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria, 230 F

l discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- tional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. See, eg., APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland B

able inferences in favor of Plaintiffs. Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir.1999). The complaints

retion in deciding whether to order jurisdictional discovery before resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g, APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003). This Court finds that such discovery would be helpful in assessing whether any of Rabita Trust’s activities were di