Epstein Secrets

tlement agreement constituted Page 10 an "implied waiver" of this privilege. Id at 622-26. The court began its analysis with a con- sideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Nobles, noting that that decision held that an attempt to make testimonial use of work product resulted in an implied waiver of the p

f protecting the various privileges, and to respond to the personal attacks made upon them individually by Rosenbaum." [DE 125, p. Garfinkel and Katzman will be permitted to inter- vene for the former purpose, but not the latter•. According to the Motion to Intervene, Rosenbaum served as counsel fo

ility to manage its proceed- ings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees without extending its jurisdic- tion. Keith Jeffrey Lambdin, Katzman Gar- finkel Rosenbaum, John David Mallah, Maitland, FL, for Plaintiff. Bradley Ryan Weiss, Benson Mucci & Associates LLP, Thomas E. Tookey, Coral

be incompatible with the purpose of the FSIA, which is to grant governmental, not private corporate immunity, and ... would reflect infidelity to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dole Food" Id. at 218. Accordingly, it reiterated that "'a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not it- self entitled to instrumentalit

"Civil RICO is an unusually potent weapon ... 'courts should strive to flush out frivo- lous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation." Katzman v. Victoria's Se- cret, 167 F.R.D. 649, 655 (S.D.N.Y.1996). [74] The Federal complaint asserts a RICO claim under § 1962(a), which states in part

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

. “Civil RICO is an unusually potent weapon . ‘courts should strive to flush out frivo- lous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation.’” Katzman v. Victoria’s Se- cret, 167 F.R.D. 649, 655 (S.D.N.Y.1996). [74] The Federal complaint asserts a RICO claim under § 1962(a), which states in part: “