Epstein Secrets

nt to decertify should be affirmed. ROBERT DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff, v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-6694 (JEI) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82496 June 25, 2015, Decided June 25, 2015, Filed CORE TERMS: mortgage, borrowers, kickback

. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45,306; 91 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1169 September 17, 2014, Argued May 11, 2015, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: r ij Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. (2:04-cv-22005-CWH). C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149

that Wal- Mart provided the basis for a renewed class certification motion); DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 126, 404 U.S. App. D.C. 316 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (surveying how Wal-Mart has changed the class action landscape); Elizabeth Tippett, Robbing A Barren Vault: The Implications of Dukes v. Wal

400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: I 6 EFTA00086382 GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-001713 EFTA00086383 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FCII 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS Party Filing Matter Under Seal ORDER RE: SEALED FILING Name: UNI

strict of Florida, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court: 1. That has been called to testify and to provide other information before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including a Grand Jury impanelled therein; and 2. That in the judgment of the said United States Attorney,

uct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis

ative body." United States v. Seals, 130 F.3d 451, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959)). As relevant here, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has held that an order under the All Writs Act may be appropriate to prevent disclosure of a grand jury subpoena to th

s an "'appendage of the court" and it "depend[s] on the judiciary in its role as an investigative body." United States v. Seals, 130 F.3d 451, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959)). As relevant here, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has

Page 2 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40263, * LOADMAN GROUP, L.L.C., et al., PLAINTIFFS, vs. BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA, DEFENDANT. CASE NO. 4:10cv1759 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40263 March 19, 2013, Decided March 19, 2013, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: Loa

v. J.C. Bradford & Co.. 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Frito--Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029, 1034, 274 U.S. App. D.C. 340 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The non-moving party is under an affirmative duty to point out specific facts in the record as it has been established which create a genui

ILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL I2 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011801 EFTA00192847 Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

09). Courts have long consulted official CRS summariesto assess legislative intent, see, e.g., &nig Pension Ben. Guar. Com. 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984); fIRECI'V Inc. I. Cignarella No. I. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 W 1252261 at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005); Clokesav St. Francis Hoso. & Healthcare No.

At Trial I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxw

e of the jury and thereby substitute his spoken word for the written document.") (italics in original). Gaines v. United States, 349 F.2d 190, 192 (D.C. Cir. I965)(error to allow prior written statement to be read to the witness in front of the jury for the purpose of refreshing recollection because "it

rt file O Destroyed 0 Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above A`tancy for: United Stales of Vifierica EFTA00179092 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-64 AND OLY-64 FGJ 07-103 (WPB) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLE

Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileg