Epstein Secrets

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue, and will not be considered at the Show Cause hearing. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that wo

the issue of his knowledge and possession of the disc. (Apr. Tr. 36:2-9.) The Show Cause Order also provided for the filing of sworn declarations. (D.E. 6366,91 5 i.v.) Specifically, it provides: Unless otherwise ordered, the direct testimony of each witness, except adverse, hostile or rebuttal witn

ese show cause proceedings were instituted shortly thereafter. A privilege determination has never been made and that issue is currently before the State Court. The only issue for this Court to decide on October 26, 2018, is if Fowler White and/or Epstein violated the November 2010 Agreed Order. 2Jeffrey E

uly 20, July 25 and September 26, 2018, Edwards filed Notices of Taking Link & Rockenbach's deposition duces tecum. (D.E. 6390; D.E. 6391; D.E. MOO; D.E. 6406; D.E. 6468.) Epstein filed his Responses and Objections on July 20 and October 4, 2018. (D.E. 6402; 6478.) In his Response, Epstein objected t

n of not only the instant claim, but for other suits filed against Defendant EPSTEIN, including but not limited to the Florida RICO claims filed in State Court. 6. As stated in the certificate, the undersigned has conferred with counsel for EPSTEIN. They take the position that this motion would be moot bec

million - - well over the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See Jane Doe No. 2 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 3 at D.E. I ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 4 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 5 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4. 3. There is complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete divers