Epstein Secrets

h is consistent with the leading case of State v. Casey, !7! which considered whether a victim's request

overning information subject to disclosure by the Government in criminal cases, nor any other federal rule or

dings," *° to "confer with [the] attorney for the Government n 4l in the case, and to attend court proceedin

n 22 Mich. J.L. & Reform 773 (1989). 50 See United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 466 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 5! See, e.g., State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002), discussed infra notes 163-66 and accompanying text. 32 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(4) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005); see In re Kari Ann

of a commercial nature whether they belong to the Government or the industrial lend- ing institutions connecte

battery. Actions were consolidat- ed by Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FS

’s activities were directed at the United States; U.S. Government had designated the trust a Specially Designated G

Actions were consolidated, various defendants filed motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs moved to supplement the record. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: “1 Saudi High Commission (SHC) was entitled to immunity under discretionary function exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (