Epstein Secrets

Case No. 502008CAOILUMOCXMB AB Epstein's Objections tW Request and Motion for Protective Order Page 15 of 22 39. This case is more analogous to Murphy and Gooey, where the court prohibited inspection because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the how the inspection would be relevant to their res

e is not a material fact in controversy pursuant to which the Request could lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. 17. cite to Harrell v. Hense, 2009 Wt. 409875 (C.D.CaI.) could not better support Epstein's argument herein. Harrell involves a matter where the petitioner was EFTA007

ormance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(8), 1572-1595. Flaherty, T. B., Jansen, B.J., Hofacker, C., and Murphy, J. (2009). Insights on the Google Online Marketing Challenge and Its Successful Classroom Implementation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,

eeting 2017 (ASIST2017). Washington, DC. 27 Oct. - 1 Nov. Salminen, J.O., $engiin, S., Kwak, H., and Jansen, B.J., An, J., Jung, S.G., Vieweg, S., Harrell, F. (2017) Generating Cultural Personas From Social Data: A Perspective of Middle Eastern Users. The Fourth International Symposium on Social Networ

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " `[This Act

the action to state court. The Court finds that the issues of economy, convenience, fairness and comity collectively weigh in favor of remand. See Harrell, 934 F.2d at 205. Comity weighs especially strong, given that the remaining claims are pure state law claims with no connection to federal law. Econ