Epstein Secrets

t "A" at pp. 169-171, 185-186. Edwards counsel made clear that Edwards would not answer "any questions" related to the alleged investigation done by Fisten and other investigators. Therefore, it was clear that despite the fact that Mr. Edwards and Mr. Fisten discussed Epstein and the Jane Doe matters w

stein v. Epstein, 519 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The financial information sought here is clearly relevant. (b) Topic Specific Objections As to Michael Fisten Should Be Overruled and Edwards Should be Compelled To Return For Deposition to Testify to Same and to His Newly Filed Affidavit 6. Michael Fiste

In sum, nothing in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure forbids a second EFTA00728269 Epstein v. Rothstein. et at Page 6 discovery deposition. Medina v. Yoder Auto Sales. Inc., 743 So.2d 621, 622-623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280. 10. As defined by §90.401, Fla.Evid.Code, "relev

t "A" at pp. 169-171, 185-186. Edwards counsel made clear that Edwards would not answer "any questions" related to the alleged investigation done by Fisten and other investigators. Therefore, it was clear that despite the fact that Mr. Edwards and Mr. Fisten discussed Epstein and the Jane Doe matters w

stein v. Epstein, 519 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The financial information sought here is clearly relevant. (b) Topic Specific Objections As to Michael Fisten Should Be Overruled and Edwards Should be Compelled To Return For Deposition to Testify to Same and to His Newly Filed Affidavit 6. Michael Fiste

In sum, nothing in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure forbids a second EFTA00728262 Epstein v. Rothstein. et at Page 6 discovery deposition. Medina v. Yoder Auto Sales. Inc., 743 So.2d 621, 622-623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280. 10. As defined by §90.401, Fla.Evid.Code, "relev

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky, supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

Department of Justice 413 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) 2 L.W. ex rel. Whitson v. Knox County Bd. of Educ. 36 Media L. Rep. 1721 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) 5 Medina v. United Christian Evangelistic Ass'n No. 08-22111-CIV, 2009 WL 5066675 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15. 2009) 6 New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 160

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky. supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

Department of Justice 413 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) 2 L.W. ex rel. Whitson v. Knox County Bd. of Educ. 36 Media L. Rep. 1721 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) 5 Medina v. United Christian Evangelistic Ass'n No. 08-22111-CIV, 2009 WL 5066675 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15. 2009) 6 New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 160