Epstein Secrets

sexual abuse cases, during which Rush paraphrased aspects of the Epstein interview. Moving Affidavit of Michael Fisten, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010,1 8. Fisten also requested a copy of the Epstein interview, which request was likewise refused. Id. ¶ 10. The Daily News has not published any articles publicl

terview had been off-the-record and, moreover, would be of no help to his clients. Id. 8. Thereafter, on October 22, 2009, Rush also had a call with Michael Fisten, an investigator employed by Edwards on the sexual abuse cases, during which Rush paraphrased aspects of the Epstein interview. Moving Affidavit of

F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1994) 13 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 21 Buttner v. Berg & Dorf, 138 ad 439, 525 MI.2d 858 (2d Dep't 1988) 19 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 23 Brown & Williamson Tobacco CS E. v. Wigand, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. OS Co. Feb. 28, 1996), affd, 228 ..2r1187,

Merriam-Webster Online (2010), /off-the-record ("`off-the-record': given or made in confidence and not for publication <off-the-record comments>"); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 728 (1972) (Stewart J., dissenting) (defining "confidentiality" as "the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of co

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

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra

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

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra