Epstein Secrets

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

aut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 1985) 12 Best Canvas Products & Supplies. Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines. Inc., 713 F.2d 618 (II th Cir. 1983) 12 Brink's Inc. v. City of New York 717 F.24 700 (2d Cir. 1983) 7 Drown & Williamson Tobacco Coro. v. Wigand, No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2

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

aut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 1985) 12 Best Canvas Products & Supplies. Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines. Inc., 713 F.2d 618 (II th Cir. 1983) 12 Brink's Inc. v. City of New York 717 F.24 700 (2d Cir. 1983) 7 Drown & Williamson Tobacco Coro. v. Wigand, No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2

f illegal activities, wire taps, and methods by the Rothstein firm while Mr. Edwards had basically been bringing these cases. The investigator, Mr. Fisten, who's mentioned in the Complaint, represented himself as an FBI agent, falsely represented himself as an FBI agent. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you ha

dence [is] substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" to the party asserting the privilege. Id. at 1266 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403; Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d700, 710 (2d Cir. 1983)). Moreover, the inference may be drawn only when there is independent evidence of the fact abo