Epstein Secrets

unsel responded that they would do so only if movants would stipulate to the accuracy of all facts alleged in the subpoenas of Brad- ley Edwards and Michael Fisten submitted in support of Doe's opposition to movants' motion to quash or for a protective order. I declined. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that

interview with Jeffrey Epstein but whom I did not identify in my prior affidavit. Hearing that refreshed my memory that in fact I did speak to Mr. Fisten about the interview. The attorney's representation that the interview with Mr. Epstein must have occurred prior to October 22, 2009, because my conv

eeks are (1) highly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 19

unsel responded that they would do so only if movants would stipulate to the accuracy of all facts alleged in the subpoenas of Brad- ley Edwards and Michael Fisten submitted in support of Doe's opposition to movants' motion to quash or for a protective order. I declined. I declare under penalty of perjury that

interview with Jeffrey Epstein but whom I did not identify in my prior affidavit. Hearing that refreshed my memory that in fact I did speak to Mr. Fisten about the interview. The attorney's representation that the interview with Mr. Epstein must have occurred prior to October 22, 2009, because my conv

eeks are (1) highly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 19

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

ep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00728011 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 19431) 13 In re Aoplication to Ouash Subpoena to Nat'

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

ep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00207334 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 19431) 13 In re Aoplication to Ouash Subpoena to Nat'