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

es > U.S. District Courts, New York > E&J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc., 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 EL) Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc. U.S. District Court Southern District of New York No. M8-85 January 12, 2005 EPO GALLO WINERY, a California corpo

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

es > U.S. District Courts, New York > E&J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc., 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 EL) Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc. U.S. District Court Southern District of New York No. M8-85 January 12, 2005 EPO GALLO WINERY, a California corpo

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

re Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. 235 F.R.D. 241, 242, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying Petroleum Products standard to confidential materials): E Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413. 1414 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Preska, J.) (applying petroleum Products standard to both confidential s

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

re Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. 235 F.R.D. 241, 242, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying Petroleum Products standard to confidential materials): E Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413. 1414 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Preska, J.) (applying petroleum Products standard to both confidential s