Epstein Secrets

d, counsel offered to provide an affidavit from Rush confirming that he conducted a phone interview of Epstein, but that offer was flatly rejected. (Carroll Reply Dec1.19.) - 13 - EFTA00728026 completely misconstrues the third prong of the test. There is nothing relevant, material or necessary to her

g 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 sources and confidential materials) (copy annexed as Ex. A to Carroll Reply Decl.);

d, counsel offered to provide an affidavit from Rush confirming that he conducted a phone interview of Epstein, but that offer was flatly rejected. (Carroll Reply Dec1.19.) - 13 - EFTA00207349 completely misconstrues the third prong of the test. There is nothing relevant, material or necessary to her

g 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 sources and confidential materials) (copy annexed as Ex. A to Carroll Reply Decl.);

witnesses to this action, as is standard practice by their office and others in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission v. Carroll, 19 Civ. 7199 (AT), 2020 WL 1272287, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abraaj Investment Management Limited, 19

tigated; Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today. But Ms. Maxwell is seeking in both the Second Circuit and before Judge Preska that the status quo be maintained until the issue can be litigated. If, for example, without the benefit of this information, the Second Circuit an