Epstein Secrets

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00799827 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

ined that, after the NPA was signed in September 2007, four victims were contacted and the provision for a federal restitution remedy was discussed. D.E. 14,1 8. When Epstein's attorneys learned of this, they complained that the Government was incentivizing the victims to overstate their involvement

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00591464 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

ined that, after the NPA was signed in September 2007, four victims were contacted and the provision for a federal restitution remedy was discussed. D.E. 14,1 8. When Epstein's attorneys learned of this, they complained that the Government was incentivizing the victims to overstate their involvement

tial evidence" to overcome the motion, and the court must analyze "the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986). UNDISPUTED FACTS Nearly all facts relating to the Plaintiff's prima facie case are undisputed. Th

same time that the Defendants received the Apartment Transfers, Mr. Adler also received a $100,000 year Increase in his sa'ary from RRA. [D.E. 4 and D.E. 67 at'928]. In addition to the Apartment Transfers, the Defendants received a total of $220,000 in Cash Transfers. Of the $220,000 received by the

1994, when confronted with in- formation indicating his representations relating to DCC were false, Hoffenberg told Nardello that his attorneys at Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky ("Anderson Kill") had built a figurative "Chinese Wall" between him and Lowy at the Long Island office to ensure that Hoff

EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See D.E. 113). If however, the Court rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times EPSTEIN committed an enumerated