Epstein Secrets

Inc., No. 92-32567-CI-CI, 1994 WL 741009, at *1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 8, 1994) (internal citations omitted).

he summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two add

sonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do

368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text as well as infra Part IV.D. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_0

the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court

368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at hitp:-//goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text as well as infra Part IV.D. 197 See 18 U.S.C