Epstein Secrets

DE 1). Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing t

Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D

of a commercial nature whether they belong to the Government or the industrial lend- ing institutions connecte

l discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- tional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. See, eg., APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland B

’s activities were directed at the United States; U.S. Government had designated the trust a Specially Designated G

retion in deciding whether to order jurisdictional discovery before resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g, APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003). This Court finds that such discovery would be helpful in assessing whether any of Rabita Trust’s activities were di