Epstein Secrets

tive waiver of work-product protection where materials were disclosed to the government, despite confidentiality agreement); McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials

nal report and notes of counsel to the SEC under a voluntary disclosure program. Id. at 1368-69. These documents were sought in subsequent lawsuits. The District Court of Columbia Circuit unsurprising found waiver: Tesoro willingly sacrificed its attorney-client confidentiality by voluntarily disclosing material

ng as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73, 100

a District Court ruled that federal prosecutors had violated the CVRA by failing to adequately notify the two victims-plaintiffs of the plea deal. The District Court has not yet determined the appropriate remedy. See Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204-17 (S.D. Fla. 2019). On December 30, 2014, t

de, depending on the circumstances, preserving "the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury selection process," Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court 11 EFTA00092318 In this case, the District Court erred in several respects.14 First, it failed to give proper weight to the presumption of acces

da District Court ruled that federal prosecutors had violated the CVRA by failing to adequately notify the two victims- plaintiffs of the plea deal. The District Court has not yet determined the appropriate remedy. See Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204-17 (S.D. Fla. 2019). 2 Doe 1 v. United States

isconduct, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. Meehan, 870 A.2d at 921- 22; Base!ice, 879 A2d at 278-79. The Superior Court on both occasions rejected EFTA00226245 110E LIBEItATORE Cue as drill F. upp.2d 742 (7.1.1).Pa. 2007) against Liberatore, the Diocese, Sacred

tentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. De- fendants other than the abuser moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Caputo, J., held that: (1) diocesan defendants did not aid and abet in federal CAVRA violation; (2) court had supplemental jurisdiction over st