Epstein Secrets

of error" will not suffice to preserve anything. MMG Fin. Corp. v. Midwest Amusements Park, LLC, 630 F.3d 651, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); see also, e.g., Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005); Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1091 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Preservation

arse comments are not enough for class treatment — illustrated in cases like King v. General Electric Company, 960 F.2d 617 (7th Cir. 1992). There, the Seventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence in an age-discrimination case was not enough, even though the record contained testimony from a highe

e Mann Act to still be contend- ing for its unconstitutionality. The Act has been consistently upheld • • • " (Cita- tions omitted.) United States I Garrett, 521 F.2d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 1976). Defend- ant Pelton is not a female whose ability to seek legal employment was constrained by the Mann Act and

d States Medearis. 451 F.3d 918. 920-21 (8th Cir.2006) (quotations omitted). This is particularly compelling in the child pornography context, as the Seventh Circuit has aptly said: Young children were raped in order to enable the production of the pornography that the defendant both downloaded and uploaded-bo

exists to justify nondisclosure of witnesses to opposing counsel and thus noncompliance with Rule 12.1." 198 Similarly, in United States v. Elizondo, the Seventh Circuit cited Causey for the proposition that the protection of potential witnesses could justify postponing disclosure. '°? Following the reasoning of the S

470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (Sth Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 302, Bagley, 473 U.S. at 675 n.7 (citation and internal quotatio