Epstein Secrets

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

itations omitted). Therefore, "we are required to raise issues of standing sua sponte if such issues exist." Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 405 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Prior to reaching the merits of Statebridge's motion, however, the C

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

) (citing United States I Rattobglli. 452 F.3d 127. 137 (24 Cir.2006); United States Ture. 450 F.3d 352. 358-59 (8th Cir.2006); United States I Hampton. F.3d 284 288-89 (4th Cir.2006). United States Cage. 451 F.3d 585 (10th Cir.20061). accord United States v. Ward. 506 F.3d 468. 478 (6th Cir.200

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

tt, Recusal and the Supreme Court, 56 Hastings L.J_ 657, 678-79 (2005) (citing United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 211-12 & n.12 (1980); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1980)). 255 Model R. Prof] Conduct 4.4(a) (2007); see also ABA Criminal Justice Study, Standard 4-4.3 (1993). 256 See Fed. R.