Epstein Secrets

n jurisdictional discovery regarding potentially sovereign alter ego co-defendant without further im- pinging that defendant's immunity) (quot- ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir.1992) ("At the very least, discovery should be ordered 783 circumspectly and only to verify al

wing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law)." Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 FM 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp, 343 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir2003). Certain Plaintiffs in the

ain jurisdictional discovery regarding potentially sovereign alter ego co-defendant without further im- pinging that defendant’s immunity) (quot- ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (th Cir.1992) (“At the very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- ti

llowing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law).” Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 F.8d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp., 348 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir.2003). Certain Plaintiffs in th

rts. The Court finds that “aircraft hijacking is generally recognized as a violation of inter- national law.” Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 100 (citing Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240; Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440, 447-49 (2d Cir.2000)). Further, “courts, including the Second Circuit, have almost unanimously

12(b)(6) motion). The ATCA provides a basis for relief when an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations. 28 U.S.C. § 1350; Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995). Aircraft hijacking is considered a violation of international law, Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240, and the ATCA i

ery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992) (recommending that “discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allegations