Epstein Secrets

une 18, 2016). "Good cause" and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist, 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) (depositions n

that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact, was practically gleeful to be a witness: Doc.

ection as embodied in the fifth amend- ment In Davis v. Postman," and to the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in Carlson v. Green." Shortly after its recognition of a right of action for constitutional torts under Bi- vent, the Supreme Court began to develop the def

s unquestionably protected from unwarrant- generally only permitted in "extraordinary ed interference by prosecutorial officials; circumstances," Rizzo v. Goods, 423 U.S. whether the investigation actually involved 362, 379, 96 S.Ct 598, 608, 46 L.Ed2d 661 any unwarranted intrusions into their sat

t sentencing, it cannot obliterate the knowing, deliberate and repeated means by which this rious crime was committed. See, e.g., United States I Carlson. 498 F.3d 761. 766-67 (8th Cir.2007) (concluding that a district court's reliance on a defendant's intentions, which were "arguably better than a

irect evidence, it may properly be adduced from the conduct of the parti United States, 304 F.24 810, 825 (8th CI and the attending circumstances. Rizzo cert. denied, 871 U.S. 890,C S.Ct 188, 9 LEd.2d 123 (1962); Goode United States, 58 F2d 106, 107 (8th CG. 191222). [24] The conduct of the part