Epstein Secrets

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

.2d 142, 144 (81h Cir. 1972); United States v. Judson, 322 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961); Burlington Indus. v. Rossville Yarn, Inc., No. CIV.A.495-CV- 0401-H, 1997 WL 404319, at 3 (N:D. Ga. June 3, 1997); see also United States v. 16 Black. Srebnick. Kom

e disparate treatment and impact claims. "The probative value of other discriminatory acts depends . on the nature of the discrimination charged." Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., Engine Div., 797 F.2d 1417, 1424 (7th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S.

. Ed. 2d 106 (2002). In contrast to acts creating a hostile work environment, discriminatory employment decisions "inflict[] direct economic harm." Burlington Indus., 524 U.S. at 762. They will often require "the imprimatur of the enterprise and the use of its internal processes." Id. The "probativeness" of ite

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

ted States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 144 (8th Cir. 1972); Uni Judson, 322 F.2d 460, 462 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Kovel, 2 922 (2d Cir. 1961); Burlington Indus. v. Rossville Yarn, Inc., No. CI 0401-H, 1997 AWL 404319, at 3 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 1997); see also Uni 16 Black. Srebnick. Komspan 201 S. Biscayne