Epstein Secrets

eposition than what Mugrage 'd z prov1 es. 2 In addition, Epstein offers a more restrictive setting than what is permitted under the law. See ~-, Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 465-66 (C.A. Ariz. 1994). See also, Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2800, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). The Clau

at the taking of depositions as well as during the examination of witnesses at trial." See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333,334,419 A.2d 913 (1980). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 370 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2009 Page 5 of 8 Page

confront witnesses. Thus, Epstein has a Sixth Amendment right to attend the depositions under the Confrontation Clause of the Federal Constitution. Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 465-66 (C.A. Ariz. 1994). See also, Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2800, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). The Clau

iffs request that Epstein be prevented from attending her deposition should be denied. See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404,408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333,334, 419 A.2d 913 (1980). If this Court excludes Defendant from deposition, Plaintiffs deposition Case 9:08-cv-80119-

2009 Page 4 of 13 Page4 Epstein has a Sixth Amendment right to attend the depositions under the Confrontation Clause of the federal Constitution. Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 465-66 (C.A. Ariz. 1994). See also, Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2800, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). The Claus

rom attending her deposition and that a special master be appointed should be denied. See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333, 334, 419 A.2d 913 (1980). If this Court excludes Defendant from deposition, Plaintiffs deposition testimony could be st