Epstein Secrets

pt the relevant rule of New York landlord-tenant law for purposes of deciding the remaining issue in this dis- pute, and hold that, consistent with New York law, OFM was entitled to arbitrarily withhold its consent to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. Even assum- ing OFM had a hidden a

d in part and denied in part. I. Federal Courts .3=409 In diversity action, federal court sitting in New York must apply New York law, including New York's choice-of-law rules. 2. Contracts e=s144 Under New York's choice-of-law rules, when court is construing meaning of con- tract, court should apply

t may not be introduced to create ambiguity. Arthur M. Handler, Whitman & Ransom, New York City, for plaintiff. Elliot Silverman, Cold & Wachtel, New York City, for defendant. ORDER CONBOY, District Judge: We have before us an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Michael R. Stroll ("Stroll") see

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant" Martindell g International TeL & Tel. Corp.. 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir.1979). Unless protective orders are "fully and fairly enforceable," persons O 2007 Tho

or modify the subpoena . .. or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, was the m

rotective order"); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)), that 'this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . .

4 This Court has jurisdiction over the order to unseal under the collateral order doctrine. Brown, 929 F.3d at 54; see United States v. Erie Cty., N. Y., 763 F.3d 235, 238 n.5 (2d Cir. 2014); United States a Graham, 257 F.3d 143,147-48 (2d Cir. 2001). 12 EFTA00074921 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1,

2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page5 of 38 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) Mich. Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, passim 945 F.2d 150 (

rder to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial grant

uppression Motion Should Be Denied Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous fa

a teenager during a bail hearing. The financier was found dead in his cell the following month. Ms is now suing Epstein's estate and Maxwell in the New York district court for damages. According to Ms testimony, detailed in the book, she was flown to the financier's vast Zorro Ranch after he offered to

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d