Epstein Secrets

he defendants deposed the following witnesses, who are the subject of-this motion: Edgar J. Sharbaugh, Dr. Robert Henderson, Robert Picard, Todd Henderson, and Jeffrey Fara. FN4. While instructions not to an- swer questions during depositions are generally improper, a witness may be instructed not to

ales transactions of the plaintiff, as well as product identification and sales in- formation of the company between 1991 and 1993. Id. at 2-3. Dr. Henderson is a co-owner and the president of Nutramax. He is the inventor of the two patents which are the subject of this litigation, and was *471 deposed

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They are: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilots who report incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.

Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 269 United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981 (9th

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 269 United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981 (9th

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 269 United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981 (9th

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

D.N.Y. 1991) 50 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 109 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 93, 94 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 43 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 177 United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981 (9th Cir

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 269 United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981 (9th

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a