Epstein Secrets

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 5 Certif

o-feed costs, Jeffrey Epstein will not object to same. Epstein simply desires to move these cases forward and complete meaningful discovery. 5. In Mugrage v. Mugrage, 763 A.2d 347, 349-352 (N.J. 2000), the court reasoned that "[a]lthough [the wife was] in fear of [her husband], and [was] in good faith

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-KAM Docu

of party being deposed; (8) good faith of party being deposed in asking to exclude other party; and (9) any other factor deemed relevant by court. Mugrage v. Mugrage, 763 A.2d 347, 349-352 (N.J. 2000)(even when it is not appropriate to exclude the other party from the protected party's deposition, a p

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 stricken fro

of party being deposed; (8) good faith of party being deposed in asking to exclude other party; and (9) any other factor deemed relevant by court. Mugrage v. Mugrage, 763 A.2d 347, 349-352 (N.J. 2000)(even when it is not appropriate to exclude the other party from the protected party's deposition, a pr