Epstein Secrets

25 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates Reportiny and lranscrirrix, inc Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't don't tell me w

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl

e 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates ReparlillS and 1.71111Gliptill11. Inc. Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 6 7 8 with him. Where did you meet him? 9 10 friend's house. 11 12 13

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl

grievances against one another they are already embroiled in Judicial dissolution proceedings, and if complaints have not already been filed with the Florida Bar, they are likely to be." Rule 24(a) does not require interven- tion by Garfinkel and Katzman to protect themselves from Rosenbaum's complaints aga

o limit the scope of the privilege, this Court will not countenance HCA's attempt to cre- ate new affirmative applications for the privilege. Cf., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Engels, 41 Misc.2d 49, 51, 244 N.Y.S.2d 983, 986 (Sup.CL Kings Co.1963) (privilege is a shield, not a sword), offd, 21 A.D.2d 808, 260

5 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 sor & Associates [tenoning and Inniscrivinn. Inc. Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't -- don't tell me

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl