Epstein Secrets

spection. See Johnson v. Mundy Industrial Contractors. Inc., 2002 WL 31464984 *3 (E.D .N.C. 2002) (quotations omitted). 42. As noted by professors Wright & Miller: [lit is clear that the right to discovery is a qualified right that does not extend to making unnecessary and unwarranted excursions onto t

f 22 documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

laintiff performed his own contractual duties. Pub. Serv. Enter. Grp., Inc. v. Philadelphia Elec. Ca, 722 F. Supp. 184, 219 (D.N.J. 1989) (citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1235 at 189-90). In other words, "when pleading a claim for the breach of an express contract . . . the complain

tible to mistaken perception, leading to erroneous conclusions r135] -- especially when collections of stories are treated as quasi-statistics. See Fisher v. Vassar Coll., 70 F.3d 1420, 1444-45 (2d Cir. 1995). And bias can skew anecdotal evidence, as when only those who feel most strongly about an issu

t an independent grant of appellate jurisdiction" but, rather, "'may go only in aid of appellate jurisdiction' that exists on some other basis." 16 Wright & Miller, supra, § 3932 (quoting Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 520, 76 S.Ct. 912, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956)). The "minimum condition" for mandamus relief

States v. St. Amour, 886 F.3d 1009, 1013 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 139 S. Ct. 205, 202 L.Ed.2d 141 (2018) (quoting ?II United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2002)). 16 Our statutory analysis thus should start and end with the language of subsections (a) (5) and (a)(8)