Epstein Secrets

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo

lan... 5/14/2007 EFTA00187439 $DNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report Page 1 of 5 CLOSED U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05332-SITS Citibank, N.A.I Epstein, et al Assigned to: Judge Sidney H. Stein Demand:

ary judgment is inappropriate if, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences against the moving party,id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing Adickes I S.H. Kress & Ca, 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)), there exists a dispute about a material fact "such that a reasona

k, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 1, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, By Serene K. Nakano, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, New York, for the United States. Wachtel & Masyr, LLP, By Steven J. Cohe

202 (1986). Summary judgment is inappropriate if, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences against the moving party, id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)), there exists a dispute about a material fact "such that a reasona

k, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April I, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, By Serene K. Nakano, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, New York, for the United States. Wachtel & Masyr, LLP, By Steven J. Cohen

202 (1986). Summary judgment is inappropriate if, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences against the moving party, id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)), there exists a EFTA00204762 dispute about a material fact "such

k, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April I, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, By Serene K. Nakano, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, New York, for the United States. Wachtel & Masyr, LLP, By Steven J. Cohen

202 (1986). Summary judgment is inappropriate if, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences against the moving party, id. at 255 (citing Adickes I S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)), there exists a dispute about a material fact "such that a reasonabl

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its mo