Epstein Secrets

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.

INIMIIIIM the definfrOn the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See 15 Civ. 7443 (LAP), Dkt. No. 542-4). Giuffre has since self-identified as Jane Doe #3. (See id., Dkt. No. 23 n.2). 117 EFTA00095209 As described in the preceding section, in the fall of 2015, Giuffre sued the defendant for defa

rt that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").54 Accordingly, and consistent with the holding in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. 54 While the defendant may argue that the fact that her deposition, unlike Ruiz, did not involve crim

udge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently,

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.