Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00606624

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

you represented Jane Doe. .. whether she was considered a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" and then re-phrased: ". . .[D]id you learn whether [Jane Doe 1] was listed as a, or deemed to be a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" Id. at 100-104. Although contrary to law, Mr. Scarola's stated position

ROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. 100/9-14 Q. At the time do you know whether, at the time that you represented Jane Doe 1, do you know whether her name, whether she was considered a victim by the United States Attorney's Office? 100/15-23 A. SCAROLA: If that informati

orm any investigation on the Epstein files? A. SCAROLA: Same objection and instruction. Q. If you're unaware of the existence of the entity called Blue Line Research and Development, LLC, would it be a correct statement that you have never authorized anyone from Blue Line Research to conduct any investigation of

EFTA00799402

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

you may respond. Id. at p.100; line 15-22. THE WITNESS: I cannot respond. Id. at page 100; line 23. Q: Prior to the filing of the lawsuit against Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 against the United States Government, did you learn from any source, maybe a document, maybe a telephone call or a conversation that

201; line 4-6. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. Id. at page 201; line 7-9. Q: If you're unaware of the existence of the entity called Blue Line Research and Development, LLC, would it be a correct statement that you have never authorized anyone from Blue Line Research and Development, LLC, to conduc

EFTA00585394

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page