Epstein Secrets

xpenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by_ysiu in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is

here is that personal financial material is discoverable in cases where "such information is relevant to subject matter of the pending litigation." Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003); Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). When a party voluntarily puts his personal financia

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

here materials sought by a party 'would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,' the information is fully discoverable." Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003) (citing to Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)) (emphasis added). Since Edwards is claimin

expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

here is that personal financial material is discoverable in cases where "such information is relevant to subject matter of the pending litigation." Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003); Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). When a party voluntarily puts his personal financia

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

here materials sought by a party 'would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,' the information is fully discoverable." Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003) (citing to Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)) (emphasis added). Since Edwards is claimin

expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

here is that personal financial material is discoverable in cases where "such information is relevant to subject matter of the pending litigation." Friedman v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003); Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). When a party voluntarily puts his personal financia