Epstein Secrets

allegedly defrauded back in the 1980's. See Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Kelleher, 92 CV 4484 (CBA), 95 CV 951 (CBA), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22542, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (granting motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations in part because "plaintiffs [did] not allege[] any facts suggesting that

v. Schulte Roth & Zable, 210 F. Supp. 2d 286, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 3 See Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok, 288 F. Supp. 2d 527, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Sweet, J.) (emphasis added)). 4 See 200,000 Towers Inv'rs Restitution Victims v. United States, No. 3-cv-8563, 2013 WL 6673612, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2013

summary judgment motion (DE #361). As that summary judgment motion makes clear, the claims raised in that case concern whether the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida complied with its obligations to victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Contrary to the suggestions of th

WL 508269, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2009) (citing Ritchie, 2008 WL 4178152 at *14; Stratavest Ltd. v. Rogers, 903 F.Supp. 663, 668 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Sweet, J.) ("it is too early at this point in the proceeding [i.e., during discovery] to determine [whether counsel's testimony would be necessary]"; McDonal

llon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep't 1999) 8,18 Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717, (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006) 18 Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541 (4th Cir. 1994) 8, 11 Fowler v. New York Herald, 172 N.Y.S. 423 (l s' Dep't

which the challenged statements are not "reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning." Krepps v. Reiner, 588 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Sweet, J.) (citing Treppel v. Biovail Corp., No. 03 Civ. 3002 (PICL), 2005 WL 2086339, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005)). As courts in this district have recog