Epstein Secrets

he circumstances which must be considered is 2 EFTA00209265 "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Mr. Epstein's motion is timely because it seeks intervention only for the limited purpose of opposing disclosu

hat the current [party's] representation 'may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose

r. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (_. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November, 201

that the current [party's) representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal."' Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) ("The propos

. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November

that the current [party's] representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose