Epstein Secrets

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. 1 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C) 1 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

and Mr. Rush's transcript in camera. The Court finds that portions of the recording "are of likely relevance to a significant issue in [Jane 2 In Gonzales v. Pierce, 175 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Gonzales I"), the district court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited vide

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. 1 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C) 1 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

and Mr. Rush's transcript in camera. The Court finds that portions of the recording "are of likely relevance to a significant issue in [Jane 2 In Gonzales v. Pierce, 175 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Gonzales I"), the district court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited vide

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. I 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C] I 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

and Mr. Rush's transcript in camera. The Court finds that portions of the recording "are of likely relevance to a significant issue in (Jane 2 In Gonzales v. Pierce, 175 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Gonzales I"), the district court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited vide