Epstein Secrets

, an investigator for counsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively th

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

, an investigator for counsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroug

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

ge. In Re: Application to Quash Subpoenas to Daily News, L.P., and George Rush Daily News, L.P., George Rush, v. Jane Doe, Movants-Appellants, Real Party in Interest-Appellee. AMENDED ORDER Docket No. 10-2438 (L) 10-2573 (con) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion by Appellants Daily News L.P. and G

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