Epstein Secrets

re Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. 235 F.R.D. 241, 242, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying Petroleum Products standard to confidential materials): E Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413. 1414 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Preska, J.) (applying petroleum Products standard to both confidential s

ed on April 13.2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in favor") (see other examples Carroll Reply

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (- Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of statement

re Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. 235 F.R.D. 241, 242, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying Petroleum Products standard to confidential materials): E Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413. 1414 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Preska, J.) (applying petroleum Products standard to both confidential s

d on April 13, 2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in Jane Doe's favor") (see other examples Carr

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (Doe's Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of state

es > U.S. District Courts, New York > E&J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc., 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 EL) Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc. U.S. District Court Southern District of New York No. M8-85 January 12, 2005 EPO GALLO WINERY, a California corpo

for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and "[y]ou digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor," SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of

es > U.S. District Courts, New York > E&J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc., 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1413 EL) Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Services Inc. U.S. District Court Southern District of New York No. M8-85 January 12, 2005 EPO GALLO WINERY, a California corpo

tein's silence in the face of such confrontational Requests for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of