Epstein Secrets

tering into a settlement agreement.")); United States Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States, BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

3 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that it was a wise strategy for the civil plaintiffs' to abandon their argument that the CVRA together with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act bestowed upon a district court in a civil matter the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowere

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

3 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that it was a wise strategy for the civil plaintiffs' to abandon their argument that the CVRA together with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act bestowed upon a district court in a civil matter the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowere

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

3 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that it was a wise strategy for the civil plaintiffs' to abandon their argument that the CVRA together with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act bestowed upon a district court in a civil matter the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowere

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

3 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that it was a wise strategy for the civil plaintiffs' to abandon their argument that the CVRA together with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act bestowed upon a district court in a civil matter the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowere

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

3 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that it was a wise strategy for the civil plaintiffs' to abandon their argument that the CVRA together with the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act bestowed upon a district court in a civil matter the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowere