Epstein Secrets

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00206522 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00212195 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00222323 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #