Epstein Secrets

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under II Government Ex

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust'. Lepone 305 F.3d 1 (I' Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impendi

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe