Epstein Secrets

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

WITNESS: Okay. No. 6 BY MR. TEIN: 7 Q. Now you can explain the answer that your 8 counsel stopped you from explaining. 9 A. Okay. I work at Quarterdeck and people 10 were telling me that people were looking for me. So yes, 11 I was aware that people were searching for me. But I had 12 no :dea w

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

O. Don't -- don't tell me what you discussed A. I was shopping in my -- he showed up at my Q. Whose house? A. My friend Q. Is that from the Quarterdeck A. Yes. Q. And did you have a meeting with him at house? A. Yes. I guess you could say that. Q. And who else was there? A. My Aunts Q. A

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

meet him? 9 A. I was shopping in my -- he showed up at my 10 friend's house. 11 Q. Whose house? 12 A. My friend 13 Q. Is that from the Quarterdeck 14 Tavern? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And did you have a meeting with him at 17 house? 18 A. Yes. I guess you could say that. 19 0. And who els