Epstein Secrets

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

f 100 nsor & Associates Itcpanitnc had lranuripturri Inc 1 2 3 INDEX WITNESS: Page 3 PAGE: DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 4 BY MR. TEIN: 5 6 7 NOEXHIBITS MARKED 8 9 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 10 Page Line 53 22 11 55 1 59 2 12 111 14 112 2 13 14 15 16 17 78 19 20 21 22 23 24

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 6

of 100 nsor & Associates Hopnrtua blIll Trams ripon, Inc 1 2 WITNESS: INDEX Page 3 PAGE: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 4 BY MR. TEIN: 5 6 7 NOEXHIBITS MARKED 8 9 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 10 Page Line 53 22 11 55 1 59 2 12 111 14 112 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

9 of 100 nsor & Associates Repnrnnp and Transcri pan Inc 1 2 WITNESS: INDEX Page 3 PAGE: 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 4 BY MR. TEIN: 5 6 7 NOEXHIBITS MARKED 8 - - - 9 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 10 Page Line 53 22 11 55 1 59 2 12 111 14 112 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2