Epstein Secrets

ion(.) N.Y.C.P.L.R. S 4503(a)(1). The privilege only applies to attorney-client communications "primarily or predominately of a legal character." Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 13 EFTA_R1_00011989 EFTA01734199 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 135 Filed 05/02/16 Page 14 of 37

Denver, CO 80203 By: Laura A. Henninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICAL:Y .FILED DOC

O 80203 By: Laura A. Henninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICAL:Y .FILED

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. 123 EFTA

ing young girls for him to abuse face probe as it's revealed Ghislaine Maxwell moved house 36 times in a year before she was caught • Sara Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova are under investigation for their role in Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, according to reports • The four women

on' by law enforcement, Cohen claimed her phone had been hacked and she had to preserve the phone as evidence. MAXWELL'S LEGAL TEAM: Pictured l-r: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca,Christian R Everdell, Laura A. Menninger and Mark Cohen. In their filings to the court Maxwell's lawyers had argued that she is at increased risk o

. MAXWELL'S LEGAL TEAM: Pictured l-r: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca,Christian R Everdell, Laura A. Menninger and Mar

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Bitrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo