Back to Network
5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
Document Mentions (5 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available
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
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available
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
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available
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
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
n light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'
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
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
n light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'
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
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (22)
Entities connected to both Scott Rothstein and the Internal Justice Department
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON1,321 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
Bradley Edwards
PERSON1,054 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON485 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
Kenneth Marra
PERSON236 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON148 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION51 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
CH
Chambers
PERSON42 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
the United States District Court
ORGANIZATION38 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
JN
JANE DOE NO
PERSON22 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
D.E.
ORGANIZATION18 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
the State Court
ORGANIZATION17 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
Justice Department Complaint
ORGANIZATION8 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
CH
Chmielarz
PERSON5 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
the Florida Rules of Evidence
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
the Final Judgment
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
See American Disability Assn.
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Scott·5 w/ the
LINNEA
ORGANIZATION3 w/ Scott·3 w/ the
ER
Epstein I. Rothstein
PERSON3 w/ Scott·3 w/ the
RJ
R. JOHN
PERSON3 w/ Scott·3 w/ the
internal Justice Department Proceeding
ORGANIZATION3 w/ Scott·3 w/ the