Epstein Secrets

012 reply attached copies of the complaints in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein (Exhibit A), and L.M. v. Jeffr

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

s victims. Ex. K, Nov. 28, 2007 Dr. from Kenneth W. Stan to Assistant Att'y Gen. Alice S. Fisher. Th

he earlier or later court was misled; and (3) whether the inconsistent later position would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water,. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 25 EFTA00211742 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson I. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (I I th Cir. 2010). In their st

012 reply attached copies of the complaints in E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein (Exhibit A), and L.M. v. Jeffr

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

, Case No. 09-81092-Civ- KAM (S.D.Fla.) (DE 1); E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXX-MB (F

F.2d 1324, 20 EFTA00299040 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). As this Court has recognized, "a contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensable party." HDR Engineering, Inc. v. R.C.T. Engineering, Inc., No. 08- 81040-CIV-ICAM, 2010 WL 2402908, *2 (S.D.Fla. June 15, 2010) (citation omitted). "Parties to a contract are ind