Epstein Secrets

T C EFTA00207304 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE APPLICATION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO DAILY NEWS, L.P., AND GEORGE RUSH x No. 10 M8-85 (LMM) SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RUSH STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) GEORGE RUSH, being duly sworn, depo

am admitted to practice before this Court. 2. I make this Declaration in further support of the motion of the Daily News and Daily News journalist George Rush for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(cX3XAXiii) quashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe

reto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of L.W. v. Knox County Bd. of Educ.. 36 Med. L. Rptr. 17

le from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gallo has failed to make a sufficient showing that the subpoenaed documents and testimony are eit

T C EFTA00612037 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE APPLICATION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO DAILY NEWS, L.P., AND GEORGE RUSH x No. 10 M8-85 (LMM) SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RUSH STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) GEORGE RUSH, being duly sworn, depo

am admitted to practice before this Court. 2. I make this Declaration in further support of the motion of the Daily News and Daily News journalist George Rush for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(cX3XAXiii) quashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe

reto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of L.W. v. Knox County Bd. of Educ.. 36 Med. L. Rptr. 17

le from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gallo has failed to make a sufficient showing that the subpoenaed documents and testimony are eit

vest the district court of its ongoing authority under Rule 23(c)(1)(C) to monitor the class and make changes when appropriate. See Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273 (11th Or. 2000) ( (FIN4) 'Class certification orders . . . are not final judgments impervious to lower court review and revisio

king wise decisions in the face of uncertainty." W. Alen Walis & Harry V. Roberts. The Nature of Stat

int must contain some allegation that the plaintiffs actually performed their obligations under the contract." R.H. Damon & Co. v. Softkey Software Products, Inc., 811 F. Supp. 986, 991 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (dismissing plaintiffs case for failure to do so). Here, Statebridge has alleged that "Plaintiff failed to p