Epstein Secrets

6/06/2017 Page 26 of 32 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). In their state court tort actions against Epstein, both petitioners invoked the provisi

rdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00799827 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLS

D. NY (718) 987-5316 10306-3142 (718) 987-5316 242 BRYANT AVE STATEN ISLAND. NY 10306-3142 102 LINCOLN AVE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10306.2459 4: ROBINSON. KELLY M 9100 PORT OF SALE 134-564000K 7/1973 TRAYNOR, KELLY MALL STE 22 ST THOMAS, VI 00802- 3602 9100 PORT OF SALE MALL STE 15 ST THOMAS,

ssue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non- moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). [HN14] "[Alt the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not himself to weigh

/02/2017 Page 27 of 33 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). In their state court tort actions against Epstein, both petitioners invoked the provisi

rdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00591464 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on F

he case in Thailand. I When the private interest factors do not weigh in favor of dismissal, the court must consider the public interest factors. Robinson. 117 F.3d at 908. Although the court is not obligated to consider the public interest factors when the balance of private interest facto favors d

l if proof of its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 91 L.Ed2d 202 (1986). Where there is no material fact in dis- pute, the moving party need only establish that