Epstein Secrets

nt/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Austral

EFTA00805165 agreements constitutes classic grounds for preclusion of production and admission into evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017). In Fischman v. Klarquist, Sparkman, Campbell, Leigh & Winston, Civ. No. 94-1057, 1995 WL 264213 (D. Or. May I, 1995), the plaintiff sued her former employer all

from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-6-06 86. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 4-10-06 87. Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06 88. All subpoenas issued to State Grand Jury 89. Documents related to the rental of a vehicle for 90. Ted's Sheds Documents 91.

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any reference to

from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-6-06. 86. Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-10-06. 87. Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06. Also objected to as possible attorney/client privilege as there is no other identifying information regarding this letter, such as it

moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).Consequently, in the case at hand, Epstein requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any