Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00183935_sub_001 - EFTA00183935_100

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Mail; /Facsimile; (3 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Judith Stevenson Areo, Esq., Stat

/Facsimile; (3 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern Distri

gate suspected crimes without inhibition and engage in unrestricted deliberations." Lockhead Martin Corp... Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1279 (M.D. Ha. 2005). The rule aims to "prevent disclosure of the way in which information was presented to the grand jury, the specific questions and inquiries

EFTA00191264_sub_001 - EFTA00191264_100

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ed States was prepared to name in an indictment. SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. Dated: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY DEXTER LEE Attorney for Defendant United States -5- EFTA00191289 Case 9:08-cv-

ney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANT

terial even if there 'certainly is a public interest in knowing more' about its contents." Tillman'. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Ha. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co.'. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the diss

EFTA00085709

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ad the government conferred with them before entering into the NPA. See Doc. 458 at 23 (explaining that "[a] chance to discuss this matter with Mr. Acosta to get answers about that and other related questions will, Jane Doe 1 and 2 believe, provide the kind of information that they would have received

nces where a contract is clearly divisible." Galaxy Cable, Inc. v. Cablevision of Marion Cty., LLC, No. 5:05-CV-303-OC-GRJ, 2006 WL 2265419, at *3 (M.D. Ha. Aug. 8, 2006). A contract is considered to be "indivisible" when "each and all of its parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another