Epstein Secrets

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

has held that, when faced with a combination of federal claims and pendent state law claims, federal common law controls under Rule 501. Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1372-73 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Since the instant case is a federal question case by virtue of the appellant's section 1983 claim, we hold

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

has held that, when faced with a combination of federal claims and pendent state law claims, federal common law controls under Rule 501. Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367, 1372-73 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Since the instant case is a federal question case by virtue of the appellant's section 1983 claim, we hold

, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITION OF ALFRED SECKEL Plaintiff Jeffrey

commanding non-party Alfred Seckel to appear for deposition in Los Angeles, California on May 23, 2011 which subpoena Defendant Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") has noticed over the Plaintiffs objection. The grounds for this Motion are: I. On or about April 7, 2011, counsel to Edwards noticed the deposit

void costly litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court