Epstein Secrets

us B. Lau, White & Case LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Stolt—Nielsen S.A. and Stott- Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd. Roberta D. Liebenberg, Allen D. Black, (Argued), Gerard A. Dever, Fine, Kaplan & Black, Philadelphia, PA, James A. Back- strom, Jr., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Richard B. Wingfield

ation Group Ltd. Roberta D. Liebenberg, Allen D. Black, (Argued), Gerard A. Dever, Fine, Kaplan & Blac

appropriateness of the investigatory methods employed, which raises voting rights and first amendment concerns. This case is distinguishable from O'Shea and City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 76 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (Lyons). In O'Shea, the plaintiffs chal- lenged certain arres

OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited in

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

14, 327 See, CL, Michael M. Mannix and David S. Black., Compliance Issues in M&A: Performing Diligence

s v. Aguilar, 783 FE Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 201 1); Order, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44, ECF No. 309; see also Order, United States v. O'Shea, No. 09-cr-629 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012), ECF No. 142; Order, United States y. Nguyen, No. 08-cr-522 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2009), ECE No. 144. These dist