Epstein Secrets

etion of the district court." Florida Key Deer v. Brown, 232 F.R.D. 415, 417 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing NA

... [and] 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). All four of the factors suggest that the Court should deny Epstein's motion as untimely. I. The length of t

etion of the district court." Florida Key Deer v. Brown, 232 F.R.D. 415, 417 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing NA

... [and] 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). All four of the factors suggest that the Court should deny Epstein's motion as untimely. I. The length of t

Amoco Torlon Products' ("Torlon") plant in Atlanta, Georgia. Brown recovered workers' compensation benefits for his injuries from Torlon. In 1987, Brown brought a personal injury suit against Amoco Chemical Company ("Amoco Chemical"), Torlon's parent company. At the close of discovery, Amoco Chemic

re than one year after Amoco Chemical's summary judgment was denied. The district court denied Westlands' motion to intervene under Stalhvorth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir.1977), which set forth four factors for use as guidelines in determining the timeliness of a motion to intervene pursuant t

83). "'Timeliness' is not precisely measurable," Brown ex reL O'Neil v. Bush, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (1

. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National

; Criminal Information, United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, No. 09-cr-71, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Tex. Fe

ent to wrongfully influence the recipient. S.Rep. No. 95-114, at 10. % See 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-1(a), 78dd-2(a), 78dd-3(a). 7 See, C85 Complaint, SEC v. Monsanto Co., No. 05-cv-14 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005) (among other things, the company paid a $50,000 bribe to influence an Indonesian official to repeal an unfavorabl

s timely." United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (1 1 th Cir. 1983). "'Timeliness' is not precisely measurable," 2 EFTA00583796 Brown a rel. O'Neil v. Bush, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from al

. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stal(worth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National

umption In favor of public access to the courts. Brown I. Advantage Engineer- The doctrine of ancillary

urable dimensions . . . [T]imeliness is not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stallworth 'Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Those circumstances are considered in light of four factors: I. The length of time during which the would-be