Epstein Secrets

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

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

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

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

08-80804-CrV-MARRA/JOHNSON cite. See Mitchell'. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1314 (

t her entire amended complaint, the plaintiff uses the term "scheme" as though it were a password for gaining access to RICO standing. Cf. Newton'. Tyson Foods, Inc., 207 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2000) (observing in the context of indirect and attenuated RICO allegations that "[t]he mere recitation of the chain o

trict court originally denied class certification for both claims, and this Court reversed. See Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 2009) ("Brown I"). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00056815 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-00 19639 EFTA_00 167385 EFTA01295652 Pa

ution in making its predominance finding. See, e.g., Cooper v. So. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 126 S. Ct. 1195, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1053 (2006) (noting that individualized damage issues could swamp the advantages coming from an initia