Epstein Secrets

als for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU

T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2005) 26 Bernstein v. Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001) 17 FDIC v. Ernst &

Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001) 17 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 25 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S

ls for the Second Circuit —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAppellee, Defendant-Appellant, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU

ellee, Defendant-Appellant, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,

trolling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). "A motion for reconsideration 1 EFTA00076385 CaseastE2&2871481DIARnetotkinfa &IOC it App.-0778 ca i

ng 20 lines of Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition transcript, from page 112, line 17 through and including page 113, line 12.1 Ms. and non-parties Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co oppose the motion.2 For the reasons described below, Ms. Maxwell's motion is denied. I. Legal Standard "A motion for r

g page 113, line 12.1 Ms. and non-parties Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co oppose the motion.2 Fo

t. no. from Christine N. Walz, dated Jan. 27, 2021 [dkt. 1 EFTA00078187 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1211 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 5 Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Such motions "are properly granted only if there is a sh

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

m-line opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2011). And in any case involving expert testimony, "a court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical ga