Epstein Secrets

ive Motion to Compel [DE 130]. For the following reasons and the reasons set forth in Respondent's Motion to Stay Discovery, the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly

otor Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore, Potter , 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Chudasama at 1367, 1368) (affirming district court's decision to stay proceedings, including all discovery, pending ruling on defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to

e need to resolve a facially challenged claim before discovery is based on the extent to which the claim expands discovery). The concerns raised in Chudasama and its progeny are present here. The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dispositive of the entire case. Thus, staying dis

ive Motion to Compel [DE 130]. For the following reasons and the reasons set forth in Respondent's Motion to Stay Discovery, the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly

or Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore v. Potter , 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Chudasama at 1367, 1368) (affirming district court's decision to stay proceedings, including all discovery, pending ruling on defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to

e need to resolve a facially challenged claim before discovery is based on the extent to which the claim expands discovery). The concerns raised in Chudasama and its progeny are present here. The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dispositive of the entire case. Thus, staying dis

to Dismiss; and (2) deny Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. If the Court should deny either the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery or the United States' Motion to Dismiss, then the United States respectfully requests that it be allowed thirty (30) days following the entry of the earlier of any such o

advising the client as to which documents should be disclosed and which ones withheld, and determining whether certain information is privileged. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005

otor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Chudasama at 1367, 1368) (affirming district court's decision to stay proceedings, including all discovery, pending ruling on defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to

to Dismiss; and (2) deny Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. If the Court should deny either the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery or the United States' Motion to Dismiss, then the United States respectfully requests that it be allowed thirty (30) days following the entry of the earlier of any such o

advising the client as to which documents should be disclosed and which ones withheld, and determining whether certain information is privileged. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005

otor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). See also Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Chudasama at 1367, 1368) (affirming district court's decision to stay proceedings, including all discovery, pending ruling on defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to

o Dismiss [DE129] and Response in Opposition to Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel [DE 130]. For the following reasons, the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarl

the parties, including significant public resources. Under such circumstances, a stay of proceedings is warranted and appropriate. See, generally , Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997) (approving judicial intervention and resolution of claims-dispositive issues before p