Epstein Secrets

rine 0 14‘ M.nno Ptadwoi ILAndity Cl 00 Mena Veodule Cl 355 Moan Vaack PmaInct tumid, Cl 104 Other ?mortal !may PI ICI:u%A I. INJUI41 0 762 Naomi' kjety - Med Milpinalco Cl )65 Prison/al ',Jury - Poodau LobilIO 0 368 Aebeit04 Pennant lojwy Pnyhti Luhlely PERSONAL PROPERTY n 310 pear

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (I) Cases which originate in the United States District Courts. Removed from State Court (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal i

2.50 4,650.00 Rate Hours Amount TLC Tina L. Campbell 225.00 76.80 17,280.00 RJG Rachel J. Glasser

ecum of J. Epstein and Motion for Protective Order 06/20/18 RJG Review Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces 0.90 355.50 Tecum of J. Epstein (State Court) and hearing transcript on B. Edwards' Motion to Permit Limited Deposition of J. Epstein in preparation for drafting Objections to Notice 06/20/1

its discovery: Q. How did she [Paralegal Tina Campbell] review the disc contents? Rockenbach (counsel

ese show cause proceedings were instituted shortly thereafter. A privilege determination has never been made and that issue is currently before the State Court. The only issue for this Court to decide on October 26, 2018, is if Fowler White and/or Epstein violated the November 2010 Agreed Order. 2Jeffrey E

kenbach, PA did nothing wrong relating to its discovery and use of the disc: • "I'm not finding fault with anything you or Miss Rockenbach or Miss Campbell did. That's not the issue. You've done your job." (March 8, 2018, Aft. Tr. 59:1-4.)5 • "So I again want to make clear that I'm finding absolutely n

osenfeld! Adler, P.A., in which the following were statements made by William Scherer, Razorback's counsel: • "[I]n November we filed a lawsuit in State Court and we alleged that as part of Mr. Rothstein and the firm, and the firm's employees, and maybe some of the firm's attorneys, conspired to use the E

2.50 4,650.00 Rate Hours Amount TLC Tina L. Campbell 225.00 76.80 17,280.00 RJG Rachel J. Glasser

ecum of J. Epstein and Motion for Protective Order 06/20/18 RJG Review Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces 0.90 355.50 Tecum of J. Epstein (State Court) and hearing transcript on B. Edwards' Motion to Permit Limited Deposition of J. Epstein in preparation for drafting Objections to Notice 06/20/1

guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqoet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United St

), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding ...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state c