Epstein Secrets

i law, it would be treading upon the policy choices the Thai government has made in the competing objectives and costs of tort law." Id.; see also Vasquez, 325 F.3d at 675 & n. 14 (holding that application of Texas law, where there was little justification for doing so to right any perceived inequiti

and law would promote "(u]niformity and accommodation of the competing policies of the two nations." Punyee, 2004 WL 2511144, at *9; see also Vasquez. 325 F.3d at 675 ("Uniformity, predictability, and accommodation of the competing policies of the two nations favor applying Mexican law."). *8 W

it as a pattern of racketeering activity"); see also Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co.. 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that the Second Circuit "has never held a period of less than two years to constitute a substantial period of time"). Second, the criminal activities allegedly committed

bid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200. 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). 21 DWI 15&45345v3 3070112-000042 EFTA00596475 In sum, Edwards has simply "failed to

nfidential source and his unpublished interview therefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is signific

witness and rejecting argument "that Rule 17(h) applies only to witness statements already in the Government's possession" (citing United States v. Vasquez, 258 =. 68, 73 (E.D.N.Y.2009)). The Court should quash the subpoena to the extent it seeks statements of witnesses or prospective witnesses. For

t "this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), S1 It is true that, in 1996, the Second Circuit held that Rule 408 "does not require exclusion of evidence relating to a civil settlement in a criminal trial." Manko v. United States, 87 F.3d 50,