Epstein Secrets

for this deposition. 18 BY MR. TEIN: 19 Q. Go ahead. Please answer yes or no. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Thank you. 22 In fact, you know that Mr. Herman held a 23 press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar 24 lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? 25 A. After it happened. Ph. 561.682

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl

e 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 75 of 100 nsor & Associates \ Reporting and Transcriponn, Inc. Page 49 1 Mr. Herman in the presence of IMO" 2 A. None. 3 Q. What discussions did you have in the 4 presence of her aunt? 5 A. Of my aunt? 6 MR. GOLDBERGER:

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl

idly to discuss his or her situation in order to explore the possibility of disposing of the case through a consensual arrangement." United States ! Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 797 (5th Cir. 1977). To allow Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to now "introduce statements uttered in reliance on the rule would be to use

o limit the scope of the privilege, this Court will not countenance HCA's attempt to cre- ate new affirmative applications for the privilege. Cf., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Engels, 41 Misc.2d 49, 51, 244 N.Y.S.2d 983, 986 (Sup.CL Kings Co.1963) (privilege is a shield, not a sword), offd, 21 A.D.2d 808, 260

1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 40 of 100 nsor & Associates Roportenp and Tanscriptinn, 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 stepmother and Mr. Herman at the press conference 12 regarding your lawsuit? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now you know that this is a very serious 15 matter, don't you? 16 MR.

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl

for this deposition. 18 BY MR. TEIN: 19 Q. Go ahead. Please answer yes or no. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Thank you. 22 In fact, you know that Mr. Herman held a 23 press conference after he filed the fifty-million-dollar 24 lawsuit on your behalf, don't you? 25 After it happened. Ph. - Fax. 16

ether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the pl