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

ous 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 plaintiff has failed to

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:

ous 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 plaintiff has failed to

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.

ous 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 plaintiff has failed to

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

ous 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 plaintiff has failed to