Epstein Secrets

, Baker Botts LLP (DC), Christopher Mark Curran, White & Case LLP (DC), David Charles Frederick, John Christopher Rozendaal, Mark Charles Hansen, Michael John Guz- man, Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), Law- rence Saul Robbins, Robbins Russell Eng- lert Orseck & Untereiner

Timothy John Finn, Jones Day (DC), Louis Richard Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington), Willia

WU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may "devistel the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction"); Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir.1981) (noting a court has considerable procedural leeway in de- ciding whether discovery would assist re

ot to perform at the time the promise was made." Cohen v. Koenig, 25 F.3d 1168, 1172 (2d Cir. 1994). He

e of the evidence, either at trial or at a pretrial evidentiary hearing. See CutCo Industries, Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 365 (2d Cir. 1986); Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 889, 904 (2d Cir. 1981). But at this stage, prior to discovery, the Court must "credit a plaintiff's averments of jurisdi

Timothy John Finn, Jones Day (DC), Louis Richard Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington), William

, APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir.1981) (noting a court has considerable procedural leeway in de- ciding whether discovery would assist res-