Epstein Secrets

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

Tremaine LIP, of counsel) having moved for an Order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued to McGraw-Hill by Ha Gallo Winery ("Gallo") on October 25, 2004 in stinn ittp://medialaw.bna.conthnedw/disnlav/hateh mint disnlav arin7crarrhid=11711717 EFTA00207298 Meala Law Keporter

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

Tremaine LIP, of counsel) having moved for an Order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued to McGraw-Hill by Ha Gallo Winery ("Gallo") on October 25, 2004 in stinn ittp://medialaw.bna.conthnedw/disnlav/hateh mint disnlav arin7crarrhid=11711717 EFTA00612031 Meala Law Keporter

ible (Motion in Limine 18) oo. eeeesseesseceseesseesseceseesseesseceseesseeeseeeseeessesseessaeeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19)... eee 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s conversation with R

eeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2013)... eeeeeeeseeees 24 Gaillard v. Jim’s Water Service, Inc., 535 F.3d 771, 778-779 (8th Cir. 2008)........cssceeseeseeeeeees 22 Gallo v. Ricci, 814 N.Y.S.2d 422, 423 (2006)... eesseescecsseessecseeceseeseesseeeeeeseeeseeeseeeseeesseeseeesaeees 36 Geraty v. Vill. of Antioch, No. 09 C

and admissible (Motion in Limine 18) ooo... cecccecccccccccesscececsseececsseeeceseescesseesssueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19).................00. 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s convers

sueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

370, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2013)... cee 24 Gaillard v. Jim’s Water Service, Inc., 535 F.3d 771, 778-779 (8th Cir. 2008)........0..ccccee cece 22 Gallo v. Ricci, 814 N.Y .S.2d 422, 423 (2006) ..o.c.ccccccccccceeseseseesetenseseeeeseeesesenecsenssenenseeeeeeeerenes 36 Geraty v. Vill. of Antioch, No. 0