Epstein Secrets

Sec. Litig., 147 F.R.D. 208 (N.D. Cal. 1992)). See also Cooper Hosp./Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 131 (D.N.J. 1998) ("The fact that Cooper attempted to preserve the work-product privilege in its letter of transmittal and confidentiality agreement with the State does not alter this conc

ilege where that disclosure is inconsistent with maintaining secrecy from the disclosing party's adversary." Tumelaire v. Naples Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 137 So. 3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Tumelaire, the plaintiff was accused of conspiring with a mobile home park's owner in litigation agains

s," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment

ding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Guyitream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

pattern or practice" of discrimination such that the discrimination is "the regular rather than the unusual practice." Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336; Cooper, 467 U.S. at 875-76; see also Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2552 n.7. The required discriminatory r*49] intent may be inferred upon such a showing. See Te

one assumes the most dubious of conclusions: that the true measure of racial equality is always to be found in numeric proportionality." Md. Trooper Ass'n, Inc. v. Evans, 993 F.2d 1072, 1077 (4th Cir. 1993). 2. The majority observes that Plaintiffs' evidence is "statistically significant at 2.54 standard

s," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. !after v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment

ing risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

ere paradigmatic efforts, consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, see, e.g., Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), to engage in settlement discussions falling within the core protections of Rule 410. The district court also rejected — aga

ng risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstreant Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005X"once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out o