Epstein Secrets

example, by .. . giving confidential testimony." Allen v. City of N.Y., 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300-01 (S.

r than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boles Schiller, made the application. Boles Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm's failure to seek for itself permission to

CF, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) 12 Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.

ess-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) 7 Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 792I(ICMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) 7, 12 Sec. and Exch. Conun'n v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 22

13, Forgey, 4.29M) also reports. NBC's Jonathan Allen tweeted, "Trump on Epstein: RTs do not equal endo

d charged with third-degree felony terroristic threat." Porter asked, "I'd like to know if he has any bomb-making ability." KTRK-TV Houston (8/13, Schiller, 431K) reports Fonseca "is facing a felony charge after police say he made a terroristic threat on Snapchat." KPRC-TV Houston (8/13, McCord, Arche

NW1 406. mad: taklatama4GlaoLcom m)Akron House Allen Avenue iwl t(72 7 eir 0305 3 6178 4 1 4 4

011o hj Email: 1 6 3 823 Schiatti, Gianmarco a r p 71841712w(?) rig i 121 RI) Schiffer, Helen & Tim 784 Parx Ave NYC 646 226 4696 Hen+len P Schiller P 516 537 7744 2nd home Sebag Montefiroe Simon & Santa 838N831-1911 Seilern Christine 302/15c W12th St NYt h) 881 W) Sejoumet, Isabel de

urt may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants b

tance, unlike in Subpoena Duces Tecum, the posture of the Application does not involve a motion to quash. Of course, should this Court permit Boies Schiller to respond, Boies Schiller would have the right to move to quash—including, for example, if a grand jury subpoena made any improper requests, such a