Epstein Secrets

t's alternatives are most relevant to this case. A specific employment practice or policy can comprise affirmative acts or inaction. Cf. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining an employer's responsibility to act to rectify a hostile or offensive work environment under Title VI

2014); Rodriguez v. Nat'l City Bank, 726 F.3d 372, 376 (3d Cir. 2013); M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 839, 841-44 (5th Cir. 2012); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In that light, we find that the district court's decision to reconsider the certifica

ed to provide the draft indictmatt. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FRI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of P131 302 reports that exonerate him). We are Lammed that there is information that could be rebutted i

11O2g 49 F.3d 10'/9, 1083 (5c1 Cir. 1995), or "at least one of the defendant's motivations for taking the trip in the first place," United States v. Ellis 935 F.2d 385, 389 (I° Cir. 1991). Set also United States v. Host-hover 224 Fed. Appx. 923 (I I'll Cir. 2007) (unpublished). EFTA01718553 12/07/07

er exceeded the scope of the warrant or diverged from the warrant's permissible search strategy; raise allegations that the government violated its Brady obligations; challenge an expert's credentials or methodology; or generally sow doubt and confusion. Forensics audit trails can be quite lengthy, an

ssipation of probable cause as the chief measure of the "reasonableness" of a search's length under the Fourth Amendment. For example, the court in Ellis, 1999 WL 815818 at *10, stated that "the test of whether the time within which a search warrant was executed was reasonable revolves around the ques