Epstein Secrets

70 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 14 570 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990

s Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea 20, 21, 22 170 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 14 570 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) Haft v. Adams, 1 238 So.2d 843 (Fla.1970) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Serban, 14, 18, 19, 20 148 So.3d 1287 (

arly absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The latter is subject to nearly absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). A trial court is instructed "to make particularized findings in support of its determination of which of the do

280(c)(1), Ha. R. Civ. P.; compare Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 19

other things, this Court may enter an order that the requested discovery not be had at all. Rule 1.280(c)(1), Ha. R. Civ. P.; compare Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(reversing trial court order denying deposition of material witness).\* 16. The Rule has been successfully

ed outside the presence of the jury. Rosa v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 636 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994

e seeks to prohibit any reference to evidence at trial by first having its inadmissibility determined outside the presence of the jury. Rosa v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 636 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The purpose of this motion in limine is to prevent Edwards from offering improper evidence at trial, the mer