Epstein Secrets

Y that on October 10, 2017, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. Is/Dexter A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney 30 EFTA00800037 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 427 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2017 Page 31 of 3

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

ent and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. is/Dexter . Lee 31 EFTA00211748 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. ~It Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac

he earlier or later court was misled; and (3) whether the inconsistent later position would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water,. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 25 EFTA00211742 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson I. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (I I th Cir. 2010). In their st

FY that on October 6, 2017, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. Is/Dexter A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney 30 EFTA00800005 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 425-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2017 Page 32 of

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Sui

position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." DE 401-2 at 25 (emphasis added) (citing Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the state court proceedings as the "earlier" proceedings, the Government does n