Epstein Secrets

mit the law firm of Boles Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply with a grand jury subpoena.

rocesses to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "

fre Action"), in order to permit the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply

rorecses to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "

-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BYLAW ENFORCEMENT [sic] " OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 6 EFTA00097358

uire such action.") (quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (en banc)) (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Although civil and criminal proceedings covering the same ground may sometimes justify deferring civil proceeding