Epstein Secrets

a 2011 statement attributed to Mr. Gow in London. McCawley Decl., Ex. 2. Because the Complaint lacks allega

to Dismiss Complaint with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to all counsel of record including the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 s/ Brenda Rodriguez 11 EFTA00591589

duct, not an attack on plaintiffs."); McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[G]eneral denials aren't actionable."); Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 271-72 (N.Y. 2014). Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to analogize the subject Statement to those in Boeheim and Clemens. Yet in bo

rk, N.Y. March 31, 2017 10:10 a.m. HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. MEREDITH L. SCHULTZ, ESQ. S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH For Plaintiff BY: PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQ. HADDON, MORGAN AND

ize the narrowness of our motion here. We seek to preclude evidence involving that litigation. Your Honor has already heard from my colleague, Ms. McCawley, who has presented our argument for why Dershowitz should not be in this case at all, and of course, if we prevail on point 1, this point becomes i

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves th

rk, N.Y. March 31, 2017 LO310 a.m, Before? HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. MEREDITH L. SCHULTZ, ESQ. S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH For Plaintiff BY: PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQ. HADDON, MORGAN AND FORE

hasize the narrowness of our motion here. We seek to preclud vidence involving that litigation. Your Honor has already heard from my colleague, Ms. McCawley, who has presented our argument for why Dershowitz should not be in this case at all, and of course, if we prevail on point 1, this point becomes i

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves that