Epstein Secrets

tend that judicial estoppel 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 demons

MARY JUDGMENT Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Reply to Petitioners' Response to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeff

tend that judicial estoppel 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 demons

MARY JUDGMENT Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Reply to Petitioners' Response to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeff

would 25 EFTA00799849 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 26 of 32 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010).

ATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 6, 2017, the foregoing Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 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 A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant U

ld 25 EFTA00591486 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 27 of 33 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010).

ATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 2, 2017, the foregoing Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 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 A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant U