Epstein Secrets

rly Hills, Cal., for appellant. •1014 Donald M. Fain, Fain, Major, & Wiley, Atlanta, Ga., for Advantage. James A. Orr, and Nicholas DeWitt, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Atlanta, Ga., for Amoco. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Before FAY and ED

Brown brought a personal injury suit against Amoco Chemical Company ("Amoco Chemical"), Torlon's parent company. At the close of discovery, Amoco Chemical moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from suit under Georgia's workers' compensation law because Amoco Chemical was Torlon's

978) 216 United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003)

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

978) 216 United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003)

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

erations validly before a jury, and finally, as a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct.' Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at *6 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)). "However, while there are times when a district court may properly find it absolutely necessary[, in order] to preserve

ranscript, no contact women_ the ant at nallavernment ongation. (Def. Mot. 3 at 1). Instead, ChiefJudgeltNahon's cAlgaismore specific: rearing Chemical figgrand desire to avoid "a Chemical Bank kind OREM5n," Chief Judge Mahon asked about cont between the two parties "prior to the issuance of the sub

78) 216 United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003

NY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judg

ore a jury, and finally, as a remedy 109 EFTA00103134 designed to deter illegal conduct.' Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at '6 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)). "However, while there are times when a district court may properly find it absolutely necessary[, in order] to preserve

s investigation and the issuance of the subpoena. Additionally, and in light of the Government's prior arguments to Chief Judge McMahon relating to Chemical Bank,40 the Government attempted to address the misconduct at issue in that case: namely the production of confidential documents without seeking m