Epstein Secrets

lows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pr

Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 18 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 19 Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 ecf@brucereinhartla

18 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 19 of 19 Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defend

hat bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because 'discovery itself is designed to help define and

d by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, this day ofe 1 2-CO9 to Jack A Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., MO Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 1.1 M1 (561) 5 facsimile) •••••...1 By: ENCER KUVIN, Esq. Florida Bar N

lows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (516 Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro

Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. SP= 18 EFTA00725758 Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart P.A. Counsel for Defendan Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case N

itz Hodge and Francois Susman Godfrey Troutman Sanders Fowler White Burnett Critton's Revised Fee Agre

LLC Biennial Statement Palm Beach Litigation Invoices 1. Kirkland & Ellis 2. Critton Retainer Agreement 3. Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 4. Bruce E. Reinhart 5. Podhurst Orseck Firm 6. William (Bill) Riley 7. Riley Kiraly 8. Lewis Tein, P.L. 9. Fowler White Burnett Palm Beach Litigation Misc. 1. Ala

n. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify before gra

FTA00182754 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 8 Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendan Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricc

st one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein’s mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on 22 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013340 --- PAGE BREAK --- all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls t

, 43 (Fla. 1966), It is not enough for the —— party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979) (same). | Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment motion su