Epstein Secrets

t 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). The correspondence with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible evidence, and th

ment clearly has prior knowledge of documents that it gave to Epstein. Here, then – as the magistrate judge properly held relying on an instructive Ninth Circuit opinion (not discussed by Epstein) -- the “existence and location of the documents . . . are a ‘foregone conclusion’ and [Epstein] . . . adds littl

g Shepherd Finkelman Silver Miller Sperling & Slater Spiritus Law Sullivan & Cromwell Taus Cebulash The Law Offices of Neal Brickman Troutman Sanders Vanek Vickers Weil Gotshal Wilkofsky Friedman Wilson Sonsini Wittels Law Wolcott Rivers EFTA00032584 --- PAGE BREAK --- involved in a three

ry trial over whether Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" infringes Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On," saying Tuesday that a coming decision by the full Ninth Circuit in a copyright appeal involving Led Zeppelin may be informative. Read full article » Fake Mont. Cattle Rancher Cops To Fraud, Will Repay $43M A M

guilty Thursday in federal court. Brian Richard Sanders, 66, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of an

ion endures, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others earned an order to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline, and a Washington tribe beat BNSF in a Ninth Circuit oil shipping dispute. Here's a look at some of the highest-profile decisions in Native American law from the first half of 2020. [Continue Reading]

sed breach of fiduciary duty claim because the plain- tiff merely alleged a priest-parishioner re- lationship, and not a counseling relation- ship); Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 337 (5th Cir.1998) (interpreting Texas law, permitted breach of fiduciary duty claim against minister

es. *3 While plaintiffs do not cite any case in which a court has held that the doctrine does not apply, the Court's own research reveals that the Ninth Circuit has held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to Jones Act and FELA cases j because each Act contains a mandato venue provi