Epstein Secrets

re convinced that "reasons clearly existed for taking the other course." Lewis v. Bloomsburg Mills, Inc., 773 F.2d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1985); accord Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). 2. An appellate court must be even more careful in reviewing any factual findings underlying the distr

m-line opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2011). And in any case involving expert testimony, "a court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical ga

of New York (via United States mail) s/ Nicole Simmons 43 EFTA00075525 Case 20-2413, Document 40. 08

Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001) 17 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 25 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S

f the filing to all parties of record. hi Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00076390 Case Gaga4.407741333-IDARn-Off

trolling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). "A motion for reconsideration 1 EFTA00076385 CaseastE2&2871481DIARnetotkinfa &IOC it App.-0778 ca i