e referenced case. His rulings are as follows: Non Party's motion to quash, or for protective order, regarding subpoena served on non party law firm Boies Schiller: | The subpoena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9, 17, 18, 20 and 23. The mo

ons but he also said that the client strongly believed what she was saying. At Mr. Dershowitz’s request I attended a meeting on July 6, 2015, at the Boies Schiller Flexner offices in New York City with David Boies and Sigrid McCawley with Mr. Dershowitz participating by Skype. The purpose of the meeting as stated

ys did you have a common interest privilege? A. Brad Edwards from, obviously, the law firm that I've been working with here. Also attorneys from the Boies Schiller law firm who were representing Virginia Roberts at that time. Q. Anyone else? A. The -- at that time, on December 30th, I don't know that it's dire

porters into Weinstein’s alleged sexual predations, the op-ed suggested that Boies’ work for Weinstein was unethical, partly because the Times’ was a Boies Schiller client. Two days earlier, on Nov. 7, following publication of The New Yorker article, Boies had issued a statement addressed to his firm, stating th