osyncratic circumstances of the case before it.” Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein’s case is more i

bsence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases.” Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). In consideri

e interests is a situation-specific task, and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case before it.” Microfinancial, supra, 385 F.3d at 78. Epstein’s case is more idiosyncratic than most. As the Court aptly noted in its Order denying Epstein’s first motion to stay

third parties; . . . (v) the public interest[;] . . . (vi) the good faith of the litigants (or the absence of it) and (vii) the status of the cases.” Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78 (citations omitted). In considering those factors, the United States respectfully recommends to the Court that all of the factors wei