days ago, and discussed perhaps within the last few 23 as part of a cannon interest privilege with an 23 weeks, then we would have essentially a Binger 24 express representation it was attorneys' eyes only, 24 issue to analyze. So Hiss Rockentoch, go ahead and 25 with an express representation

days ago, and discussed perhaps within the last few 23 as part of a cannon interest privilege with an 23 weeks, then we would have essentially a Binger 24 express representation it was attorneys' eyes only, 24 issue to analyze. So Hiss Rockentoch, go ahead and 25 with an express representation

hibit 3.) During its in camera review, this Court must consider and determine: 1. The e-mails are directly relevant to the issues for trial and no Binger's "surprise in fact" exists regarding them; 2. If any work product protection existed, it was waived or excepted based on: a. Farmer Jaffe's exp

EARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March 2018 on his Clerk's Trial Exhibit List under a Binger' analysis, this Court raised the pending issue of the 47 e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epstein's pending request for an in camera

your paralegal' • by an unsuccessful notion in limlne. Furthernare, 5 /12. ROCWITEACH: Who obtained the three boxes. prejudice in the context of Binger refers to the 4 the three taxes free Fowler White, which contair. surprise in fact of the objecting party and is not 7 that CD which la at Issue

ealing with an expert which is otherwise qualified to testify to what he's going to testify. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 93:16-20.) Indeed, "[a]s indicated in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981), the exclusion of an unlisted witness' testimony is a drastic remedy which should pertain in only

-over" so that, rather than appear as trial counsel on the eve of trial to actually try the case, they can reopen discovery and start from scratch. Binger, however, does not permit Epstein to do so. Epstein correctly notes that the Court should not permit Epstein to amend his exhibit list if the propo

s follows: &nicer Does Not Permit a Party to Ignore Trial Court Orders In this and other motions, Epstein relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Binger to argue that Epstein should be permitted to ignore this Court's pre-trial orders, as long as there is no prejudice to Edwards. This interpretation

EARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March 2018 on his Clerk's Trial Exhibit List under a Binger' analysis, this Court raised the pending issue of the 47 e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epstein's pending request for an in camera

796 On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Leslie Yueling > wrote: We have started working on the account and need to have the user id and password for the Binger account: http://www.the'effreyepsteinfoundation.com/ and for http://wwwjeffremstein.org/ website asap. Thank you, Leslie EFTA00697797

we get an answer on the record as to whether that is going to happen so I know whether this is discovery that I need to proceed with. THE COURT: Binger has long held, essentially, that there's really no difference from the discovery standpoint between rebuttal witnesses or rebuttal evidence and d

tion -- THE COURT: That's what I'm doing today until the noon hour. MR. LINK: Great. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: And there is a threshold Binger issue, which my presentation addresses that I provided to opposing counsel but have not yet given to Your Honor. I can give it to Your Honor now,

bits create prejudice, they've known about them for months, they're in the public record, they're emails from Mr. Edwards himself and, Your Honor, Binger teaches us this: Yes, you have discretion. But the discretion is really driven by, as you said, process and fairness, and is there really a preju