t her entire amended complaint, the plaintiff uses the term "scheme" as though it were a password for gaining access to RICO standing. Cf. Newton'. Tyson Foods, Inc., 207 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2000) (observing in the context of indirect and attenuated RICO allegations that "[t]he mere recitation of the chain o

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

ions of the agreement were prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore fall within the definition of attorney work product."); Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329, 2007 WL 3128422, at • (N.D. Okla. Oct. 24, 2007). 10 EFTA00618143 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 191 Filed 06/06/16 Page 13 of 1

ution in making its predominance finding. See, e.g., Cooper v. So. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 126 S. Ct. 1195, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1053 (2006) (noting that individualized damage issues could swamp the advantages coming from an initia