gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1328.22.pdf PDF
…UP REFERENCE THIS CASE. CASE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN. THE DISPOSITION IN THIS CASE WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS INACTIVE PENDING FURTHER printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on April ll:05:24AM …
…UP REFERENCE THIS CASE. CASE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN. THE DISPOSITION IN THIS CASE WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS INACTIVE PENDING FURTHER printed by Employee Id#: 8557 on April ll:05:24AM …
…conducted by New York City Transit Authority); United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co…
…she has. Plaintiff intentionally omitted the deposition pages from Ms. Maxwell’s testimony which clarified the age and misstated in her Reply that she “admitted” to “threesomes with multiple girls.” This was an intentional misrepresentation of fact. 2. “Ms. Giuffre…
…Co., the Florida Supreme Court further clarified that the attorney-client privilege "is not concerned with the litigation needs of the opposing party," and that ''there is no exception provided under § 90.502 that allows the discovery of attorney-client…
Comments