… B Judgment delivered 22 July 2008. Specific disclosure – Litigation privilege – Cross-examination – When court could go behind affidavit of documents – Third party sought specific disclosure of documents – Litigation privilege claimed – Ma…
…the commencement of this litigation (as shown by the document at issue) is - evidence to the contrary. Ms. Giuffre should be able to cross her with that email and ask related questions. Therefore, both of these documents are highly relevant…
…obligation to respond to each interrogatory including its related subparts, separately and fully. A submission by that party's counsel which cross-references pleadings and exhibits is simply not an answer to that interrogatory by that party. It must be …
…1996) ............................................. 7 Fausto v. Credigy Svcs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427 (N.D.Ca. 2008) ........................................ 7 Hartman v. Am. Red Cross, No. 09–1302, 2010 WL 1882002 (C.D.Ill. May 11, 2010) .... 7 Lane v. Smith, Jr., 84…
…obligation to respond to each interrogatory including its related subparts, separately and fully. A submission by that party's counsel which cross-references pleadings and exhibits is simply not an answer to that interrogatory by that party. It must be …
…is relevant to Ms. Giuffre’s claims for multiple reasons, not least of which is Ms. Giuffre should be able to cross her with and ask related questions. Therefore, both of these documents are highly relevant. Whatever Defendant argues about…
…Parties.........................................6 II. THE COURT SHOULD USE ITS DISCRETION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS MS. GIUFFRE HAS NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE. ............................................................................8 A. Allowing…
…motion papers. And Maxwell cites no precedent for the proposition that Doe 1’s memory is a countervailing interest sufficient to justify continued sealing—Doe 1’s medical condition may have been the proper subject of cross-examination, but it…
…2900217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (denying motion and cross motion based on failure to confer, noting “[m]ere correspondence, absent exigent circumstances not present here, does not satisfy the requirement”); Myers v. Andzel…