…East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, within thirty (30) days of service hereof. DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following meanings: 1. “Agent” shall mean any agent, employee, officer, director…
…SERVICE I certify that on February 6, 2017, I electronically served this NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENA AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF SA.RAH RANSOME via Email on the folJowing: Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell Meridith Schultz …
…subpoena demonstrates that Defendant is not even seeking documents relevant to the matter before this Court, and is instead attempting to obtain backdoor discovery for other actions. Ms. Ransome’s responses are subject to the following qualifications, explanations, and objections…
…subpoena demonstrates that Defendant is not even seeking documents relevant to the matter before this Court, and is instead attempting to obtain backdoor discovery for other actions. Ms. Ransome’s responses are subject to the following qualifications, explanations, and objections…
…subpoena demonstrates that Defendant is not even seeking documents relevant to the matter before this Court, and is instead attempting to obtain backdoor discovery for other actions. Ms. Ransome’s responses are subject to the following qualifications, explanations, and objections…
…32. Under that rule, Plaintiff must establish the following to use all or part of any deposition at trial: (a) Using Depositions. (1) In General. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against…
…however, the parties shall append to the end of the definition of “Confidential Information” in the protective order the underlined language at the end of the following excerpt, which makes clear that the parties cannot agree to unseal the identities…
…1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents…
…Ransome to sit for additional questions. The following are 18 the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party Ms. Ransome contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation: Current paycheck records and…
…1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents…
…Ransome to sit for additional questions. The following are 18 the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party Ms. Ransome contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation: Current paycheck records and…
…least once,” but that was after she contacted the New York Post reporter and blames that reporter for sharing her secret. The supposed “following” occurred prior to Ms. Ransome’s name being identified publicly or to counsel for Ms. Maxwell…
…least once,” but that was after she contacted the New York Post reporter and blames that reporter for sharing her secret. The supposed “following” occurred prior to Ms. Ransome’s name being identified publicly or to counsel for Ms. Maxwell…
…example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions: 1 • Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein's home in Palm Beach…
…Doe “relied” on the Protective Order, that order made clear that “it may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.” Dkt. 62 …
…of 39 260 West London Pipeline v Total UK [2008] 2 CLC A The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Ankin v London & North Eastern Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 527. Atos Consulting Ltd v Avis plc (No…
…1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents…
…Clements “clearly sensitive and confidential” financial information and so denied the requests with leave to renew following 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370 Filed 08/12/16 Page 11 of 17 a decision on the dispositive…
…I certify that on August 10, 2016, I electronically served this Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell Meredith Schultz …
…Clements “clearly sensitive and confidential” financial information and so denied the requests with leave to renew following 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1219-19 Filed 07/15/21 Page 11 of 17 a decision on the…