EFTA00583454Set 9
13p3,972w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case not cited by plaintiffs, the
Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say that the Supreme Court has abandoned ... their very disclosure. See Motion at and cases cited therein. The single case cited
by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of
Jacksonville
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00583454.pdf
EFTA00583780Set 9
15p4,660w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case not cited by plaintiffs, the
Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say that the Supreme Court has abandoned ... disclosure. See Motion at 15-17, and cases cited therein. The single case
cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of America v. City
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00583780.pdf
EFTA00584603Set 9
2008-07-1121p5,110w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case
not cited by plaintiffs, the Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say
that the Supreme Court has abandoned
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00584603.pdf
EFTA00583760Set 9
2008-07-1120p5,068w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case
not cited by plaintiffs, the Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say
9
EFTA00583768
that the Supreme Court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00583760.pdf
EFTA00611590Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,663w
under
§2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Record cited by
Plaintiff. Again, had Congress wanted the statute to apply retroactively, it could have
easily stated
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00611590.pdf
EFTA01116559Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,748w
under
§2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Record cited by
Plaintiff. Again, had Congress wanted the statute to apply retroactively, it could have
easily stated
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01116559.pdf
EFTA00611602Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,933w
under
§2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Record cited by
Plaintiff. Again, had Congress wanted the statute to apply retroactively, it could have
easily stated
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00611602.pdf
EFTA01085256Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,952w
under
§2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Record cited by
Plaintiff. Again, had Congress wanted the statute to apply retroactively, it could have
easily stated
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01085256.pdf
EFTA00209465Set 9
2013-07-1225p5,673w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case not cited by plaintiffs,
the Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say that the Supreme Court has
abandoned
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00209465.pdf
EFTA00209534Set 9
2013-07-1225p5,708w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case not cited by plaintiffs,
the Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say that the Supreme Court has
abandoned
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00209534.pdf
EFTA01072169Set 9
2013-07-1225p5,750w
Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012), another case not cited by plaintiffs,
the Court concluded, after analysis, that it "[could] not say that the Supreme Court has
abandoned
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01072169.pdf
EFTA02729648Set 11
2019-09-1253p10,708w
case of goella v. Onassis,
F.2d 986, at 997 (2d CG. 1973), cited by Plaintiffs, makes clear that the exclusion of a party from
a deposition "should be ordered rarely
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02729648.pdf