Epstein Files Search

Dataset

Sort

Status

DOJ Status

Date Range

–

Page Count

–

Corpus: 1990-03-17 – 2025-12-01

March 2019

None

Light

Medium

Heavy

Results by Dataset45 total

Set 8

Set 9

Set 10

results for “"Procedural Posture(s"”

Keyboard Shortcuts

/

Focus search

Esc

Blur input

O

Open PDF

←→

Paginate

EFTA00084765Set 9

2019-03-2623p5,645w

once again, Judge Sweet, I can tell you, 9 was somewhat troubled by the procedural posture of the case 10 even though, as I understand it, he was perhaps partly ... blame 11 for the procedural posture of the case, but it's not like Boies 12 Schiller came in here and asked for relief from the protective 13 order

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00084765.pdf

EFTA00070830Set 9

2018-11-297p2,189w

Government argues that the standard from those cases applies only to their specific procedural posture, specifically a motion to quash (In re Grand Jury) or an informal request without ... distinction without a difference. Nothing in those decisions cabins the rule to the procedural posture presented, and there is no logical reason to think a different standard should apply when

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00070830.pdf

EFTA01255806Set 9

2013-10-11102p26,618w

SDNY-0027564 EFTA_00 175242 EFTA01255837 Page 2 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, * PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court had previously granted plaintiff property owner's request for an injunction prohibiting defendant ... CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant. a property owner, filed an application with the trial court, appealing from

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01255806.pdf

EFTA01295897Set 10

2016-10-1294p21,192w

were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. DISPOSITION: Appeal dismissed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant investors challenged an order from the United States District Court for the Southern

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01295897.pdf

EFTA00027809Set 8

2019-02-2114p3,312w

consideration of issues relevant to a proper resolution. In light of the unique procedural posture of this case, the voices of victims who may be impacted by any remedy entered ... involvement in March 2019. Indeed, a different approach was necessitated by the different procedural posture of this case after the Court entered its order of partial summary judgment.2

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00027809.pdf

EFTA00029951Set 8

2018-11-294p2,283w

applies different conclusion. That judge found that Epstein's reliance only to their specific procedural posture, specifically a motion on the protective order in that case was not reasonable ... different conclusion. a difference. Nothing in those decisions cabins the rule to the procedural posture presented, and there is no logical Courts look to four factors when assessing whether reliance

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029951.pdf

EFTA00802948Set 9

2018-12-033p976w

counsel for all parties to discuss how to address this grave matter, given the procedural posture of this case and the ongoing harm being inflicted upon Mr. Dershowitz. Background, Recent ... practice or otherwise. Given the ongoing harm being suffered by Mr. Dershowitz, and the procedural posture of this case, we submit that convening such a conference immediately is critical

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00802948.pdf

EFTA00797972Set 9

2018-11-1510p5,667w

fail to register, career criminal, girlfriend, apartment, temporary, asserts, truck LexisNexis® Headnotes Case Summary Procedural Posture Criminal Law & Procedure > Postconviction A jury in the Circuit Court for Duval County (Florida

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00797972.pdf

EFTA00086685Set 9

2016-03-1827p8,445w

ordinary course, one would expect this application to arise in a different procedural posture. First, one would have expected Boies Schiller, the recipient of the subpoena, to have either

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00086685.pdf

EFTA01263246Set 10

2016-03-1826p8,431w

ordinary course, one would expect this application to arise in a different procedural posture. First, one would have expected Boies Schiller, the recipient of the subpoena, to have either

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01263246.pdf

EFTA00592733Set 9

2015-01-215p1,188w

below, Edwards cannot engage in discovery practice while this matter is in its current procedural posture, and an Order of Protection in favor of Epstein is required. MEMORANDUM

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00592733.pdf

EFTA00808471Set 9

2012-03-2718p4,063w

Court from its inevitable decision. Throughout his Response, Edwards misstates the facts and procedural posture of this complex case and the nature of the pending claims below. However

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00808471.pdf

EFTA01655511Set 10

2025-11-0616p10,418w

must be dismissed. Fitzpatrick raised his own concerns, telling lawyers on Wednesday, "The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual." The article pointed out that Comey's defense lawyers

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01655511.pdf

EFTA00622924Set 9

2010-06-0461p16,815w

Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN'S ("Rothstein") Motion to Set Aside Default, and states: Background and Procedural Posture 1. Epstein filed the instant action against Rothstein and others on December

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00622924.pdf

EFTA01299150Set 10

2013-10-0235p11,136w

February 23, 1981 SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: r*ii As Corrected March 17, 1981. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants moved the court to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, which alleged violations of 42 U.S.C.S

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01299150.pdf

EFTA00214472Set 9

2008-05-155p2,097w

understanding is that the state case is still pending. As such, the procedural posture of the state case does not implicate the petite policy. We recognize that the petite policy

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00214472.pdf

EFTA00222842Set 9

2009-05-2220p7,114w

FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 14 of 20 cases where in a much different procedural posture than the present case, and the law that is applicable, including the raise

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00222842.pdf

EFTA00100685Set 9

2019-10-1616p10,633w

Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with disfavor because of their vulnerability to abuse Procedural Posture(s): Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Motion to Disqualify Counsel

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00100685.pdf

EFTA00074964Set 9

2020-06-1740p9,195w

Protective Order in answering questions, or refusing to answer questions, is obvious from the procedural posture of the case: • March 2, 2016 (DE 38): Defendant moved for a Protective Order

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00074964.pdf

EFTA00074599Set 9

2021-04-1569p52,989w

Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion. by Text . United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Petition for Writ of Mandamus. IN RE: Petitioner

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00074599.pdf