Podcasts about case no

In the case Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08054, the plaintiff, proceeding under a pseudonym, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging sexual assault and related misconduct. The complaint details incidents from approximately twenty years ago, asserting that Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts and inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks a jury trial to address these allegations and obtain appropriate legal remedies.Subsequently, the plaintiff requested permission to proceed under a pseudonym, citing concerns for personal safety and privacy. However, on October 30, 2024, the court denied this motion, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and the defendants' right to a fair defense. The court ordered the plaintiff to refile the complaint under her legal name by November 13, 2024, to proceed with the case.In this episode, we get a look at the complaint and the name of the accuser.   (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.23.0.pdf

In the case Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08054, the plaintiff, proceeding under a pseudonym, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging sexual assault and related misconduct. The complaint details incidents from approximately twenty years ago, asserting that Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts and inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks a jury trial to address these allegations and obtain appropriate legal remedies.Subsequently, the plaintiff requested permission to proceed under a pseudonym, citing concerns for personal safety and privacy. However, on October 30, 2024, the court denied this motion, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and the defendants' right to a fair defense. The court ordered the plaintiff to refile the complaint under her legal name by November 13, 2024, to proceed with the case.In this episode, we get a look at the complaint and the name of the accuser.   (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.23.0.pdf

In the case Jane Doe v. Sean Combs, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08054, the plaintiff, proceeding under a pseudonym, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging sexual assault and related misconduct. The complaint details incidents from approximately twenty years ago, asserting that Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts and inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks a jury trial to address these allegations and obtain appropriate legal remedies.Subsequently, the plaintiff requested permission to proceed under a pseudonym, citing concerns for personal safety and privacy. However, on October 30, 2024, the court denied this motion, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and the defendants' right to a fair defense. The court ordered the plaintiff to refile the complaint under her legal name by November 13, 2024, to proceed with the case.In this episode, we get a look at the complaint and the name of the accuser.   (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.23.0.pdf

They're baaaaack! In-person depositions, that is. In this episode, Jim Garrity discusses two brand-new court rulings that reflect a growing trend among judges to enforce noticed in-person depositions of parties and key witnesses. It's a subtle but striking shift away from remote depositions, which took root during the COVID pandemic. Jim discusses the rulings in detail, as well as an interesting observation by an Illinois federal judge about the behavioral psychology that favors face-to-face confrontations. Finally, Jim offers practical guidance on arguments to make for and against remote depositions in your cases, including the two most powerful arguments to make when seeking an order requiring a deponent to appear in person.SHOW NOTESJames, et al. v. Thomas, Case No. 1:24-CV-00061-RGJ-LLK, 2025 WL 2945597 (W. D. Ky. Oct. 17, 2025) (denying motion for protective order sought by three plaintiffs - who reside in New York, New Jersey, and Florida - to avoid traveling to Kentucky for their depositions)Crutchfield v. Experience Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-CV-5697, 2025 WL 293-8760 (N. D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2025) (denying motion for protective order, filed by Florida-based plaintiff, that sought to avoid an in-person deposition in Chicago)

Civil Procedure: Is an order denying a government contractor's claim of derivative sovereign immunity immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine? - Argued: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 16:17:24 EDT

Civil Rights: May an individual sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RLUIPA? - Argued: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 16:14:36 EDT

Administrative Law: May the NIH cap "indirect costs" paid from federal research grants? - Argued: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 11:28:9 EDT

Executive Power: May the President address the balance of trade by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act? - Argued: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 18:58:48 EDT

Federalism: May Texas ban Chinese nationals from buying real property in Texas? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 8:58:54 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Was a five year sentence excessive for the IRS contractor who released Donald Trumps tax returns? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 8:56:31 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Was Sam Bankman-Fried's conviction and $11B fine for fraud associated with #FTX fundamentally unfair? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 8:52:59 EDT

Civil Procedure: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:12:13 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Does the fugitive-tolling doctrine apply in the context of supervised release? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:8:32 EDT

Civil Procedure: Does the Federal Tort Claims Act preempt state tort claims against a military contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:10:56 EDT

First Amendment: May Texas require websites to filter content by age? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:21:46 EDT

Civil Procedure: Can a plaintiff defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:13:57 EDT

Federalism: When may a Native American tribe revise its constitution to exclude narrow the class of tribal members? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:17:51 EDT

Immigration: May the Trump Administration ban asylum applicants at the southern border? - Argued: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:19:23 EDT

Nearly two decades after Jennifer Kesse vanished from her Orlando condo in January 2006, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has announced significant progress. Previously untested DNA evidence has been discovered and the pool of persons of interest has been narrowed down to just a few individuals, leading the family to say the case is “no longer cold”. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Administrative Law: May FINRA be given disciplinary powers over broker-dealers? - Argued: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 7:32:13 EDT

Federalism: May States impose licensing requirements on horse race gambling businesses operating within the State? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:43:47 EDT

Free Speech: May a state criminalize election misinformation in the lead up to an election? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:53:4 EDT

Immigration: May the government revoke a Green Card for constitutionally protected campus speech? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:47:14 EDT

Civil Rights: May a State ban "conversion therapy"? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:45:6 EDT

Federalism: May a federal judge enjoin the president from unlawfully deploying the National Guard in California? - Argued: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:40:53 EDT

Antitrust: May Apple be barred from charging commissions for purchases made outside of its App Store? - Argued: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:38:4 EDT

Civil Rights: May the Trump Administration ban transgender individuals from serving in the military? - Argued: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 11:35:49 EDT

In the case of Anthony Tate v. Sean Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-8810-LAK, the plaintiff, Anthony Tate, has filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Daddy's House Recordings Inc., CE OPCO, LLC (doing business as Combs Global and formerly known as Combs Enterprises LLC), Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Books Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Records LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Productions LLC, and unnamed organizational and individual defendants referred to as Does 1-10. The amended complaint includes a demand for a jury trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.24.0.pdf

Second Amendment: May New Jersey ban AR-15s and magazines that hold more than ten rounds? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 6:55:0 EDT

Privacy: May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 15:10:38 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:7:24 EDT

Civil Procedure: Must a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be dismissed under § 2244(b)(1)? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:5:47 EDT

Administrative Law: May a non-profit sue in district court to challenge cuts to their funding? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:46:41 EDT

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Federalism: May district courts enjoin the president from unlawfully federalizing the State's national guard? - Argued: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 8:46:16 EDT

Immigration: May a State criminalize the entry into of an undocumented alien into the State? - Argued: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 8:49:49 EDT

Election Law: Do federal candidates have standing to challenge State laws that count ballots received after Election Day? - Argued: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 8:51:42 EDT

Civil Procedure: Is an intentional refusal to deliver mail actionable under the Federal Torts Claims Act? - Argued: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 8:56:16 EDT

When a 30(b)(6) representative is deposed, the testimony is that of the organization, not of the individual answering the questions. However, in the heat of battle, it can be challenging to remember this distinction. Questions in 30(b)(6) depos that use words like "you" - and answers that use words like "I" or "me" - can blur the roles and lead an examiner to see the testimony as also being that of the witness individually. But it isn't. Psychologists refer to this confusion as an "attribution error," meaning that we may attribute the testimony to the wrong source.This confusion can be fatal to a claim if the representative is also a key witness individually and wasn't deposed separately. Today, Jim discusses a brand new court ruling where a federal judge dismissed a claim against an individual defendant (and key witness) who was only deposed as a 30(b)(6) deponent. The question there was, when a 30(b)(6) witness says “I,” who's really speaking—the individual or the entity? Learn how that 30(b)(6) deposition in Ademi wasn't enough to survive summary judgment, and what every litigator must do to avoid the same trap. Essential listening for anyone taking or defending corporate rep depositions.SHOW NOTESAdemi, et al. v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC, and Dean Poll, individually, No. 22-cv-8535 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2025) (summary judgment granted in favor of individual defendant where plaintiff's counsel only deposed defendant in a 30(b)(6) capacity and, thus, had no testimony from the witness himself)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (designated representative rule)King v. Pratt and Whitney, 161 F. R. D. 275 (S. D. Fla. Apr. 27, 1995) (rule governing representative depositions doesn't limit scope of questions that can be asked, beyond topic list); Joseph v. Chronister, et al, 2019 WL 8014505, Case No. 8:16-cv-274-T-35CPT (M. D. Florida January 29, 2019) (scope of designated-representative deposition is not strictly confined to topics set forth in notice; further noting the twin benefit of this type of deposition, being that it limits the number of people within a corporation to be deposed, and prevents bandying); See Marksberry v. FCA US LLC, 2021 WL 2142655, No. 19-2724 (D. Kan. May 26, 2021) (lawyers may object to topics as “outside the scope” of that listed on the 30(b)(6) notice, and such objections have been held to be permissible, but the witness “must nevertheless answer the question because Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) - not the deposition notice defines the scope of discovery”).

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

In recent court filings, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has argued that videos of his so-called "Freak Off" parties demonstrate consensual sexual activities among adults, countering allegations of coercion and misconduct. The defense contends that the footage shows participants engaging willingly, without evidence of force or manipulation, challenging the prosecution's portrayal of these events as exploitative.Combs faces serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, with prosecutors alleging that he orchestrated drug-fueled sex parties involving non-consenting individuals. His attorneys have requested fewer restrictions on viewing the videos to prepare their defense, asserting that the government's case is unjustly criminalizing consensual adult behavior. Combs, who has pleaded not guilty, remains detained without bail, with a trial scheduled for May 2025.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf