In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of "John Doe" in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the cyclist claims USADA broke its own rules and damaged him by outing him as a doping suspect. His identity was sealed in the suit to prevent his name circulating more widely.

Two people with direct knowledge of the case told the AP on Friday that Leogrande was the unnamed cyclist, and that sworn affidavits about Leogrande had been provided to USADA, which was using them in building a case against the 30-year-old.

The cyclist claims USADA planned to test his backup urine sample even though the original 'A' sample test came back negative, and the lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent USADA from ever testing the 'B' sample.

USADA general counsel Bill Bock would not confirm the name, citing agency rules that forbid him from discussing specific cases.

A message left by AP on Leogrande's cell phone was returned from that cell phone. The angry caller said: "Lose my phone number. Don't call me again. ... I don't know how you got my phone number, but lose it," then hung up.

Plaintiff attorney Maurice Suh did not immediately return messages left at his office by AP.

The samples in question were taken during the International Cycling Classic last July, the two people familiar with the case said. Leogrande won three events, finished second at three more and finished second overall at the event, also known as Superweek.

Leogrande is a member of the Rock Racing team, which is owned by Michael Ball, the CEO of jeans-maker Rock & Republic. His bio on the team Web site said using the "same signature aggressive approach, he now plans to change the face of the racing world."

He most notably has hired Tyler Hamilton, who served a two-year suspension for doping, and had been in conversations with Floyd Landis, who is fighting doping charges of his own, to work in some management capacity for the team.

But Landis, who's serving a two-year suspension while his appeal is pending at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, is prohibited from working for a cycling team.

Landis said Ball was "someone who is going to speak his mind and not always be politically correct about it."

"But he's not out there to break the rules," Landis said. "He sees it the same way I do. If a guy is going to ride, he wants them to follow the rules."

Landis said he didn't know Leogrande and wasn't familiar with the case. The plaintiff's attorneys in this case, Suh and Howard Jacobs, are the same team that represent Landis.

On Thursday, when asked about the lawsuit, Bock called it "utterly frivolous and morally bankrupt."

The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and seeks to recoup damages the plaintiff claims were incurred when the anti-doping agency revealed the case to race organizers and the UCLA testing lab.

The suit alleges USADA notified the plaintiff last Nov. 15 that the 'A' sample came back negative. Despite that negative finding, the agency directed the UCLA testing lab to test the 'B' sample, "thereby violating the applicable rules and regulations governing anti-doping control and testing."

Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Lilly Ann Sanchez, said the allegations are false and motivated by money.

The girl, now 17 and identified only as Jane Doe, claims Epstein invited her to his Palm Beach mansion in 2005 to perform a massage for $300. She claims he demanded she remove her clothes, then sexually assaulted her, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in West Palm Beach.

"Jane experienced confusion, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, and the assault sent her life into a downward spiral," the lawsuit states.

The girl, her father and stepmother are seeking more than $50 million.

"It is our belief that this is completely financially motivated," Sanchez said. She said the girl told Epstein she was 18, and regardless, he did nothing inappropriate with her.

The teen is also at the center of a criminal case against Epstein in Florida, said her lawyer, Jeffrey Herman.

Epstein, 55, is charged with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Prosecutors declined to charge Epstein with soliciting a minor for sex, as Palm Beach police recommended. The state attorney's office declined to comment about the criminal case.

The teen's father pleaded guilty in 2001 to three federal fraud counts accusing him of arranging fraudulent loans as a mortgage broker in a scheme to collect commissions from sales. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. The Associated Press is not naming the father to protect the girl's identity.

The father, who was also at the news conference, declined to comment on his own criminal case.

"Quite frankly, we're very, very angry," he said, adding that Epstein destroyed his "daughter's innocence."

Epstein, a money manager, also was sued last year in New York by a woman who claims he had sex with her at his Manhattan mansion in 2000 when she was 16.

"I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Epstein doesn't see what he's done to these young people and just look to reach a reasonable settlement with them," said that woman's attorney, William J. Unroch.

Gerald Lefcourt, Epstein's New York attorney, also denied the allegations in the New York case. He also said in court papers that Unroch and his client, who is actually a man living as a female, filed a similar lawsuit in a separate case.

Attorneys representing the Rev. Francis DeLuca argued unsuccessfully that the U.S. District Court did not have jurisdiction in the case.

The attorneys cited language in the state law eliminating the civil statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases, saying it designated Superior Court for the cases. However, Judge Sue Robinson ruled that the law did not prohibit the federal court from hearing the case.

Robert Quill alleges DeLuca sexually abused him more than 300 times from 1968 to 1975. According to court documents, DeLuca has denied the allegations.

Earlier this year in Syracuse, N.Y., DeLuca pleaded guilty to charges he molested a teenage family member over several years. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., argued that it rightfully fired Ross because all marijuana use is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

The justices upheld that argument in a 5-2 decision.

"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2005 that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from prosecution. The Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies have been actively shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California over the last two years and charging their operators with felony distribution charges.

Ragingwire said it fired Ross because it feared it could be the target of a federal raid, among other reasons.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. had joined Ragingwire's case, arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the-court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

Ross had argued that medical marijuana users should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which represents Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it began tracking the issue in 2005.

Safe Access attorney Joe Elford said the group will now focus on urging the Legislature to pass a law protecting workers who use medical marijuana.

"We remain confident that there will be a day when medical marijuana patients are not discriminated against in the workplace," he said.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who represents part of San Francisco, said he will introduce legislation addressing those concerns in the next few weeks.

The ruling "strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," he said.

Eleven states have adopted medical-marijuana laws similar to California's: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is done.

A federal appeals court has for the second time generally sided with Justice Department efforts to use the names and urine samples of about 100 Major League baseball players who tested positive for steroids four years ago.

But the convoluted 119-page ruling likely means federal investigators will still be unable use the controversial test results for the foreseeable future because the issue is expected to be tied up in the courts for some time.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's conclusions could ultimately expose yet more names of players who tested positive for steroids in the league's 2003 anonymous testing program, beyond the recently released Mitchell report on steroids in baseball. Federal investigators seized the drug testing records of dozens of players in 2004 in connection with the Balco steroids scandal.

The showdown over the drug tests could have an impact on the perjury case against former Giants star Barry Bonds if the government obtained evidence of steroid use, although the slugger's lawyers have always insisted it has no bearing on him. The perjury indictment against Bonds already alleges that he failed a separate steroids test in 2000.

Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit - as it did in a 2006 ruling - mostly rejected the arguments of the players' union, which has insisted the seizure of the drug-testing records trampled on the medical privacy rights of the athletes and violated federal protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The appeals court in 2006 had overturned rulings in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Nevada in which the federal judges there found the government searches illegal. This recent decision upheld the majority of that previous ruling.

But it did hand the government one setback by concluding that prosecutors botched their appeal of the Los Angeles judge's ruling by filing it too late. As a result, the government may encounter a stumbling block to using some of the seized information out of the Los Angeles case, although the 9th Circuit's ruling appears to give investigators access to virtually all of the testing information they sought.

The 9th Circuit invited both sides to ask the appeals court to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, which could delay the case.

Elliot Peters, the lawyer for the players' union, said they would need to review the ruling before deciding whether to press another appeal. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella declined comment.

Federal investigators connected to the Balco case seized computer files in 2004 that contained results from the 2003 testing program, which was designed to evaluate the scope of steroid use in the sport. The players' union and baseball owners had agreed to keep the results of the testing confidential.

The government originally sought the results for 10 players linked to Balco, including Bonds, New York Yankees slugger Jason Giambi and Detroit Tigers outfielder Gary Sheffield. But when investigators seized the records of dozens of other players, it triggered a legal battle pitting government powers to search computer databases with sensitive medical information against the privacy rights of the players.

9th Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, who dissented in both the 2006 and Thursday's rulings, warned that allowing the searches would have "profound consequences for the constitutional right against illegal search and seizure."

A fast-growing labor and employment law firm from Atlanta has planted its flag in San Francisco.

Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC raided two law firms in the city for partners to launch its newest location.

Thomas McInerney joined from Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, where he was a partner in the firm's labor and employment law group. Douglas Farmer, formerly a partner at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, is Ogletree's new managing partner in the San Francisco office.

Ogletree, with more than 400 attorneys in 33 offices across the country, is the nation's third largest labor and employment law firm -- behind Jackson Lewis LLP and San Francisco-based Littler Mendelson PC. Ogletree said it represents more than half of the Fortune 50 corporations in the United States. McInerney and Farmer bring clients to Ogletree in a number of industries, including television, retail, health care and engineering.

McInerney's and Farmer's jump to Ogletree illustrates a growing tendency among labor and employment partners: They are bolting general practice firms to join speciality shops. One big reason: rates. Many general practice law firms charge higher hourly rates for labor and employment work than do specialty firms. By moving their labor practice to a boutique, labor lawyers can offer lower rates and hold onto cherished clients.

Clients are another factor fueling partners' lateral moves. Fortune 500 companies are cutting back on the number of labor firms they use. To make themselves more attractive to these clients, some lawyers are joining specialty labor and employment firms to be able to cater to those companies' needs.

Farmer said Ogletree is seeking additional partners for its San Francisco office. He would like the firm to have 12 attorneys in the city within two years.

Founded in 1977 , Ogletree already has a presence in California. The firm opened a branch in Los Angeles in 2003. Ogletree opened seven offices across the country last year, including Cleveland, Philadelphia, Memphis, Tenn., and St. Louis.