Epstein Secrets

ms. The victims made two principal arguments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any inj

ments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case)

iminal prosecutors seeking to force him to plead guilty to criminal charge. Moreover, the cases Epstein relies upon are older cases, decided before the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk. The Mohawk decision makes clear that even as to highly sensitive attorney-client materials, "[a]ppellate courts can reme

sponsibility [to police prejudgment tactics of litigants] if the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings." Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (internal citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly explained its reluctant to grant a stay pending appeal

S COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN EPSTEIN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DIRECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 10 A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk Makes Clear that Privilege Rulings During Discovery are Not Immediately Appealable But Instead Must be Challenged (If Nec

pstein's claim below that a denial of an assertion of privilege can be immediately appealed, the Supreme Court has recently concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed this Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of