Epstein Secrets

Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFTA00583454 i

E IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal should be granted. Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, the Eleventh Circuit will have jurisdiction over their appeal from the Court's disclosure order, and the standard for granting a stay pending appeal is amply satisfied i

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 101 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 37 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 108 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 82, 83, 84, 85 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 109 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFTA00583780 i

E IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal should be granted. Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, the Eleventh Circuit will have jurisdiction over their appeal from the Court's disclosure order, and the standard for granting a stay pending appeal is amply satisfied i

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a