Epstein Secrets

poenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209392 Case: 13-12923 D

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209389 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

poenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209433 Case: 13-12923 D

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209430 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

, 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) (Mot. Dismis

specifically noted this evidentiary problem with Epstein's claim. The District Court gave as one reason for rejecting Epstein's contention based on Federal Rule of Evidence 410 that the rule does not even possibly protect "general discussions of leniency and statements made in the hope of avoiding a federal indictment - ar

as. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Case: 13-12923 D

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209636 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

poenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case: 13-12923 D

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209745 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury