Epstein Secrets

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F

tion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States I Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F

tion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States I Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

s in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States v. Campa, 459

ion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 10 of 75 United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1128 (2006) 6 United States v. Contra Costa County Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1

n, 544 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1977) 15, 31 United States v. Knight, 867 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 846 (1989) 24 United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 50 United States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 2012) 24, 25 *United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F

tion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States I Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person