Epstein Secrets

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

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

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

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

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

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

erted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants ^have no privilege of nondisclosure un- der state law"); Ross I. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.2005) ("( Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underly- ing claims for relief."); a

P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders. The intervenors argued that the work-product priv- ilege protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Feder- al Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jur