Epstein Secrets

tead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the Conclusion of a Case. 11 B. The District Court's Discovery Order is Not Immediately Appealable Under Perlman. 14 II. EPSTEIN HAS NOT PROVEN ANY INJURY WHICH WOULD WARRANT THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION 18 CONCLUSION 20 EFTA00209570

rved on July 2, 2013, on the following using the Court's CMJECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 22 EFTA00209594

r may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."' Instead, Epstein claims that he is entitled to an interlocutory appeal under Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). Epstein claims that "questions of privilege and confidentiality asserted by non-parties to the litigation are pa

ved on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 16 EFTA00209615

f these issues for the functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order, and questions of privilege and confidentiality asserte

te@usdoj goy LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED EFTA00177831 Case: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM As of: 06/26/2013 07:08 PM EDT 2 of 16 Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Komspan &Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 intervenor Martin G. Weinberg J ntervenor Jay Lef

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), unde

Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Interven

rs/Appellants at 45-58. As addressed in those filings, it is intervenors/appellants' position that this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), which retains its validity2 and is fully applicable to the circumstances in this case, in which intervenors/app

aised in their brief in reaching its decision on the issue. EFTA00583884 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite