Epstein Secrets

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

ding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Guyitream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

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

ing risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

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

ng risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstreant Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005X"once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out o

ncerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of

Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398, 402 (1st Cir. 2005)(asserting jurisdiction under Perlman, but concluding that informant privilege was not available to private