Epstein Secrets

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

are concerned, the irreparable injury inheres in their very disclosure. See Motion at and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential comm

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

nt the victims to read the correspondence. Epstein must present evidence that he will be injured if the victims read the correspondence. See, e.g., Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of General Contractors of America I. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 1990) ("Because plaintiff presente

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

ncerned, the irreparable injury inheres in their very disclosure. See Motion at 15-17, and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential