Epstein Secrets

his Interlocutory Appeal. The victims argue that we should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction for two reasons. First, they argue that the Perlman doctrine, which permits a claimant of a privilege to appeal a non-final judgment, applies only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247

ch a district court disassociates itself from the case," Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106, 130 S. Ct. at 604-05 (2009) (alteration omitted) (quoting Swint'. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995)), and "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but exe

his Interlocutory Appeal. The victims argue that we should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction for two reasons. First, they argue that the Perlman doctrine, which permits a claimant of a privilege to appeal a non-final judgment, applies only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247

ch a district court disassociates itself from the case," Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106, 130 S. Ct. at 604-05 (2009) (alteration omitted) (quoting Swint'. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995)), and "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but exe

his Interlocutory Appeal. The victims argue that we should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction for two reasons. First, they argue that the Perlman doctrine, which permits a claimant of a privilege to appeal a non-final judgment, applies only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247

ch a district court disassociates itself from the case," Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106, 130 S. Ct. at 604-05 (2009) (alteration omitted) (quoting Swint'. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995)), and "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but exe