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

rane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand jury context, but decli

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

rane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand jury context, but decli

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

Super Spuds, Inc.' N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman I United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim United States'. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013). 17, 19 Wilson'. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010) 14 Statutes Fla. Stat. §§796.07 and 796.03 4

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

missibility of evidence before the trier of fact, Epstein obviously falls outside the parameters of the Perlman doctrine. See, e.g., United States. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing how Perlman doctrine applies only to situations "where a third party has a justiciable interest in

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 v. United States, 2

ne, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States v. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand jury context, but decli

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

ane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States'. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand jury context, but decli