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 EFTA00209358

ION 20 EFTA00209358 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) 22 Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) 14, 15, 19 In re Sealed Case, ---

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

ate jurisdiction. His appeal must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.'. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 6 It is instructive to note that, even though the correspondence at issue is between Epstein's attorneys and the Government's attorneys,

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

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to appeal a consent decree, and

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), and, contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009),

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to 19 EFTA00584621 Plaintiffs