Epstein Secrets

ffs rely do not support the proposition that appellate review under the Perlman doctrine is not available to intervenors in this case. In Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010), see Opposition at 3-4, plaintiff and the individual whose deposition defendants wished to use to support a summary ju

be disclosed to plaintiffs. Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFT

erlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim United States v. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013). 17, 19 Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010) 14 Statutes Fla. Stat. §§796.07 and 796.03 4 EFTA00209359 Other Authorities 18 U.S.0 3731 18 28 U.S.C. §

2013 WL 2120157, at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman v. Unit

trine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person who asserts a privilege is a non- litigant will an appeal from a final decision be inadequate." Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the g

only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Cas

er, 583 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 916 (2010) 14 Williams & Connolly v. S.E.C., 662 F.3d 1240 (D.C.Cir. 2011) 22 Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 50, 52, 55 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution passim Statutes and Rules 18 U.S

State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 I

octrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person who asserts a privilege is a non- litigant will an appeal from a final decision be inadequate." Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the g

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case:

ffs rely do not support the proposition that appellate review under the Perlman doctrine is not available to intervenors in this case. In Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010), see Motion at 13, plaintiff and the individual whose deposition defendants wished to use to support a summary judgme

ssed 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), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perhnan jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme

ffs rely do not support the proposition that appellate review under the Perlman doctrine is not available to intervenors in this case. In Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010), see Opposition at 3-4, plaintiff and the individual whose deposition defendants wished to use to support a summary ju

be disclosed to plaintiffs. Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFT

ffs rely do not support the proposition that appellate review under the Perlman doctrine is not available to intervenors in this case. In Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010), see Motion at 13, plaintiff and the individual whose deposition defendants wished to use to support a summary judgme

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), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perlman jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme