Epstein Secrets

lege is a non- litigant, Wilson, 621 F.3d at 643.2 The grand jury limitation for which plaintiffs argue simply does not exist. 2 Plaintiffs rely on the Tenth Circuit's lack of awareness that Perlman had ever been applied outside the grand jury context, Opposition at 6, but a quick Westlaw search demonstrates that

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." hi. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

ea negotiations is protected by the work product privilege, it stopped short of advocating the recognition of a settlement/plea 'Plaintiffs rely on the Tenth Circuit's lack of awareness that Perlman had ever been applied outside the grand jury context, Motion at 16-17, but a quick Westlaw search demonstrates that

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its 10 EFTA00209479 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 16 of 25 opportunity to do so in the future."

ea negotiations is protected by the work product privilege, it stopped short of advocating the recognition of a settlement/plea 'Plaintiffs rely on the Tenth Circuit's lack of awareness that Perlman had ever been applied outside the grand jury context, Motion at 16-17, but a quick Westlaw search demonstrates that

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its 10 EFTA00209548 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 16 of 25 opportunity to do so in the future."

ort of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100). The government's institutional interests differ significantly from those of attorneys who Plaintiffs rely on the Tenth Circuit's lack of awareness that Perlman had ever been applied outside the grand jury context, Opposition at 6, but a quick Westlaw search demonstrates that

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict