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

ich this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctio

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

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

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

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

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

ich this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctio