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

rcuit has indicated in a civil case that Perlman jurisdiction is still viable after Mohawk where the privilege holder is not a party to the action, Holt-Orsted, 641 F.3d at 239; and the Seventh Circuit has indicated in a civil case that Perlman jurisdiction still attaches where the person asserting the priv

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

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

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

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

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

at 606-07. That, however, is not the case here. Since the attorney intervenors are not "litigants" or parties in this action, under both Wilson and Holt-Orsted, they would retain the right to appeal under Perlman. Plaintiffs seek to cast Mr. Epstein as a "litigant" in this action, but his limited interventi