Epstein Secrets

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk See Opposition at 3.In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman

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

ion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

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

n, 544 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1977) 15, 31 United States v. Knight, 867 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 846 (1989) 24 United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 50 United States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 2012) 24, 25 *United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995

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

tion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States I Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

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:

stimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The 10 EFTA00583769 Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an inte

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

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk See Opposition at 3.In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman

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

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk. See Motion at 13. In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman

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