Epstein Secrets

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

otion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554, 556-58 (11th Cir. 1987). "This exception, derived from Perlman I United States, . . . permits an order denying a motion to quash to 9 EFTA00209393 Case: 13-12923 Date Railllota418/2014 Page: 10 of 23 be `considered final

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

otion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554, 556-58 (11th Cir. 1987). "This exception, derived from Perlman I United States, . . . permits an order denying a motion to quash to 9 EFTA00209434 Case: 13-12923 Date Railllota418/2014 Page: 10 of 23 be `considered final

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

otion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554, 556-58 (11th Cir. 1987). "This exception, derived from Perlman I United States, . . . permits an order denying a motion to quash to 9 EFTA00209749 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 10 of 23 be `considered final