Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

diately appealable. Id. Five notable exceptions to this rule exist: the Perlman doctrine; the collateral-order doctrine, Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949); a certification provided by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); a petition for a writ of mandamus; or an appeal of a

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

) 33 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) 31 Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Fol

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:

mediately appealable. Id. Five notable exceptions to this rule exist: the Perlman doctrine; the collateral-order doctrine, Cohen' Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949); a certification provided by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); a petition for a writ of mandamus; or an appeal of a

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

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 distincti

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

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

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

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 distincti