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

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

2013 WL 2120157, at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman v. Unit

, an appeal from the final decision will allow review of the district court's ruling." Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); accord Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Mohawk decision has altered the legal landscape related to collateral appeals of d

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

7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the grand jury context"); Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 6

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

re & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003) 32,33, 38,40 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 14, 20, 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 51, 52, 55 In re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.Supp. 1529 (S.D.F1a. 1997) 38, 40 In

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

t 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 intervent

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

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

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

t 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 EFTA00584613 Perlman. Plaintiffs seek to cast Mr. Epstein as a "litigant" in this action, but his li