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

ss v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing= Inc.., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 8 EFTA00583461 not the privilege for which intervenors contend would, if recognized, e

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

City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 15 EFTA00583774 D. The United States is a Disinterested Third Party. Under the circu

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

City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 8 EFTA00583787 represented a private individual under criminal investigation by the go

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

ity of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass '?7, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 16 EFTA00584618 government and who sought, though full and frank exploration of the fa