Epstein Secrets

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

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

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

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

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

) 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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