Epstein Secrets

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

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

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

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

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

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte

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

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte