Epstein Secrets

ed the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin ex rel. Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (1 I th Cir. 1986); National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907-08 (D.C.Cir. 1977); see also Catmint) v. B

mpede or impair its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the party's interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit." Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). In granting Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene to protect the validity of his nonprosecution agreement, Judge

zed the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin ex reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (11th Cir. 1986); Costle, 561 F.2d at 907-08; see also Caterino v. Berry, 922 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1990) (district court denied i

mpede or impair its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the party's interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit." Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). The circumstances here easily satisfy all four elements of the standard. A. Timeliness. In assessing the

ized the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin a reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (11th Cir. 1986); Costle, 561 F.2d at 907-08; see also Caterino v. Berry, 922 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1990)(district court denied in

mpede or impair its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the party's interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit." Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). The circumstances here easily satisfy all four elements of the standard. A. Timeliness. In assessing the