Epstein Secrets

y Proceedings (moist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 P.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 P.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7,

enaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party--the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly, the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th

y Proceedings (Thist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996 (11th • Cir.I982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S.

enaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party--the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly, the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th

Jury Proceedings (Twist). 689 F.2d 1351 (1Ith Cir.1982) In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 P.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7,

oenaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party—the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly. the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th