Epstein Secrets

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's e

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's e

I. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mo- hawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. (6](71 The courts of

ey argue that the Perlman doctrine, which per- mits a claimant of a privilege to appeal a non-final judgment, applies only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mo- hawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 55