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

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen I. 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 t

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

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen I. 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 t

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

Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00209814 Page 10 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) lateral-order doctrine, Cohen I. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); a certification provided by statute, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b); a petition for a writ of ma