Epstein Secrets

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 134245 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest th

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). FN6. In their briefs, appellants suggest th

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). R46. In their briefs, appellants suggest th