Epstein Secrets

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1,

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Do

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10.

ICTION TO ENTERTAIN EPSTEIN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DIRECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 10 A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk Makes Clear that Privilege Rulings During Discovery are Not Immediately Appealable But Instead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the C

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14.

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jef

7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court bel

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ICTION TO ENTERTAIN EPSTEIN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DIRECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 10 A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk Makes Clear that Privilege Rulings During Discovery are Not Immediately Appealable But Instead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the C

victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (DE 193). The intervenors — Jeffrey Epstein and his team of defense lawyers (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Epstein") -- have requested a stay of the Court's order requiring disclos

otion for Stay Pending Appeal (DE 193). The intervenors — Jeffrey Epstein and his team of defense lawyers (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Epstein") -- have requested a stay of the Court's order requiring disclosure of correspondence connected with plea negotiations on behalf of Epstein relatin

Stay Pending Appeal (DE 193). The intervenors — Jeffrey Epstein and his team of defense lawyers (hereinaf

baseless and thus Epstein cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and the other requirements for obtaining a stay pending appeal. I. EPSTEIN CANNOT TAKE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THIS COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER. Epstein has asked the Court for a stay "pending appeal." (DE 193 at I). This r

ignore recent controlling caselaw from the Supreme Court, which makes clear that an interlocutory appeal is not permitted. A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk That Attorney-Client Privilege Rulings are Not Immediately Appealable Limits the Perlman Doctrine to Non-Litigants in a Case. Contrary t