Epstein Secrets

on from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk See Opposition at 3.In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman

no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 20

ion are held by a disinterested party who is likely "to forgo suffering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk, "[o]nly when the person

24 F.2d 158 (11th Cir. 1955) 55 *Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1976) 32 Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

n, 544 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1977) 15, 31 United States v. Knight, 867 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 846 (1989) 24 United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 50 United States v. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 2012) 24, 25 *United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995

privilege of nondisclosure un- der state law"); Ross I. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.20

t-Orsted I. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir.2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that " Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States I.

ion from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.

stimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The 10 EFTA00583769 Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an inte

on from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk See Opposition at 3.In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman

ion from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.

In cases such as this one, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Perlman does not directly conflict with Mohawk. See Motion at 13. In United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010), a case not cited by the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal by intervenors under Perlman