Epstein Secrets

51. 6 EFTA00209366 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the corre

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

51. 6 EFTA00209578 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the corre

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

ATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 16 EFTA00209615

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