Epstein Secrets

2 I0 EFTA00209505 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on July 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. Martin G Weinberg, P.C. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 1 EFTA00209506

ments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case)

previously received from Epstein in their civil case in their CVRA case. DE 51. On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would b

sponsibility [to police prejudgment tactics of litigants] if the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings." Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (internal citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly explained its reluctant to grant a stay pending appeal

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

pstein's claim below that a denial of an assertion of privilege can be immediately appealed, the Supreme Court has recently concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed this Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of