Epstein Secrets

pellees. Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Boston, MA, Roy Black, Jacqueline L. Perczek, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, PA, Miami, FL, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirk- land & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Flor-

Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, PA, Miami, FL, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirk- land & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, for Inter

1949); a certification provided by statute, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b); a petition for a writ of mandamus; or an appeal of a contempt cita- tion. [8][91 The Perlman doctrine allows an intervenor to file an interlocutory ap- peal of an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand

Particular Decisions, Matters, or Questions as Review- able 17OBk33O5 k. Preliminary proceedings; depositions and discov- ery. Most Cited Cases The Perlman doctrine allows an intervenor to file an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. (9) Federal Courts 17O8

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 correspondence would be violated if the v

— appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the

tead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the Conclusion of a Case. 11 B. The District Court's Discovery Order is Not Immediately Appealable Under Perlman. 14 II. EPSTEIN HAS NOT PROVEN ANY INJURY WHICH WOULD WARRANT THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION 18 CONCLUSION 20 EFTA00209358

. 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, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EF

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 correspondence would be violated if the v

tead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the Conclusion of a Case. 11 B. The District Court's Discovery Order is Not Immediately Appealable Under Perlman. 14 II. EPSTEIN HAS NOT PROVEN ANY INJURY WHICH WOULD WARRANT THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION 18 CONCLUSION 20 EFTA00209570

&Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: pleadinarqyblack com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland &Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-446-4970 Email: leflcowitztacirkland com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2011. (ir) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 09/27/2011 jail RESPONSE/REPLY tom Supplement Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Black, Weinberg, and Lelkowitz by United States of America. (Villafana, Ann Marie) (Entered: 09/27/2011) 09/28/2011 jaL MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to

f these issues for the functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order, and questions of privilege and confidentiality asserte

NE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 3 EFTA00583391 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must beg

f these issues for the functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order, and questions of privilege and confidentiality asserte

resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation correspondence (Doc.

— appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited pur

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), and, contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009),

R BEYER,LAWRENCE COHLAN,JOHN LEFKOWITZ,ELISE JAMES,JANET B HILL,MELANIE

CLUETT,WILLIAM VANZANDT,TATIANA PEARLMAN,JERRY BERIRO,ALBERT VANCE JR,JAMES