Epstein Secrets

nts and assure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege." Id. Rather than cite this recent, controlling decision, Epstein's relies on Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), as grounds for an interlocutory appeal. Of course, appellate court jurisdiction is typically confined to "final" judgments of th

l only serve to delay the victims effort to vindicate their rights under the CVRA, a clear indication that the public interest is not being served. See United States. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012) ("Frustration of federal statutes and prerogatives are not in the public interest ...."). In a trans

nt the victims to read the correspondence. Epstein must present evidence that he will be injured if the victims read the correspondence. See, e.g., Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of General Contractors of America I. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 1990) ("Because plaintiff presente

v. Morgan State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); the Ninth Circuit has applied Perlman in a case arising under 28 U.S.C. §2255, United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 977 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012), and in a civil case, S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 830-31 (9th Cir. 2011); the Si

d by the work product privilege, it stopped short of advocating the recognition of a settlement/plea negotiation privilege under Rules 410 and 501. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100). The government's institutional interests differ significantly from t

ncerned, the irreparable injury inheres in their very disclosure. See Motion at 15-17, and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential

v. Morgan State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); the Ninth Circuit has applied Perlman in a case arising under 28 U.S.C. §2255, United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 977 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012), and in a civil case, S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 830-31 (9th Cir. 2011); the Si

are concerned, the irreparable injury inheres in their very disclosure. See Motion at and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential comm

r showing of a `substantial case on the merits when the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.'" DE 206 at 2 (citing United States' Hamilton, 963 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted)). Citing relevant caselaw, the district court found that Epstein had "neither

orrespondence. Epstein must present evidence that he will be injured — and injured irreparably — if the victims read the correspondence. See, e.g., Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass 'rt of General Contractors of America City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 1990) ("Because plaintiff presented