Epstein Secrets

: 1 of 25 No. 13-12923 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOES NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black

to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

: 1 of 25 No. 13-12923 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOES NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black

to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

rring admission of plea negotiations; the alleged victims intended to admit the evidence of the plea negotiations to prove violations of the CVRA by the United States, not to be used against the alleged perpetrator. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 410, 28 U.S.C.A. [12] Federal Civil Procedure 170A f=1604(2) 170A Federal Civ

s. United States I. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir.2006); Pickett I. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir.2000). And the issue of whether to r

I. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mo- hawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. (6](71 The courts of

ies, Inc. I. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc.' N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman I United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim United States'. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013). 17, 19 Wilson'. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 64

(D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida I United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc.' N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman I United States, 247 U