Epstein Secrets

sinessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). Those factors are amply satisfied in this case: there is a strong likelihood that intervenors will prevail on

ding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Guyitream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

ter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) 17 Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1985) 13 Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7 Collier v. Possum Cereal Co., Ltd., 134 N.Y.S. 847, 853 (1st Dep't 1912) 9 Couloute, Jr.

Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1st Dep't 1996) 13 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) 17 Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1985) 13 Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7 Collier v. Possum Cere

sinessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). Those factors are amply satisfied in this case: there is a strong likelihood that intervenors will prevail on

ing risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

ng risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstreant Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005X"once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out o

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398, 402 (1st Cir. 2005)(asserting jurisdiction under Perlman, but concluding that informant privilege was not available to private