Epstein Secrets

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

ss v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing= Inc.., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 8 EFTA00583461 not the privilege for which intervenors contend would, if recognized, e

ndeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of whether a party was entitled under the Cohen Plaintiffs demand that intervenors inform them whether they believe the rules of civil procedure apply to this case. Motion at 11 n.3. That questio

ossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) 18 passim 14 passim 13, 15 S.E.C. I. CMKA1 Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 15 Sheet Metal Workers Intern. I Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.1994) 15 United States' Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir.

ndeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of whether a party was entitled under the Cohen Plaintiffs demand that intervenors inform them whether they believe the rules of civil procedure apply to this case. Motion at 11 n.3. That questio

ossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) 18 passim 14 passim 13, 15 S.E.C. I. CMKA1 Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 15 Sheet Metal Workers Intern. I Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.1994) 15 United States' Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir.

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

City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 15 EFTA00583774 D. The United States is a Disinterested Third Party. Under the circu

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

City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 8 EFTA00583787 represented a private individual under criminal investigation by the go

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

ity of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass '?7, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)(civil case); Sheet Metal Workers Intern. v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120, 212 (4th Cir.1994)(civil case). 16 EFTA00584618 government and who sought, though full and frank exploration of the fa