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

sistently recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are dis

essmen for Free Enter prise City of Hollywood, 648 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jug 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

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar

essmen for Free Enter prise City of Hollywood, 648 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jug 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

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar

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

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

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

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

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

sistently recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are dis