Epstein Secrets

ct (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 1, 5 Grand Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) 15 In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1992) 16 In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 641 F.2c1 I99 (11th Cir. 1981) 16 In re Grand Jury Procee

ION 20 EFTA00209358 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) 22 Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) 14, 15, 19 In re Sealed Case, ---

ct (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 1, 5 Grand Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) 15 In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1992) 16 In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 641 F.2c1 I99 (11th Cir. 1981) 16 In re Grand Jury Procee

ate jurisdiction. His appeal must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.'. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 6 It is instructive to note that, even though the correspondence at issue is between Epstein's attorneys and the Government's attorneys,

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

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to appeal a consent decree, and

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

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to 19 EFTA00584621 Plaintiffs