Epstein Secrets

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

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

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

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

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

3771(dX3), in favor of pursuing civil settlement actions against Mr. Epstein prior to, rather than concurrently with, litigating their CVRA rights. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai