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

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

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

iffs. Motion at 10-11. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the right of non-parties such as intervenors to take an appeal from the district court's disclosure order. The

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

(D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida I United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc.' N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman I United States, 247 U

exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal out- side the context of a grand jury proceeding. See, e.g., In re Fed. Grand Jury Proceedings (Cohen), 975 F.2d 1488, 1491-92 (11th Cir.1992); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d at 558; Fine, 641 F.2d at 201-02. Rut we have exercised jurisdi

I. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mo- hawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. (6](71 The courts of