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

ttorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the corres

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

ct privilege, it stopped short of advocating the recognition of a settlement/plea negotiation privilege under Rules 410 and 501. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100). The government's institutional interests differ significantly from those of attorneys who Plaintiffs

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

ttorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the corres