Epstein Secrets

was at issue during the plea/settlement negotiations between his attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wi

t. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

was at issue during the plea/settlement negotiations between his attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wi

t. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

te Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Church of Scientology'. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) Cohenl. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) 14 6 18 Gill Gu

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

) 33 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) 31 Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Fol

was at issue during the plea/settlement negotiations between his attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wit

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

ich 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 mention Perlman. Those two distincti

sue during the plea/settlement negotiations between the targets' attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wi

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

ich 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 mention Perlman. Those two distincti

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

ich 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 mention Perlman. Those two distinctio

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

ich 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 mention Perlman. Those two distinctio