Epstein Secrets

o. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, through undersigned counsel, hereby certifies 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

ICTION TO ENTERTAIN EPSTEIN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DIRECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 10 A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk Makes Clear that Privilege Rulings During Discovery are Not Immediately Appealable But Instead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the C

o. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, through undersigned counsel, hereby certifies 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

ICTION TO ENTERTAIN EPSTEIN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DIRECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 10 A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk Makes Clear that Privilege Rulings During Discovery are Not Immediately Appealable But Instead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the C

by Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson in a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2'. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV- MARRA." (DE 188 at 3). This Court's decision to turn over the correspondence does not break new ground. Indeed, if anything, it would be new ground to hol

ignore recent controlling caselaw from the Supreme Court, which makes clear that an interlocutory appeal is not permitted. A. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Mohawk That Attorney-Client Privilege Rulings are Not Immediately Appealable Limits the Perlman Doctrine to Non-Litigants in a Case. Contrary t