Epstein Secrets

pellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

k Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

E TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

e itself. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boule

fense attorneys — appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed motions to intervene for the limited pur

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte

f of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation co

defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte