Epstein Secrets

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the grand jury context"); Holt-Orstedl. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 625

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the grand jury context"); Holt-Orstedl. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 625

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the grand jury context"); Holt-Orstedl. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 625