Epstein Secrets

3 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we re

only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Cas

erative need for confidence and trust, 3) the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and 4) the consensus among the states." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). These factors all militate in favor of the recognition that there is a common law privilege for settlement/pl

State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 I

0), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence," Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Univ. of Pa.'. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S. Ct. 577, 582 (1990)). "Accordingly, there is a presum

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case: