Epstein Secrets

ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of

C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman v. United States, 24

ppellants MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of

n to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the discovery order under Mohawk Industries I Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On July 12, 2013, Epstein responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 16, 2013, the victim's replied in sup

Intervenors-Appellants REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209494 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I. TH

, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case) (Mot. Dismis

APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING S. J. Quinney College of Law at EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. the University of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209507 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY OF D

motion to dismiss Epstein's interlocutory appeal, explaining that this Court lacked 6 EFTA00209513 jurisdiction in light of Mohawk Industries'. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On June 26, 2013, Epstein sought a stay of the district court pending appeal. DE 193. Two days later, the victims opposed the

tered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 15 of 16 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 15 EFT

matic example of when interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Ci