Epstein Secrets

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

ments for dismissal: first, 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)

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

sponsibility [to police prejudgment tactics of litigants] if the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings." Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (internal citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly explained its reluctant to grant a stay pending appeal

Defendant-Appellee Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2

pstein's claim below that a denial of an assertion of privilege can be immediately appealed, the Supreme Court has recently concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed this Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of