investigation into alleged Epstein "co-conspirators" on the same topic as Plaintiff alleges in this case. Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir.1986) (citing SEC v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980)) (holding that although "the Consti

bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler & Schubnan Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges, "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] lightly created or expansively construed." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710, 94 5.O. at 3109

ursuant to section 1292(6), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Ct. 1979, 95 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(6), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final o

e functional, its features may be copied even if conibsion would result. American Greetings Corp.'. Dan-Dee Onportit Ina, 807 F.2d 1136, 1141 (3d Cir.1986). FT states that its packaging design was chosen because the design was pretty, so- phisticated, and showed off the novelty value of the deodorant

g real property rights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indee

ng real property rights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indee

0 applies in federal proceedings to statements made in connection with prior state pleas"); see also United States v. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting the admission of a guilty plea from state court in a federal proceeding). 2 Because Epstein's lawyers are claiming that the correspond

ed guilty to state charges based on the same conduct and has not withdrawn those pleas. See, e.g., United States I. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (admitting guilty plea from state court in federal pro- ceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act al

ing real property rights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States I O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indeed,

rsuant to section 1292(b), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v, Tanner. 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11 th Cir.1986), cen. denied. 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Q. 1979, 95 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(b), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final ord

r purpose, and (d) the resulting damage or injury." Chrysler Capital Corp. 778 F.Supp. at 1267 (quoting Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1055 (2d Cir.1986)). To warrant the inference that a defendant was a member of the conspira- cy, Plaintiffs must show that "(a) the de- fendant had an awareness of th

.3d 116. 120 n. 2 (3d Cit 1994); United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545. 1548 (11th Cir.1988); United States V. Gaviria, 805 F.2d 1108, 1112 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Niver, 689 F.2d 520, 526 (5th Cir.1982); United States V. Mr, 592 F.2d 735, 739-40 (4th Cir.1979). [13] In his dissent, Judge

can occur after settlement or final judgment also raises worrisome jurisdictional questions. See. e.g.. Tosco Corp. v. Node!. 804 F.2d 590.592 (10th Cir.1986) (concluding that settlement deprived court of jurisdiction to hear nonparties' motion to intervene). 3 If fewer cases settled and more cases went

ursuant CO section 1292(b), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.D. 1979, 95 L.Erl.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(b), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final o

ely on the defendant's status as a U.S. cit- izen is firmly estallished by our precedent. See, e.g.. United States Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 854 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada los proper under the nationality principle); McKee!

bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler if Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges. "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] lightly created or expansively construed." Nixon. 418 U.S. at 710, 94 S.Ct. at 310

allis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1409 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir.1992); United Stales v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352, 354 (8th Cir.1986). F1418. United States v. Tilley, 964 F.2d 66, 70 (Id Cir.1992) FN19. Dallis, 28 F.3d at 1409; Tilley, 964 F.2d at 70; United States v. Crawford,