Nos. 13-12923, 13-12926, 13-12928

Nos. 13-12923, 13-12926, 13-12928 IN THE alniteb 6tatel Court of appeato FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaints-Appellees UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants 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 brad@pathtojustice.com Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E., Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209453 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION INTRODUCTION This case involves a discovery order concerning certain correspondence that the district court has ordered the Government to produce to two crime victims, appellees Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (hereinafter "the victims"). On July 2, 2013, the appeal of intervenors-appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein") challenging that discovery order was docketed. On July 2, 2013, the victims filed a motion 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 support of the motion to dismiss. On August 5, 2013, even though no briefing schedule had been established, Epstein filed his opening brief on the merits. The Clerk's Office has advised the victims that their brief in the merits is now due in thirty days, i.e., on September 5, 2013. The victims according move this Court for an expedited ruling on their pending motion to dismiss before they must begin preparing their responsive brief. 2 EFTA00209454 Of course, if the Court were to grant their motion to dismiss, that would obviate the need for counsel for the victims to spend time and resources preparing a responsive brief. Even if the Court were to deny the motion to dismiss, that would potentially the narrow the issues that would need to be briefed on the merits. In either event, an expedited ruling would be useful. Because the victims brief is due on September 5, 2013, the victims respectfully request a ruling one week earlier, by August 29, 2013, so they can know whether to begin drafting a responsive brief. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should expedite a decision on the pending motion to dismiss this appeal and rule on or before August 29, 2013. DATED: August 6. 2013 Respectfully Submitted, Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu and 3 EFTA00209455 Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com Attorneys for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209456 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on August 6, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC 20 PARK PLZ STE 1000 Boston, MA 02116-4301 (617) 227-3700 Paul G. Cassell 5 EFTA00209457