On April 18, in Doe No. 1 v. United States, 746 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-12923), the Eleventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal by criminal defense attorneys regarding an adverse privilege ruling relating to documents held by the government.  This matter is an action brought against the United States by victims who alleged that rights afforded to them by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act had been violated when the government entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the perpetrator, Epstein, without first conferring with the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs sought discovery from the government of correspondence sent to the government by Epstein’s lawyers during plea negotiations.  The trial court allowed Epstein’s defense counsel to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the disclosure and use of the correspondence.  In support of a motion for protective order, Epstein’s defense counsel argued that the correspondence was protected as work product and as privileged plea negotiations.  The government argued that the court should consider the material privileged, but informed the court that the government would produce the documents if ordered to do.  The trial court denied the motions and allowed the discovery, and Epstein’s defense counsel brought an interlocutory appeal.  The appellate court held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the Perlman doctrine, which allows immediate appeal of an adverse privilege ruling where  documents are in the possession of a disinterested third party who would be reluctant to risk a contempt citation, and where the purported privilege holder is not a party to the case, thereby depriving the holder of an opportunity to raise the issue on direct appeal.  Here, Epstein’s defense counsel would not be able to appeal a final judgment against the government, which would leave them “without an avenue to appeal the denial of their claims of privilege.”