From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com> To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]> " r" "Brad Edwards (bradgpathtojustice.com)" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:56:12 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the jurisdictional question you raise, and at the heart of the merits. They cannot be separated. The Court needs to look at our merits arguments on privilege to determine the jurisdiction issue. For this reason, we believe that the Court should address both issues without bifurcation. From: Paul Castel! [mallto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:20 AM To: Jackie Perczek Brad Edwards ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MID as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Hi Jackie, Thanks for getting back to us so quickly. We have always appreciated your collegiality on these issues as well (and we know that your firm has quite an effective team put together). We've been wondering about the need for the filing of our brief while a contested (and, in our view, meritorious) jurisdictional issue is before the Court. In looking more carefully at the CA11 Local Rules, we notice that under the Rule 31-21(d), if the Court were to issue a jurisdictional question, that would stay the time for filing our brief for 30 days until the Court rules on jurisdiction. What would your position be if we restyled our motion along the lines of — Motion to Treat Victims' Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Briefing as Equivalent to Issuance of a Jursidictional Question For Purposes of Briefing Schedule — i.e., our brief would not be