From: "M, (USAFLS)" [=. To: " >, (USAFLS)" Cc: "MN, (USAFLS)" Subject: FW: Are you going to confer with us? Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:00:16 +0000 Importance: Normal and , I received this response from Kathy earlier today. From: =, (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:27 PM To: M, (USAFLS) Cc Subject: Re: Are you going to confer with us? Typically, if it appears that the Court might lack jurisdiction, the Court will issue a jurisdictional question and both sides will brief the jurisdictional issue simultaneously. I haven't send a jurisdictional question in this case. I would be inclined to let the CA11 flag the issue in the first instance , unless others disagree. KS Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:00 PM, "M, (USAFLS)" < wrote: Paul Cassell is eager to know what the government's position is on the intervenors' appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Judge Marra's interlocutory order. If he is so sure the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, I wonder why it is so important to him that we endorse his argument. In any event, would the DOJ normally move to dismiss an appeal, when another party to the action has already done so? Is this something for DOJ appellate to resolve? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:59 AM To: USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? Des It has been nearly two weeks since we sent this request to you, and we haven't heard anything back from you. Are you going to confer with us about this? And what is the government's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial question" about whether the denial of a motion for a protective order is immediately appealable under Mohawk — which is exactly the argument we believe it would be in the Government's EFTA00209340