The Fourth Circuit Cut Back on Perlman Appeals
In In re Grand Jury 2021 Subpoenas, the Fourth Circuit joined several other circuits in holding that only non-parties can take Perlman appeals. I wrote about this issue a few years ago when the Second Circuit did the same. This cutting back on Perlman appeals is as wrong now as it was then.
Until recently, Perlman was a reliable way for privilege claimants to appeal discovery orders directed to third parties. When a privilege claimant is not the target of a discovery order, the normal contempt route for challenging that order is not available. After all, third parties rarely will risk a contempt citation to permit someone else to take an immediate appeal. Perlman accordingly held that privilege claimants, who are otherwise “powerless to avert the mischief of the[se discovery] order[s],” can take an immediate appeal.
But in the past decade or so, the courts of appeals have cut back on Perlman appeals. They’ve done so by reading too much into a line from the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter. The Court held in Mohawk Industries that privilege claimants could not appeal discovery orders via the collateral-order doctrine. In the course of doing so, the Court said that “postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of litigants and assure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege.”
Several courts of appeals have taken this just-quoted line to mean that parties can no longer take Perlman appeals. The Fourth Circuit has now joined those ranks. It said that “any distinction between the collateral-order doctrine and the Perlman doctrine is one without a difference—the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Mohawk is equally applicable in both contexts”:
Doe seeks to vindicate a privilege interest that Mohawk expressly recognized should be addressed on post-judgment review. Whether the compelled disclosure to which he objects ultimately comes from him (a collateral-order context) or from a third party (a Perlman context) is entirely inconsequential insofar as his access to post-judgment review is unchanged either way. As such, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s narrowing of the collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule in Mohawk applies equally to the Perlman doctrine—thereby excluding immediate litigant-sought review.
As I’ve explained before—including in a law review article on this very issue—this is all wrong. I won’t belabor the point too much. But one of the reasons for Mohawk Industries’ holding was the availability of other avenues for review. Among those avenues was the contempt option. And the Perlman doctrine stands in for the contempt option when discovery orders are directed to someone other than the privilege claimant. They both exist to provide some avenue for review before allegedly confidential information is disclosed.
It’s not much of a stretch to say that the availability of other avenues for review—including the Perlman doctrine—are why privilege claimants cannot appeal discovery orders via the collateral-order doctrine. It’s thus perverse to use Mohawk Industries to cut back on Perlman.
In re Grand Jury 2021 Subpoenas, 2023 WL 8103935 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally allows privilege claimants to appeal from discovery […]
Continue reading....
In CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery proceeding was not final because the district court had not definitively resolved the scope of discovery. Although the district court had authorized a subpoena, the court had not addressed the discovery target’s objections to the scope of […]
Continue reading....
In In Re Grand Jury Investigation, the Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant could not appeal orders compelling it and third parties to produce documents. The analysis of the order directed at the privilege claimant was straightforward. Privilege claimants normally must take contempt appeals to challenge a discovery order. The privilege claimant in Grand […]
Continue reading....
In In re Search Warrants Issued February 18, 2022, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal that challenged the filter protocols for seized evidence. The district court had approved certain protocols to weed out potentially protected evidence. The district court later denied a privilege claimant’s motion seeking to alter those protocols. The Fourth Circuit held that […]
Continue reading....
In Asante-Chioke v. Dowdle, the Fifth Circuit reviewed an order refusing to limit the scope of discovery to qualified-immunity issues. The court said that it could immediately review this sort of order via the collateral-order doctrine. But I have my doubts. The Fifth Circuit relied on a line of cases holding that defendants can appeal […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....