No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
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 Jury Investigation had not been held in contempt. So it couldn’t appeal.
The order directed at third parties was more interesting. Under the Perlman doctrine, privilege claimants can normally immediately appeal discovery orders directed to a third party. But the Eleventh Circuit held that the claimant here could not take a Perlman appeal. That’s because the claimant could have raised all of its challenges to the third-party discovery order by taking its own appeal. Appellate review of those issues was therefore possible, meaning Perlman didn’t apply.
The Discovery Orders
Simplifying a fair bit, Grand Jury Investigation stemmed from (as the name implies) a grand jury investigation into illegal tax shelters. The grand jury wanted records from an investment company involved in those tax shelters. So it issued a subpoena to both the investment company and a handful of third parties affiliated with the company. These subpoenas sought the same kinds of records, but the targets of the subpoenas were different.
The investment company objected to both subpoenas on attorney-client privilege grounds. The district court eventually rejected the claim of privilege on several grounds and ordered discovery. The investment company then tried to appeal.
The Order to the Investment Company
The Eleventh Circuit swiftly dismissed the appeal insofar as it challenged the discovery order directed to the investment company. With rare and narrow exceptions, targets of discovery orders must be held in contempt before they can immediately appeal that order. The investment company had not yet refused to produce the documents, much less been held in contempt. So it could not appeal.
The Order to the Third Parties
The Eleventh Circuit went on to hold that the investment company also could not appeal the order directed to the third parties.
Under the Perlman doctrine, privilege claimants normally can appeal a discovery order directed at a disinterested third party. The rationale is that the privilege claimant cannot use the contempt option and is therefore powerless to prevent disclosure by the third parties. And immediate Perlman appeal is necessary to protect the confidentiality interests at stake.
But the Eleventh Circuit said that Perlman appeals are available only when appellate review would otherwise be impossible. And review was possible in Grand Jury Investigation without a Perlman appeal. The investment company’s objections to the third-party discovery orders were the same objections it raised in opposing its own discovery order. So the investment company could have raised all of its privilege arguments by taking a contempt appeal. Since there could have been a contempt appeal, the company could not take a Perlman appeal.
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 2024 WL 4500966 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024), available at the Eleventh 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 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....
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.
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....