Blog

Last month saw a pair of decisions on when post-judgment motions reset the appeal clock for interlocutory appeals. The Ninth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction over a government appeal when the government invites the district court to dismiss an indictment. The Ninth Circuit also addressed jurisdiction over cross-appeals under the administrative-remand rule.…

In United States v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit permitted the government to appeal a discovery order in a criminal case after the government asked the district court to dismiss the indictment to facilitate an appeal. Although the order was interlocutory, the Ninth Circuit could review it under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.…

In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), despite the motion’s relying on a local rule rather than Rule 59(e).…

In Kaweah Delta Health Care District v. Becerra, the Ninth Circuit held that a cross-appeal was proper when the government could appeal from an administrative remand. The court explained that when the administrative-remand rule makes a decision final, it is final for everyone.…

In Gelin v. Baltimore County, the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) applies to appealable interlocutory orders. So a motion to reconsider such an order resets the time to appeal. The court added that a motion can effectively be one seeking reconsideration even though the motion does not cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and instead relies on a different rule.…

November saw a pair of interesting decisions on the application of Smith v. Spizzirri as well as a formal standard for successive injunction appeals in the Tenth Circuit. But let’s start with a decision on whether a post-judgment motion to reconsider reset the appeal clock.…

October was discovery-appeal month. The Ninth Circuit held that a § 1782 order was not final when the district court had not resolved post-order objections to the discovery. The Fifth Circuit permitted an immediate appeal from a discovery order that implicated First Amendment interests. The Eleventh Circuit held that a party could not take a Perlman appeal when the same objections to discovery could be addressed through the party’s own contempt appeal.…

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 discovery.…

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.…

In Christmas v. Hooper, the Fifth Circuit held that the prison-mailbox rule applies to notices of appeal mistakenly sent to a court of appeals.

In doing so, the court had to resolve a tension between two portions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Rule 4(c)(1) says that an imprisoned appellant’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on the day it is deposited in the prison mail system.…