The Fourth Circuit on Filter-Protocol Appeals
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 under DiBella v. United States, the order was neither an appealable final decision nor an appealable denial of a preliminary injunction.
The Filter-Protocol Decision
The dispute stemmed from the government’s seizure of documents related to a fraud investigation. Due to the risk that some of the seized material might be privileged or protected by work product, the government proposed—and the district court approved—a filter protocol for preventing the disclosure of protected material.
The privilege claimant later intervened. He also moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to modify the filter protocol. The district court denied that request, and the privilege claimant appealed.
Dismissing the Filter-Protocol Appeal
The privilege claimant presented two theories for appellate jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit rejected both.
Not a Final Decision
First, the court of appeals held that the filter-protocol decision was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
In the course of doing so, the Fourth Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in DiBella v. United States “applies today with just as much force to rule 41(g) orders as it did” to the order at issue in DiBella. DiBella held that pre-indictment suppression motions are not immediately appealable. And even though a successful Rule 41(g) motion doesn’t require suppression, the concerns that animated DiBella—such as avoiding delay tactics—applied to Rule 41(g) motions.
DiBella has an exception for motions that (1) seek no more than the return of property and (2) are completely unrelated to an ongoing criminal prosecution. But the motion in question didn’t fit that exception. The documents had been copied, so the government had returned the originals to the privilege claimant. And no one disputed that the privilege claimant was a target of the grand-jury investigation for which the documents were seized.
Not an Appealable Injunction Denial
The Fourth Circuit then held that the order was not an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Even if the order could be characterized as denying a preliminary injunction, the Fourth Circuit has held that DiBella’s bar on appeals applies to injunction appeals, too.
In re Search Warrants Issued February 18, 2022, 2024 WL 3627613 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024), 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 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 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....
A few years ago, I wrote about the Fifth Circuit’s caselaw that allows government officials to immediately appeal discovery orders via the collateral-order doctrine. The case that sparked that discussion did not address appellate jurisdiction at all—I had to go to the briefs to figure out why the court was hearing a discovery appeal. But […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....