Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04076/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04076-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

I' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROGER E. WILLIAMS; HERBER HAMMON; BETH ) 

PETERSON; CONNELL J. BATEMAN; JESSE ) 

BEAGLEY; BENJAMIN G. BISTLINE; JAMES B. ) 

BLACKMORE; HAROLD W. BLACKMORE; FLORENCE) 

BLACKMORE; CYRIL BRADSHAW; ALMA J. ) 

BURNHAM; CLAUDE S. COOKE; DONALD B. COX;) 

EARLINE COX; HARVEY J. DOCKSTADER; ) 

LEAH K. DOCKSTADER; T. DAVID DOCKSTADER;) 

BOYD DOCKSTADER; MARKO J. DUTSON; GEORGE) 

HAMMON; JACOB LEGRANDE HAMMON; EARL ) 

JOHNSON; JAMES M. PIPKIN; CORA FISCHER ) 

STUBBS; DAVID L. STUBBS; JOHN TIMPSON; ) 

RAY TIMPSON; DON TIMPSON; FAYILA MAUREEN) 

BLACKMORE WILLIAMS; JOHN M. WILLIAMS; ) 

CHARLES WILLIAMS; THOMAS J. WILLIAMS; ) 

JOYCE BLACKMORE; ELLEN BOEHMER; CAROL ) 

ANDERSON, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 ) 

THROUGH 1000, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

UNITED EFFORT PLAN, a Utah Trust; 

RULON T. JEFFS; FRED M. JESSOP; LEROY 

JEFFS; PARLEY J. HARKER; JAMES K. 

ZITTING; WINSTON K. BLACKMORE; TRUMAN 

BARLOW; individually and as Trustees 

for the United Effort Plan Trust, and 

the FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF JESUS 

CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

s.) 

) 

I.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CITY OF HILDALE, a municipality; CITY ) 

OF COLORADO CITY, a municipality; ) 

WASHINGTON COUNTY UTAH SHERIFF, a local) 

government; MOHAVE COUNTY, a local ) 

government; SAM BARLOW; LEWIS J. BARLOW;) 

E. JACK KNUDSON; ANNA MAE BLACKMORE; ) 

TWIN CITY AREA IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, ) 

an Arizona corporation, f/k/a COLORADO ) 

CITY AREA IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION; ) 

MERRILL HARKER, JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1 ) 

THROUGH 1000, ) 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

FIL --~ D 

Unitai States Cou .. · of Appea Tenth Ci:reuit 

NOV 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4076 

(D.C. No. 87-C-1022J) 

(D . Utah) 

Appellate Case: 91-4076 Document: 010110148652 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 1 
.. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant-appellants appeal the district court's denial of 

their motion to quash subpoenas issued to a nonparty bank. 

Defendants argue that disclosure of the information subpoenaed 

would violate defendants' First Amendment rights. Before we can 

reach the merits of defendants' claims, we must determine whether 

we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 

Ordinarily, pretrial discovery orders are not appealable 

because they do not constitute final orders under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. Graham v. Gray. 827 F.2d 679, 681 (10th Cir. 1987); 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-4076 Document: 010110148652 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 2 
-· 

F.T.C. v. Alaska Land Leasing, Inc., 778 F.2d 577, 578 (10th Cir. 

1985). "The denial of a motion to quash a subpoena is 

interlocutory in nature and not an appealable order." In Re Grand 

Jury Proceedings, 857 F.2d 710, 711 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. 

denied, 492 U.S. 905 (1989). There is an exception to the 

finality rule when the order appealed from is a collateral order. 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). To be 

appeal able under the Cohen exception, an order must (1) 

conclusively resolve a disputed question; (2) resolve an issue 

completely separate from the merits of the underlying action; and 

(3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment in 

the underlying action. United States v. Dickstein, 971 F.2d 446, 

448 (10th Cir. 1992). We hold that the order appealed from in 

this case does not meet the requirements of the Cohen doctrine 

and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 

The district court, in denying defendants' motion to quash 

the subpoenas, found that compliance with the discovery order 

would not violate defendants' First Amendment rights. 

Consequently, addressing the merits of defendants' appeal would 

entail analysis and determination of defendants' constitutional 

rights relative to the various subpoenaed bank accounts which, in 

turn, would involve characterization of the accounts and the 

various entities involved. Characterization and analysis of the 

various entities and their relationships is also an integral part 

of the merits of the underlying case. Because the order appealed 

from did not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4076 Document: 010110148652 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 3 
~ ' . ' 

of the underlying action, the order does not fall within the Cohen 

exception and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction on that basis. 

Defendants alternatively assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(a) 1 , claiming that the order entered by the district court 

grants injunctive relief. Denial of a motion to quash a subpoena 

is generally not appealable as an injunction under§ 1292(a). See 

United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 534 (1971); Westinghouse 

Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Phil., 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 n.6 (3d Cir. 

1991); Corporacion Insular de Seguros v. Garcia, 876 F.2d 254, 256 

(1st Cir. 1989). 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) provides in pertinent part that "the 

courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: 

... [i]nterlocutory orders ... granting, continuing, 

modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or 

refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions .... " 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-4076 Document: 010110148652 Date Filed: 11/10/1992 Page: 4