Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01213/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01213-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mazen Arakji
Appellant
Steve Austin
Appellee
Robert Brewer
Appellee
Broomfield City and County
Appellee
Christopher Fayles
Appellee
Cliff Hess
Appellee
Tracey Leese
Appellee
Jason Lingle
Appellee
Andrew Martinez
Appellee
McQueen
Appellee
Brenda Sorreles
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MAZEN ARAKJI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CLIFF HESS; ANDREW MARTINEZ; 

ROBERT BREWER; CHRISTOPHER 

FAYLES; TRACEY LEESE; JASON 

LINGLE; BRENDA SORRELES; STEVE 

AUSTIN; MCQUEEN, and John Does 2-

19, and Jane Doe 1; BROOMFIELD CITY 

AND COUNTY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1213

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00681-CMA-MJW)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Plaintiff Mazen Arakji seeks to appeal the district court’s interlocutory order 

overruling his objections to two orders issued by a magistrate judge. First, the magistrate 

judge denied Mr. Arakji’s motion for a default judgment against the City and County of 

Broomfield because that defendant was not in default. Second, the magistrate judge 

granted in part and denied in part Mr. Arakji’s motion to compel the City and County of 

Broomfield to produce the names and addresses of police officers. In this order, the 

magistrate judge also set a date for the parties to exchange their Federal Rule of Civil 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 30, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1213 Document: 01019452643 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 1 
2

Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. The defendants have not yet answered the 

complaint and the district court has not yet entered a final decision. 

Upon opening this appeal, the court questioned its jurisdiction to review the 

district court’s order, given the lack of a final decision in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(limiting appellate jurisdiction to review of final decisions of the district courts). In 

response, Mr. Arakji argues that the order requiring initial disclosures is an appealable 

collateral order. Mr. Arakji does not argue that we have jurisdiction to review the denial 

of his motion for default judgment.

An order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if it (1) 

conclusively determines the disputed question; (2) resolves an important issue completely 

separate from the merits of the action; and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from 

a final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). All three requirements 

must be satisfied to establish jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Boughton v. 

Cotter Corp., 10 F.3d 746, 749 (10th Cir. 1993).

Rule 26(a)(1) requires the parties to make initial disclosures before engaging in 

formal discovery. Mr. Arakji asserts that it is unjust for him to provide initial disclosures 

before the defendants answer his complaint. “While recognizing that most interlocutory 

orders disadvantage or inflict some degree of harm on one of the parties to a litigation, 

this court must balance that concern against the need for efficient judicial administration, 

the delay caused by interlocutory appeals, and the burden on appellate courts imposed by 

fragmentary and piecemeal review of the district court’s myriad rulings in the course of a 

typical case.” Id. at 748. An order requiring initial disclosures is reviewable on appeal 

Appellate Case: 15-1213 Document: 01019452643 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 2 
3

from final judgment and, therefore, not immediately appealable under the collateral order 

doctrine. See, e.g., Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009) (holding 

that disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege are not appealable collateral 

orders).

We lack jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal. Appeal dismissed. All 

pending motions are denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1213 Document: 01019452643 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Page: 3