Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-13011/USCOURTS-ca11-24-13011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Richard Herbert Friedberg
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13011

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HERBERT FRIEDBERG, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

U.S.Tax Court

Agency No. 12456-20L

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-13011

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Friedberg petitions for review of the August 21, 

2024, order of the U.S. Tax Court denying his motion for permission to depose various employees of the Internal Revenue Service. 

We issued a jurisdictional question (“JQ”) about whether the August 21 order is final or otherwise immediately reviewable. In response to the JQ, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the August 21 order is not final or 

otherwise immediately reviewable. The Commissioner also 

moves to consolidate and dismiss other appeals filed by Friedberg 

challenging different decisions of the Tax Court from the same underlying case. Friedberg did not respond to the JQ or the Commissioner’s motion.

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the August 21 order is not final or otherwise immediately reviewable. See 26 U.S. § 7482(a)(1) (stating that we have jurisdiction 

to review decisions of the Tax Court “in the same manner and to 

the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions 

tried without a jury”); 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of 

Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A final decision 

is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing 

for the court to do but execute the judgment.”). Discovery orders 

like this “are ordinarily not final orders that are immediately 

USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 2 of 3
24-13011 Opinion of the Court 3

appealable.” Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 

2014). And the August 21 order is not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable from 

the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 

(11th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we GRANT the Commissioner’s motion to 

dismiss and DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Commissioner’s motion to consolidate is DENIED, and all other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

USCA11 Case: 24-13011 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025 Page: 3 of 3