FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 26, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 07- 1520 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00049 -CV -H LM- 4

NO RMA N C ARP EN TE R, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us MOHAW K INDUSTRIES, INC., D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __Honora ble Susan C. Buc klew, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of F lorida, * sitti ngby desig nation. 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 07- 1569 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ INRE : MOHAW K INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ O n P et iti on f

or Wri t of Mandam us t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Before CA RNE S and MA RCU S, Circuit Judges, and BU CKL EW , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: Before the Court are the following: (1) Appellant’ s appeal of a district court’ s order granting Appellee’ s m otion to com pel responses and prod uce doc um en ts A

ppe llant c ont en ds are pr ote ct ed by the a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e; ( 2) Appe llant’ s c om

panio n pe tit ionf

or w ri t of m an da m us s ee kin g to c om

pe l the dis tr ic t c ourt j udge to va cate the or de r as it r el at es to the m oti on t o c om pe l; an d ( 3) Appe lle e’ s m oti on t o di sm iss the appe al f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n. A ft er

r ev ie wand3

oral argum ent, w e conclude that this Cou rt should decline to extend the “ collateral order” doctrine established in Cohen v. Beneficia l Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U. S. 541 (194 9), to the exer cise of this Court’ s jur isdictio n over an interlocutory appeal of adis co ve ry

or de r im pli catin g th e attor

ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e. A ddi tio na lly , w ith respect to Appellant’s com panion petition for writ of m andam us, w e conclude that Appe llant h as not

sho w n th at

it s “ ri ght to iss uanc e of

the w ri t i s ‘ cl ear an d ind isp uta ble . ’ ” Inr e L ope z- L uki s, 113 F . 3d 1 187, 118 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) (c iti ng K er r v. U . S. D ist . Co urt f

or the N orthe rnD ist . of

Ca lif or nia , 426 U . S. 394 , 403 (1 976) ). A cc or din gly , w e dis m iss Appe llant’ s a ppe al f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n and de ny Appe ll an t’s p et it io n fo r writ of m an da m us .

I. Back ground Pl ai nti ff /Appe lle e N orm anCarp en te r (“ Appe lle e” ) ini tiate d th is a ct ionon Marc h 15 , 200 7 inthe U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg iaa ga ins t D ef

en dant/Appe llant M ohaw k I ndus tr ie s, I nc . ( “ Moh aw k” or

“ App el la nt ”), an d a ls o a ga in st va rio us em pl oyees o f Mo ha wk In du st rie s, In c., al le gin g th at

he w as te rm inate d invio la tio n of 42 U . S. C. § 19 85( 2) a nd v ar iou s G eo rg ialaw s. S pe ci fi ca lly , Appe lle e co nte nds in h is c om pla int that he r ep orte d toIn the Will iams lawsuit, a g roup of c urre nt and forme r Mohawk e mploy ees f iled a cla ss action 1 l awsuitag ainst Mohawk in the District Court for the Norther n District of Ge org ia, alleg ing that Mohawk c onspired to place illega l aliens to work, in violation of fede ral a nd state RI CO laws. 4 Mohawk’ s hum an resources departm ent that several tem porary em ploy ees, hired by Mohawk through a tem

porary em ploym ent agency , w ere illegal aliens. A fter m ak ing his r ep ort, Appe lle e w as r equir ed to m ee t w itha tto rn ey

Juan P . Mo ri llo , w ho r ep re se nts Mo haw k inase parate law sui t, W ill iam s v. Mo haw k I ndus tr ie s, Inc. , C ivil Action File No. 4:04-cv-000 3-HL M. 1 Appe lle e al le ge s th at

the m ee tin g be tw ee n hi m a nd atto rn ey

Juan P . Mo ri llo w as de sig ne d to c oe rc e him int o r ec an tin g hi s r ep ort, w hic h Appe llant k ne ww oul d be dam ag ing to its de fe nse in the W ill iam s a ct ion . Appe lle e re fu se d to r ec an t hi s re port, and h e w as te rm inate d th e day a ft er the m ee tin g. Appe llant’ s st at ed r ea son for ter m inating Appellee w as because it had discovered that Appellee w as co m m it ti ng imm ig rat io n c rimes by harb or in g i ll eg al ali en s. A f t e r l e a rn i n g ab o u tAp p e l l e e ’s c o mp l a i n t , th e p l a i n t i f f s i n th e Wi l l i a ms ac t i o n fi l ed an emer g en cy m o t i o n fo r a n ev i d en t i ary h ea ri n g , t o wh i ch Mo h aw k ’s co unse l i n th e W ill iam s a ct ionf ile d ar es pons e. T he r es pons e state d, in re le vant part : Pl ai nti ff

s a dm it that the onl y

ba sis f or the ir Mo tio n are the a lle ga tio ns i n th e co m pla int f ile d tw o w ee ks a go i n Carpenter v. M ohawk Indust ries . Plaintiffs have never spoken to Mr. C arpenter, and they have not produ cedWil liams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., Civil Action File No. 4:04-cv-0003- HL M, Docke t E ntry No. 2 94, at 4-5 (c itations omi tted). 5 an y oth er e vid en ce c or

ro bor at ing his a lle ga tio ns. N or c oul d th ey . A s hi s own statem ents dem onstrate, Mr . C arpenter’ s wild allegations that he was fired beca use of som e conspiracy

to influence his testim ony are pure fantasy . The tr

ue fac ts are these. O n June 1, 2006 , Mohaw k hired Mr. Carp en te r as aS hif

t S upe rv iso r at

Mo haw k’ s U nio n G ro ve m anuf ac tur ing fa ci lity . Mr . Carp en te r w as hir ed a s asa lari ed

e m plo y ee , a nd h is res po ns ib il it ie s i nc lu de d t he supe rv is io n o f ho ur ly Moh awkem pl oyees. Sh ortly a ft er he arr ive d a t M ohaw k, Mr . Carp en te r en ga ge d inblatant and ill eg al m isc ondu ct

. . . . Mr . Carp en te r’ s a tte m pt t o have Mo haw k se nd a worker that Mr. Car

penter believed to be unauth orized to a tem porary ag en cy w as ac le ar

vio la tio n of

Mo haw k’ s C ode of

E thi cs a nd an a tte m

pt t o ci rcu m ve nt fed eral imm ig rat io n l aw.

. . . A ft er r ec ei vin g M s. H al e’ s c om pla int , Mo haw k r es pond ed in ane nti re ly appropriate m anner. It com m enced an im

m ediate investigatio n of Mr. Carpenter ’ s efforts to cause Mohawk to circum vent federal im

m igration law an d hi s c la im

that othe r te m

por ar y w orke rs a t the U nio n G ro ve Ro ad f ac ili ty we re not authorized to work in the United States. A s part of that investig ation, Mohawk’ s outs ide counsel Ju an P. Morillo interviewed Mr. Carp en te r. A s ar es ult

of Mr . Carp en te r’ s m isc ondu ct , Mo haw k f ir ed Mr . Carp en te r an d did not giv e him any se ve ranc e pa ck ag e. H is atte m pt t o kn ow ing ly

c au se Mohawk to obtain andutilize an unautho rized w orker blatantly violated M o h a w kp o l i c y. 2 Af ter engaging in so m e initial discov ery exchanges in the inst ant case, Appe lle e fi le d am oti on t o c om pe l r es pons es to both hi s in te rr oga tor ie s and doc um en t r eque sts , se ek ing inf orm at ionAppe llant c ont en de d w as pr ote ct ed by the6

attor ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e. S pe ci fi ca lly , Appe lle e soug ht i nf orm at ionr el at ed

to his co m m uni catio ns w ithA tto rn ey Juan P . Mo ri llo a nd i nf

orm at ionr el at ed

to Appe llant’ s de ci sio n to te rm inate Appe lle e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the co m m uni catio ns at i ssu e w er e pr ote ct ed by the a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e, but it w en t onto co nc lud e that Appe llant h ad im pli ci tly w ai ve d th e attor

ne y -c lie nt privilege due to th e re spon se Appellant filed in the W illiam s action. T he district co urt st at ed

that: By m ak ing tho se r ep re se ntatio ns, D ef en dant M ohaw k pl ac ed

the a ct ion s of A tto rn ey Mo ri llo in iss ue . I n f

ai rn es s, e va luatio n of

tho se r ep re se ntatio ns w ill r equir e ane xa m inatio n of oth er w ise -p ro te ct ed

c om m uni catio ns be tw ee n A tto rn ey

Mo ri llo a nd P la int if

f an d be tw ee n A tto rn ey

Mo ri llo and D ef en dant M ohaw k’ s pe rs onne l. C onse que ntl y , the Co urt m ust c onc lud e that D ef en dant M ohaw k ha s w ai ve d th e attor ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e w ith re spe ct to the c om

m uni catio ns r el at ing to the int er vie wof P la int if f an d th e de ci si on to ter m in at e Pl ai nt iff’s em pl oym en t. The district court then ordere d Appellant to respondto Appellee’ s interrogatories an d do cum en t pr oduc tio n r eque sts , but it stay ed that po rt ionof

it s or de r if Appe llant c hose to ap pe al . Appe llant, be lie vin g th at it ha d no t w ai ve d th e attor ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e an d n o twa n t i n g t o tu rn o v erth e i n fo rmat i o n at i s s u e, ch al l en g es th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s order in this appeal. Appellee has m oved to d ism iss the appeal on th e basis that th is Co ur t l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r th e ap pe al of a no n- fin al di sc ov ery or de r.7

Appe llant h as a lso f

ile d ape tit ionf

or aw ri t of m an da m us, se ek ing to co m

pe l the di st ric t co ur t ju dg e to va cat e th e o rd er as itrel at es to App el le e’s m ot io n t o c om pe l. W e co nsol idate d th e ap pe al , m oti on t o di sm iss , a nd p et iti on f or aw ri t of m an da m us an d wi ll , th eref

or e, co ns id er t he m

to ge th er. II. M ot ion t o D ism iss - Ju ri sd ic ti on As an initial m atter, we m ust address thi s Court’ s jur isdictio n to review Appellant’ s claim s by

way of interlocutory

appeal. Ge nerally , discovery orders ar e not f ina l or de rs of

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or pur pose s of obt ai nin g a

ppe llate j ur isd ic tio n un de r 28 U . S. C. § 12 91. Af ina l de ci sio n is one that “ en ds the lit igatio n onthe m er its and l eave s no thi ng m or e fo r the c ourt t o do but e xe cu te the j udgm en t. ” Mc Mahon v. P re sid en tia l A ir w ay s, I nc . , 502 F . 3d 1 331, 133 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 7) (quot ing D igi ta l E qui p. Co rp . v. D es kto p D ir ec t, I nc . , 511 U . S. 863 , 867 (1 99 4) ). Ther efo re, d is co ve ry ord ers are n or m al ly not imm ed ia te ly app eal ab le . See Rouse Constr. Int’ l, I nc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp. , 680 F. 2d 74 3, 745 (11th Cir. 1982 ). H owever , the c ollateral order doctrine, established by the Suprem e Court in Cohen v. Benefic ial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U. S. 541 (194 9), pr ovid es an exception to th e finality

requirem ent of 28 U. S. C. § 129 1. U nder Cohen, an order is appealable if it (1) c onclusi vely determ ines the disp uted questi on; (2) resolves anim portant i ssu e co m

ple te ly se parate f

ro m the m er its of

the a ct ion ; and ( 3) is8

ef fe ct ive ly unr ev ie w ab le on a

ppe al f ro m af ina l j udgm en t. S ee Co ope rs & Ly brand v. L ivesay , 437 U. S. 463, 468 (197 8). Appe llant arg ue s th at

the c ha lle nge d di sc ove ry or de r is an a

ppe al ab le

“ co ll at eral ord er” u nd er Co he n, b ecau se all th ree p ro ng s o f th e Co he n t es t ar e m et . W e co nc lud e that the c ha lle nge d di sc ove ry or de r m ee ts the f

ir st and s ec ond pr ongs of the r el ev an t t es t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re qui ri ng Appe llant t o pr oduc e the dispu ted inform ation leaves no room for the district court to further c onsid er whether the inform ation at issu e is protected. As f or the second prong , w e agre e that the a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e is i m portant and tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c anr es olv e the pr ivi le ge iss ue s ( i.e. , w he the r Appe llant m ust pr oduc e the dis put ed

doc um en ts an d c omm

un ic at io ns ) wit ho ut de ci di ng th e m eri ts of t he cas e. As f or the third prong , how ever, we do not find that a discovery order that im pli cate s th e attor

ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e is e ff ec tiv el y unr ev ie w ab le on a

ppe al f ro m a fi na l j udgm en t. I f thi s C our t w er e to d et er

m ine on a ppe al f ro m af ina l j udgm en t that pr ivi le ge d in fo rm at ionw as w ro ngl y tur ne d ov er a nd w as use d to the de tr im en t of the party a sse rt ing the pr ivi le ge , w e co uld r ev er se a ny

a dve rs e j udgm en t and require a new tr ial, f

orbiddi ng any

use of the im

properly disclosed in form ation, as w el l a s any

doc um en ts, w itn es se s, or oth er e vid en ce obt ai ne d a s ac onse que nc e of th e im pr op erl y di sc lo se d i nf

or m at io n.9

Thi s ci rcu it ha s p rev io us ly hel d t ha t d is co ve ry ord ers are n ot ap pe al ab le . Se e Inr e In t’ l H or iz ons, I nc . , 689 F . 2d 9 96, 100 0- 01 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) ; R ouse Co nstr. I nt’ l, I nc . , 680 F . 2d at 74 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) . “ O rd inari ly , ali tig an t se ek ing to o ve rt ur n adis co ve ry

or de r ha s ( onl y ) tw o c hoi ce s. E ith er he c anc om

ply w ith the or de r an d c ha lle nge it a t the c onc lus ionof

the c as e or

he c anr ef

use to co m

ply w iththe or de r an d c ont es t i ts v al idi ty if sub se que ntl y

c ite d f or c ont em pt f or his re fu sa l t o ob ey . ” Ro use Co nstr. I nt’ l I nc . , 680 F . 2d at 74 5. I nde ed , in International Horizons we found that th e defe ndant coul d not app eal the district co urt’ s or de r re qui ri ng the de fe ndant t o di sc los e doc um en ts tha t the de fe ndant ar gue d w er e pr ote ct ed

by the a cc ount an t- cl ie nt p ri vil eg e. I n r e In t’ l H or iz ons, In c. , 689 F . 2d at 10 01. This circ uit has no t, howe ver, directly addressed the question of w hether a discovery order com

pelling the disclosu re of inform ation claim ed to be protected by the attorney -client privilege can be appealed bef ore final j udgm ent under Co he n. Anum

be r of c ir cu its have a ddr es se d th e iss ue , a nd the re a re de ci sio ns o n both sides. In r e N apster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 479 F.3d 1078 , 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2007 )(f indin g jurisdiction und er the c ollateral order doctrine to review the district court’ s order com

pelling production of attorney -client com m unication ); U nited States v. Phillip Morris, Inc. , 314 F. 3d 61 2, 617-21 (D. C. Cir. 2003 )(sam e);10

F. D. I. C. v. O gden Corp., 202 F.3d 454, 458 & n. 2 (1st Cir. 2000 )(“ [D ] iscovery or de rs ge ne ra lly

are not tho ught to co m e w ith in [ the c oll at er al or de r doc tr ine ] ”; the

“ perfec t exam

ple” of a discovery

order that is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine is one invo lving a party ’ s claim of attorney -client privilege.) ; In re Fo rd Mo tor Co . , 110 F . 3d 9 54, 964 ( 3d C ir . 199 7) (“ [T ] he str ic tur es of the collateral order

doctrine have been m et in this case, and we have j urisdictio n over the appeal.” ); Boughto n v. Cotter C orp., 10 F.3d 746, 749-50 (10t h Cir. 1993 )( de cl ini ng t o a cc ep t j ur isd ic tio n, a nd s ta tin g th at “ in v irtua lly

e ve ry c as e in oth er c ir cu its inv olv ing sim ilar attor ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e cl ai m s, the c ourts h av e refu se d t o t ak e juri sd ic ti on .”); Texa co Inc . v. Lou is ia na Land an d Ex pl or at io n C o., 995 F. 2d 4 3, 44 ( 5thCi r. 199 3) (o rd er r equir ing pla int if

f to p ro duc e ce rt ai n doc um en ts tha t i t c la im ed w er e subj ec t t o a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e w as not ap pe al ab le und er

the c oll at er al or de r doc tr ine ); Ch as e Manhattan B an k, N . A . v. Turner & N ew all, P LC , 964 F. 2d 15 9, 162-63 (2d Cir. 1992)(pretria l discovery or de rs are not

appe al ab le und er

the c oll at er al or de r doc tr ine ); Re ise v. Bd . of Regents of Univ. of W isconsi n Sy s., 957 F.2d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1992 )(“ [O ] rders to p ro duc e inf

orm at ionove r str ong obj ec tio ns b as ed on p ri vil eg e ar e not appealable.” ); Q uantum

Corp. v. T andon Corp., 940 F. 2d 64 2, 644 (Fed. Cir.11

1991 )( or de r co m

pe lli ng d isc ove ry

of a tto rn ey opi nio n le tte rs w as not

im m ed ia te ly appealable under the collateral order doctrine). W e co nc lud e that the c ha lle nge d di sc ove ry or de r is n ot an a

ppe al ab le collateral order

under Cohen. T here a

ppears to this Cou rt to be no clear dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n th e int er loc uto ry appe al of adis co ve ry

or de r im pli catin g th e attorney -client privilege and an interlocutory appeal of a discovery

order im plicating th e acc ount ant-client privilege, and this Court has previous ly held that the latter is not appealable. See In re I nt’ l Horizons, Inc. 689 F.2d 996 (11t h Cir. 1982 ). F urthe r, w e ar e not pe rs ua de d by

Appe llant’ s arg um en t tha t on ce the pr ivi le ge d m at er ia l i s turn ed ove r, the “ cat i s ou t of

the ba g” a nd the dam ag e is do ne . This Court has never exer cised j urisdictio n und er the c ollateral order doctrine to review any

discovery

order involvin g any

privilege. R ather,

“ m an da m us i s of te n an a ppr opr ia te m ethod of

r ev ie wof

or de rs c om

pe lli ng dis co ve ry . ” I n r e Fi nk, 876 F . 2d 8 4, 84 ( 11 Ci r. 198 9) . W e ha ve e xpl ai ne d: th Inthe c ont ex t of

dis co ve ry

or de rs w hic h w ill c om

pr om ise ac la im

of pr ivi le ge or

inv as ionof

pr iva cy r igh ts, m an da m

us h as be enf

ound ap pr opr ia te due to the im portanc e of

the pr ivi le ge , the se ri ousn es s of the inj ur y if dis co ve ry

is obt ai ne d, a nd the dif

fi cu lty of obt ai nin g ef fe ct ive r ev ie wonc e the pr ivi le ge d in fo rm at ionha s be enm ad e publ ic.12

Inr e Fo rd

Mo tor Co . , 345 F . 3d 1 315, 131 6 ( 11 Ci r. 200 3) (quot ing I n r e Fi nk, th 876 F. 2d at 84 ). S im ilarl y , oth er Ci rc uit s have de nie d c oll at er al or de r re vie wof discovery orders deny ing a claim

of privilege, and ins tead, those Circuits state that m an da m us r ev ie wis the appr opr ia te a ve nue f or im m ed ia te r ev ie w , a lth ough m an da m us r el ie f is an e xtr ao rd inary r em edy . S ee I n r e U . S. D ep ’ t of H om el an d Se c. , 459 F . 3d 5 65, 568 ( 5thCi r. 200 6) (s ta tin g th at “ [m ] an da m

us i s a ppr opr ia te if the district court errs in ordering the discovery of privileged docum ents, as such an or de r w oul d no t be r ev ie w ab le on a ppe al ”) ; S im

m ons v. Ci ty

of Ra ci ne , P FC , 37 F. 3d 3 25, 327 , 328 -2 9 ( 7thCi r. 199 4) (e xpl ai nin g th at the c ourt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n ove r anappe al of

adis co ve ry

or de r co m

pe lli ng the pr oduc tio n of doc um en ts al le ge dly pr ote ct ed

by pr ivi le ge , but

statin g th at

the appe llants c oul d “ obt ai n im m ed ia te r ev ie wof

an a dve rs e dis co ve ry

or de r by oth er m eans[ , ] ” inc lud ing pe tit ion ing the c ourt f

or aw ri t of m an da m us) ; B ough ton , 10 F . 3d at 75 0- 51 (holdin g that an order com pelling production of inform ation allegedly protected by the attorney -client privilege wa s not appealable und er the c ollateral order doc tr ine a nd, ins te ad , ana ly zi ng whe the r the or de r co uld be va cate d un de r a w ri t of m an da m us) ; C ha se Manha ttan B an k, 964 F . 2d at 16 3 ( re j ec tin g th e ap pli catio n of the collateral order

doctrine in an appeal from a discovery

order that re quired dis cl osur e of

doc um en ts a lle ge dly

pr ote ct ed

by the a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e, a nd13

instead, overturning th e discovery order through a wr it of m andam us); see al so U . S. e x r el . P ouge v. D ia be te s T re atm en t C en te rs of A m er ic a, I nc . , 444 F . 3d 462, 473 (6th Cir. 2006 )(r efusing to d eterm ine the applicabilityof the collatera l or de r doc tr ine to a ch al le nge of adis co ve ry

or de r’ s f ind ing r el at ing to the attorney -client privilege, in part, because the court had “ traditionallyviewed m an da m us as t he so le m et ho d b y

whi ch [an ap pe ll at e co ur t] m ig ht rev ie w a di sc ov ery or de r in vo lv in g a cla im of p riv il eg e”). Furthe r, uti liz ing the w ri t of m an da m us, w hic h pl ac es ahig he r bur de n on the challenging party

than a direct a

ppeal, as the a

ppropriate vehicle to hear ch al le nge s to dis co ve ry

dis put es gr ound ed

in the a tto rn ey -c lie nt p ri vil eg e is desirable. A potentially

large volum e of appeals m ay arise out of such discovery orders, and thus , ther e ar e power ful prudential reasons to avo id comm onpl ace interlocutory

appeals. Utilizing the writ of m andam us, as opposed to the collateral order doctrine, as the appropriate avenue to seek re view of discovery orders inv olv ing c la im s of

pr ivi le ge str ike s an a

ppr opr ia te ba lanc e be tw ee n th e co nc er ns of f urthe ri ng the im

portant p oli ci es of

f ull a nd f rank c om m uni catio n so ught

to be f u rt h e r e db y th e p r i v i l e g e an dth e c o n c e rn s o f ju d i c i a l e f

f i c i e n c y. Fu rth erm or e, an ot he r av en ue of r ev ie w may ex ist if the party c ha lle ngi ng the discovery

order r efuses to com

ply with the order and contests its validit y after14

be ing c ite d f

or c ont em pt. H ow ev er , w e not e that c ont em pt o rd er s r es ult ing f

ro m discovery dispu tes are not appealable final orders unless the contem pt order im pose s “ a fi ne or

pe na lty . . . that m ay

not be a voi de d by

som e oth er

f orm of com pliance.” Com

bs v. Ry an’ s Coal Co., Inc. , 785 F. 2d 97 0, 976 (11th Cir. 1986 ). T hus, in order for the c ontem pt order to be im

m ediately appealable,

“ [t] here m

ust be both a finding of contem pt and a nonc ont ing en t or de r of sa nc ti on .” Id . at 9 77 ; s ee al so W il li am J. Do y le v. Lo nd on Guar . & Acci de nt Co ., L td. , 204 U . S. 599 , 604 -0 5 ( 1907 ); S . E . C. v. K irkland, __ F . 3d _ _, N o. 07- 1525 5, 2008 W L 2653634 , at *1 (11th Cir. July 8, 2008). A cc or din gly , w e hol d th at the ins tant a

ppe al is not

pe rm iss ibl e unde r the Co he n e xc ep tio n and n ote that the re a re oth er pos sib le a ve nue s f

or im m ed ia te re vie w . T he re fo re , w e gr an t Appe lle e’ s m oti on t o di sm iss the appe al . III . Mandam us H av ing gr an te d Appe lle e’ s m oti on t o di sm iss the appe al , the Co urt tur ns t o M o h a w k ’s p e t i t i o n f

o r wr i to f man d a mu s . M a n d a mu s i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a ry re med y, an d it is ap pr opr ia te onl y

w he n “ no o the r ad equa te m eans are a va ila ble to re m edy a clear usurpation o f power or abuse of discretion by the district court.” In re L oude rm ilc h, 158 F . 3d 1 143, 114 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . T he pe tit ion er se ek ing the w ri t c ar ri es the bur de n of

sho w ing that i ts “ ri ght

to the iss uanc e of

the w ri t i s15

‘ cl ear an d in dis put ab le . ’ ” I n r e L ope z- L uki s, 113 F . 3d at 11 88. Aw ri t w ill not iss ue “ m er el y

be ca use [ the pe tit ion er ] sho w s e vid en ce that, on a ppe al , w oul d warra nt rev ers al of t he di st ric t co ur t.” In re Bel ls ou th Co rp ., 33 4 F .3dat 9 53 . A district court’ s discov ery

orders ar e re viewed f

or an abuse of discretion. S ee I n re Fo rd Mo tor Co . , 345 F . 3d 1 315, 131 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . Ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t or application of an incorrect legal standard is an abuse of discretion. S ee Alexander v. Fulton County , G a. , 207 F. 3d 13 03, 1326 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). H er e, Mo haw k se ek s a

w ri t of m an da m us d ir ec tin g th e dis tr ic t j udge to v a c a t e th e p a rt

o f h i s o r d e r f i n d i n g th a tM o h a w ki mp l i c i t l y wa i v e di t s a t t o rn e yclient privilege, and directing the district court not to com pel Mohawk to produce the dispu ted inform ation. E ven if we we re to conclude that the district court had er re d inf ind ing that M ohaw k w ai ve d th e attor ne y -c lie nt p ri vil eg e, Mo haw k st ill has not sh own that its right to the issuance of the wr it is clear and ind isput able. In re L opez-L ukis, 113 F.3d at 1188 . Mandam us is approp riate only

when there has be enac le ar

usurp at ionof

pow er or abuse of dis cr et ion , a nd M ohaw k ha s no t shown th at

e ith er oc curr ed he re . I n r e L oude rm ilc h, 158 F . 3d at 11 44. T his appe al is D IS MI SS E D f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n, a nd M ohaw k’ s pe tit ion fo r writ of m an da m

us is DENIED.