2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-8-2005 

# ADAP T v . P hi l a H ou sing Auth P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2595

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" ADAP T v . P hi l a H ousin g Auth" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 622. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/622P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 04- 2595, 04- 3651, 04- 3686

___________ A D A P T O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; L IB E R T Y R E S O U R C E S , IN C .; M A R IE W A T S O N ; M A R S H A L L W A T S O N ;

DI AN E HU GH ES
v. P H IL A D E L P H IA H O U S IN G A U T H O R IT Y ;

CA RL G REEN E, I n H i s O ffi ci al C apac i t yas t he Execut i ve D i r e c t o ro f

t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y, A ppel l ant s N os . 04- 2595, 04- 3651 R E S ID E N T A D V IS O R Y B O A R D , IN C . (I n te rv e n o r i n D .C .)

___________ A D A P T O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; L IB E R T Y R E S O U R C E S , IN C .; M AR I E WATS ON; M AR S HAL L WATS ON;2 DI AN E HU GH ES
v. P H IL A D E L P H IA H O U S IN G A U T H O R IT Y ;

CA RL G REEN E, I n H i s O ffi ci al C apac i t yas t he Execut i ve D i r e c t o ro f

t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y, R E S ID E N T A D V IS O R Y B O A R D , IN C . (I n te rv e n o r i n D .C .) A ppel l antN o. 04- 3686

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 98- cv- 04609) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

___________ A R G U E D J U N E 29, 2005 B efore: N Y G A A R D , S M ITH , and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed A ugus t8, 2005) Br i a n P . F l a h e r t y , E s q . ( AR GUE D)3 A bbe F. Fl etm an, E s q. A ndr ew C . C ur l ey , E s q. W ol f B l ock Schorr& Sol i s - C ohen 1650 A r ch St r eet , 22 Fl oor nd Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el forA ppel l ant s Phi l adel phi a H ous i ng A u th o rity , et a l. Ar l e n e O. F r e i ma n , E s q . ( AR GUE D) K ol ber& Fr ei m an 1530 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 604 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C o u n sel fo r A p p ell an t R esid en t A d v isoryB o ard S t e p h e n F . Go l d , E s q . ( AR GUE D) 125 Sout h 9 St r eet , Sui t e 700

th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 D avi d A . K ahne, E s q. P. O . B ox 66386 H ous t on, T X 77266 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________4 N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. B efor e us ar e thr ee a ppeal s fr om one ca s e. T heyar e the fi r s t bat ch i n a s l ew of t hem now per col at i ng up from the D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he sam e ca s e. I n num ber04- 2595, t he Phi l adelphi a H ous i ng A u tho ri ty(“P H A ”) a p p ea ls from a D i s tr i ct C o u rt o rd e r o f M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 . In n u m b e r 0 4 -3 6 5 1 , P H A a p p e a ls fro m a D istri ct C o u rt o rde r o f S ep tem b er 3, 2 0 0 4 . B o th o rde rs r equi r ed PH A t o pr ovi de i nform at i on d e mon s tr a t i ng compl i ance w i t h a pr i orSet t l ement A gr eement r egar di ng t he cons t ruct i on of
a c c e ss ib le p u b lic h o u sin g in P h ilad e lp h ia. A lso b e f o r e u s is
n u m b er 0 4 -36 8 6 , Interv en o r R esid en t A d v isoryB o ard ’s ( “R A B ”) appea l fr om t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s Sept ember3, 2004
or der . B eca us e the or ders appea l ed fr om ar e notfi nal and no
e x c e p ti o n to th e f

in a lityru le e x ists, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to revi ew t hem . H ence, w e w i l l dis m i ss al l t hree app eal s. I.5 I n Au g u s t1 9 9 8 , ADAP T o f P h i l a d e l p h i a s u e d P HA,
c laim in g th a t th e re w e re in su f f ic ie n t p u b lic h o u sin g u n its
a c c e s s i b l e t o i n d i vi dual s w i t h di s abi l i t i es i n Phi l adel phi a, w hi ch, i tcl ai m ed, vi ol at ed s ect i on 504 of th e R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1 9 7 3 . A f

t e ra b e n c h t r i a l i n w h i c h A D A P T p r e v a i l e d , P HA appea l ed. D ur i ng t he pendenc yof the appe al , t he part i es r eac hed a Set t l ement A gr eement . T he D i s t r i ctC our tappr oved, ent er i ng j udgm enton t he A gr ee m en ton M ay20, 2002 and retaining juri sd ict ion to en fo rce it s term s. (J. A . at A 2 7 ). P a ra g ra p h B o f

th e A g re e m e n t re q u ire d P H A to “ c re a te 248 acc es s i bl e publ i c hous i ng r ent al uni t s , ” w i th hal f t o be r eady foroccupa ncyno l ater tha n D ece m ber31, 2003 and the
r emai ni ng uni t s t o be r eadyforoccupa ncybyD ece m ber31, 20 05 . (I d. atA 13 ). T hese uni t s w ere t o b e i n ad dit i on t o those PH A w as ot herw i s e r equi r ed byfede r al r egul at ion s t o m ake
acc es s i bl e under24 C . F. R . Par t 8. ( I d) . Pur s uantt o Par agr aph6 C , PH A had a dutyt o “t ake r eas onabl e non- di s cr i m i nat or ys t eps t o m axi m i ze t he ut i l i zat i on of [the uni t s cr eat ed underPar agr aph B ] bye l i gi bl e ho us e ho l ds t ha ti nc l ud e a n i nd i vi du a l w ho se d isa b ili tyre q u ire s th e a c c e ss ib ili tyf e a tu re s o f

the p art i cularu n it, i n acc or dance w i t h 24 C . F. R . § 8. 27. ” ( I d. atA 18 ). T he A g re e m e n t als o p ro v id e d b o th P H A a n d A D A P T th e rig h t to s eek j udic i al r el i ef bym ot i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he eve nt o f a d is p u te o v e r e n f

o rc e m e n t o f th e A g re e m e n t. (I d . a t A 1 9 , ¶ G ). O n J anuary29 , 2 0 04, PH A not i fi ed A D A PT t hati thad
me tt h e De c e mb e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 d e a d l i n e u n d e rP a r a g r a p h B. P HA di d notpr ovi de the addr es s es of t he acc es s i bl e uni t s i tcl ai m ed fu l fi l l e d i t s ob l i ga t i on s un der tha tPa r a gr a ph . W he n AD A PT
s o u g h tt h o s e a d d r e s s e s i n o r d e rt o v e r i f yc o mp l i a n c e , P HA
r e fu s e d. The pa r t i e s c ou l d n otr e s ol ve t he di s pu t e a nd A D A PT f iled a d isc o v e r y m o tio n , sty led a s a “ m o tio n to c o m p e l”7 di s cl os ur e of the addr esse s in t he D i s t r i ctC our t . O n M ay10, 2004, t he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed A D A PT ’ s m ot i on and ent er ed
an or derr equi r i ng PH A t o i dent i fyt he street addr es s es of the
acc es s i bl e uni t s i tcr eat ed. I tal s o r equi r ed PH A t o pr ov i de a

“ sta tem e n t id e n tify in g w h ich o f th e se u n its a re n o t le a se d to h o u seh o l ds t hathave a per s on w i t h a mobi l i t ydi s abi l i t yt hat
r equi r es t he ac ces s i bi l i t yfea tur es . ” ( I d. atA 3) . PH A m oved for
r econs i der ati o n an d a s t ayi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , bot h of w hi ch
w er e deni ed. PH A di d nots eek a s t ayw i t h t hi s C our tbut ins t ead c om pl i ed w i t h t he or derbym aki ng t he r equi r ed di s cl os ur es . I tt hen appe al ed, ar gui ng t hatt he or deri m pos ed an
o b lig a tio n n o t re q u ire d b yth e A g re e m e n t. B el i evi ng that P H A had notm eti t s obl i gat i ons under Pa r a g r a p h B, d u r i n g t h e S u mm e ro f 2 0 0 4 , ADAP T f

i l e d t wo m ore “m oti on s t o com pel” i n the D i stri ct C ou rt . In one o f t ho se m o tio n s, A D A P T so u g h t th e stre e t a d d re ss e s o f e a c h a c c e ss ib le8 r es i dence cr eat ed purs uant t o Par agr aph B att he M ountO l i vet
an d S u ff o lk M an o r pu b lic h o u sing p rojec ts. In th e o ther, ADAP T s o u g h t t h e s t r e e t a d d r e s s e s o f e a c h r e s i d e n c e t h a tP HA h a d m a d e a c c e ss ib le a t v a r io u s p u b lic h o u sin g p rojec ts in
acc or dance w i t h t he r equi r ement s of 24 C . F. R . P art 8. A ft er A D A P T so u g h t th e se d isc lo su re s, R A B , a n o n -p ro f it
o rg a n iza t i on adv ocati ng on b e h a lf o f a ll p u b lic h o u sin g re sid e n ts i n Phi l adel phi a, i nt ervened. I tcl ai m ed thatthe re ques t ed d isc lo su re s w o u ld v io late th e p riv a c y r ig h ts o f th e re sid e n ts l i vi ng i n t he uni t s di s cl os ed. T he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed bot h of A D A P T ’s m o tio n s o n S e p tem b e r 3, 20 0 4 . P H A a g a in so u g h t a s t ay , w hi ch w as agai n deni ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . PH A t hen compl i ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der and appe al ed, ar gui ng once mor e thatt he or der ed di s cl os ur es w entbey on d w h at w as re q u ire d b yth e A g re e m e n t. R A B se p a ra telya p p e a led a s w e ll.9 D ur i ng t he pende ncy o f thes e appe al s , t he part i es have cont i nued t o l i t i gat e i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , w i t h A D A PT s eeki ng to f o rc e P H A to c o m p lyw ith th e A g re e m e n t. II. B ef o re w e a d d ress the m erit s o f th e s e a p p ea ls, w e a re compel l ed t o ques t i on ourj ur i sd i ct i on. B eca us e PH A has compl i ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’ s or der s bydi s cl os i ng t he dis pu t ed inform at i on , t he q uest i on ari ses w hethert hese ap peals , i n w hi ch PH A and R A B ar gue tha t d is cl os ur e s houl d nothave been r equi r ed, ar e moot . A s a gene r al m at t er , “once a part yhas compl i ed w i t h a courto rde r . . . and has notbeen pe nal i zed or
s uffe r ed anypr ej udi ce thatcoul d be r em edi ed on appe al , t he appea l i s m oot . ” H

a rr is v . C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 47 F. 3d 1311, 1326 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . PH A has i ndeed compl i ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e rs a n d d isc lo se d th e in f o rm a tio n it n o w se e k s to pr ot ect . W e concl ude, nevert hel es s , on t he narr ow es tof10 groun ds, t hat there i s a r em edyavail able s uff i ci ent t o save these
a p p e a ls f ro m b e in g m o o t. I n C hur ch of

Sci ent ol ogy of C al i

f or ni a v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 506 U . S. 9 ( 1992) , t he S upr eme C our tcons i der ed w hetheran appea l chal l engi ng t he pr opr i etyof or der i ng discl os ur e of inf o rm at i on i s r ender ed moot byt he appe l l ant ’ s di s cl os ur e of t hati nform at i on. T he di s t r i ctcour ti n t hatcas e had or der ed
com p li ance w i t h an I R S summ ons r egar di ng var i ous t ape re c o rd e d c o n v e rsa tio n . A lth o u g h th e tap e s w e re h a n d e d o v e r to t h e I RS a n d t h e i n f

o r ma t i o n th e r e i n d i s c l o s e d , t h e Sup r e me C o u r t h e ld th a t th e c a se w a s n o t m o o t. T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t, al t hough no j ud g m en tcoul d w i t hdr aw fr om t he I R S t he know l edge i tgai ned fr om t he t apes , a courtcoul d “fa s hi on s o me form of m ean ing fu l rel i ef. ” Id . at12–13. A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , t axp ay er s s uch as t he appe l l anti n t he ca s e have “an obvi ous p o sses sor yi nt er es ti n t hei rr ecor ds . ” Id . at13. T hat11 i nt e r e s t , t h e Cou r th e l d , i s v i o l a t e d whe n t h e g o v e r nm ent i nappr opr i at el yobt ai ns t hos e recor ds and coul d be r es t or ed by
an or dercompel l i ng t hei rr etur n. M or eover , eve n if the g o v ern m en t r etains o n lyco p ies o f the tape s, a tax p ay er su ff ers in ju ry i n t h e f

o rm o f a n a f f ro n t to th e ta x p a y e r’ s p ri v a c y , id ., w h ich co ul d be r emedi ed w i t h t he r etur n ordes t ruct i on of the cop i es. C hur ch of

Sci ent ol ogy i s cont roll ing. A l t hough w e ca n fas hi on no r emedyer as i ng t he know l edge A D A PT gai ned fr om t he di s cl os ed m at er i al s , w e ar e abl e t o fas hi on s om e meani ngful
r el i ef. PH A has s ought“r etur n of the i nform at i on” i tdi s cl os ed, p re su m a b lyin th e f

o rm o f a list it c re a ted . W e re w e to h o ld in PH A ’ s favor , r etur n or des t ruct i on of thati nform at i on w oul d be

“ s o me f o rm o f m e a n in g f

u l r e lie f ” to P H A , h o w e v e r P yrr h ic . See id . a t 1 2

– 1 3 . S im ilarly , a lth o u g h a n yv io latio n o f p riv a c yrig h ts R A B cl ai m s has occurr ed ca nnotnow be pr event ed, or der i ng12 r etur n or des t ruct i on of the compi l at i on of s t r eetaddr es s es of the
a c c e ss ib le u n its w o u ld a llev iate , at le a st in p a rt, a n ya f f ro n t to th e p ri v a c yri g h ts o f th e in d iv id u a ls liv in g in th o s e u n its . S e e id . a t13 . M or e ov e r , a n or de rpr oh i bi t i ng di s s e mi na t i on byA D A PT of the di s cl os ed i nform at i on byPH A w oul d hel p p rev entany fut u re inv asi ons of pr i vacy . W e ther efor e hol d t hatnone of t hes e appe al s ar e moot , des pi t e PH A ’ s di s cl os ur e of the in f o rm a tio n it se e k s to p ro tec t. M oo t ness i s not the o nly j uri sdi ct i on al qu est i on w e m ust confr onthow ever . Upo n o u rd i r ect i on, t he part i es s uppl ement ed b ri ef ing o n the qu esti o n o f w h ethe r the ord ers ap p ea led f rom are f in a l a n d th e re f

o re a p p e a lab le, a n d if

n o t, w h e th e r th e re e x ists
a n ye x c e p tio n to th e f

in a lity ru le th a t w e m a y a p p ly h e re . In its br i efi ng PH A cont ends , pr i m ar i l y , t hatw e have j u ri sd ic t i on undert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. I tar gues i n t he al t ernat i ve t hatappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s as an appe al fr om an or der13 gr ant i ng or m odi fy i ng an i nj unct i on. N ei t her ar gum ent has any m eritw h atso ev er. A. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r ev iew onl yt hos e or der s of the di s t r i ctcour t s t hatar e cons i der ed “f i nal . ” See 28 U . S. C . § 1291. N onethel es s , w e have a narr ow exce pt i on undert he “c ol l at er al
o r d e r d o c t r i n e , ” b u t o n l y i f t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d fr om : ( 1) concl us i vel ydet erm ines t he di s put ed ques t i on; ( 2) r es ol ves an i s s ue compl et el y s epar at e fr om t he mer i t s of the di s put e; and ( 3)
w oul d be eff

ect i vel y unr evi ew abl e on appea l fr o m a f i nal j u d g m e n t. S e e , e . g . , I

n r e Fo r d

Mo t o rCo . , 110 F. 3d 954, 958 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t i ng C oh en v. Ben ef i ci al I nd us. L oa n C orp ., 337 U . S. 541 ( 1949) ) . W e appl yt hi s t es ts t r i ngent l y , as t he Sup rem e C our thas caut i oned thatt he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne i s a “na r r o w ” ex ce pt i on t o t he fi nal i t yr equi r ementof s ect i on 1291 t hats houl d no t be perm i tt ed t o s w al l ow t he gene r al rul e.14 See D igi tal E qui

p. C or p. v. D es ktop D i r ect

, I nc . , 511 U . S. 863, 8 6 8 (1 9 9 4 ). A ta min im u m , t hes e appe al s fai l t o s at i s fyt he “compl et el ys epar at e pr ong” of the col l at er al or dert es t . T he
a p p e a l s n o w b e f

o r e u s — a s we l l a s s e v e r a l o t h e r s f i l e d b yP HA pendi ng i n t hi s C our tbutnoty etbefor e us — al l exi s ti n t he cont extof an ongoi n g pr ocee di ng i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . T he par t i es do notdisput e thatt he s ubj ectm at t erof thatongoi ng p roc ee d ing is PH A ’s co m p li an ce w ith , an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s
e n f o r c e m e n t o f

, t h e S e t t l e m e n t A g r e e m e n t . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, fr om ourdi al ogue w i t h couns el ator al ar gum ent , i tappea r s t hat one i s s ue t o be r es ol ved i s w hether PH A compl et ed the di s put ed uni t s byt he D ece m ber31, 2003 deadl i ne s etfor t h i n Par agr aph B . T h ro u g h its c h a llen g e d m o tio n s, A D A P T so u g h t ev id e n c e to det erm i ne w hetherPH A compl i ed w i t h t his req ui r ementand
w ith the A g ree m en t in gen era l. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers15 g ranting A D A P T ’s m o tio n s d id n o t re so lv e a n iss u e “ c o m p lete ly
s epar at e fr om t he m er i t s of t he di s put e. ” O n t he contr ary , t hey
r es ol ved a di s coverydi s put e, i nt er t w i ned w i t h t he mer i t s of an
u n d e rly in g a c tio n . It is w e ll-es tab lish e d th a t u n les s a p a rtyis
s eeki ng t o pr event t he di s cl os ur e of i nform at i on on t he bas i s of t r ade s ecr et s or s om e t r adi t i onal l y - r ecogni zed pr i vi l ege s uch as at t or ney -cl i entorw or k pr oduct , t he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne d o e s n o t p e rm it a p p e a l f ro m d is c o v e ry o rd e rs . P ow el lv. R i dge , 247 F. 3d 520, 524 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng B ach er v. A l l state I ns. Co . , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 5 2 , 5 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . E v e n i f P HA o rRA B coul d as s er ts om e tr adi t i onal l y - r ecogni zed pr i vi l ege, nei t her
c o u ld se e k in te rlo c u to rya p p e a l o n th e b a sis th a t im m e d iate
r evi ew is n eces s aryt o pr eventdi s cl os ur e. D i s cl os ur e has al r eadyoccurr ed. W e ther efor e hol d t hatt he s econd pr ong of t he col l at er al or dert es thas notbeen s at i s fi ed.16 N orhas t he t hi r d pr ong been met . A n appea l s at i s fi es t he
unr evi ew abi l i t ypr ong of the col l at er al or der d octr i ne w hen

“ f a i l u r e t o r e v i e w i mme d i a t e l yma ywel l c a u s e s i g n i fi cant harm . ” In re D iet D ru gs P ro d s. L ia b ili ty L iti

g . , 4 0 1 F. 3 d 143, 159 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Th e f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e a p p eal s now w oul d notcaus e anys i gni fi cantharm bey ond t hatw hi ch
occurr ed w hen PH A di s cl os ed the di s pu ted i nform at i on. N or w oul d r evi ew i ng t he orde r s now “uns cr ambl e t he egg s cr ambl ed by[PH A ’s] d iscl o s ur e. ” S e e I n r e Fo r d

Mo t o rCo . , 110 F. 3d 95 4, 96 3 (3d C i r. 19 97 ). T o the ext ent PH A has su ffered as a
r es ul tof bei ng compel l ed t o m ake the di s cl os ur es , r evi ew now w oul d notpr eventt hats uffe ri ng. T o t he ext ent , as I nt ervenor RA B c o n t e n d s , t h e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e a c c e s s i b l e u n i t s h a ve had t hei rpr i vacyr i ght s vi ol at ed, r evi ew now w oul d notfor es t al l t hat inv asio n . A n yh arm s all eg ed lyca u sed b ythe c h all en g ed o rde rs have a l r e a d yo c c u r r e d . Th e p r o v e rb i a l c a ti s o u to f t h e b a g.17 D efe r r i ng r evi ew unt i l a fi nal deci s i on i s r eac hed byt he D i s t r i ct Co u r two u l d n o tc a u s e a d d i t i o n a l h a r m. M or eover , anyharm t hathas al r eady occurr ed w oul d be
r e v i e wa b l e wh e n a f

i n a l o r d e ri s i s s u e d . As c o u n s e l f o rP HA
c o n c e d e d a t o ra l a rg u m e n t, a t s o m e p o in t in th is s a g a th e re w ill be a fi nal deci s i on byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch w i l l det erm i ne w hethert heyhave c om pl i ed w i t h t he A gr eement . W hen that
occur s, ther e i s no r eas on w hyPH A w oul d nece s s ar i l ybe pr ecl uded fr om chal l engi ng w hetheri ts houl d have be en r equi r ed t o di s cl os e t he di s put ed i nform at i on. T he or der s ar e not “e ff ec ti v elyu n rev iew ab le” on ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s for thcomi ng fi nal or derand the thi r d pr ong of the col l at er al
o rd e r d o c trin e h a s, lik e w ise n o t b e e n m e t. T h e col l at er al or derdoctr i ne does notpr ovi de an
e x c e p tio n to th e f

in a lityr u le h e r e a s a b a sis f o r a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on.18 B. W e al so rej ectas m er i t l es s PH A ’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum ent t hatapp el l at e j ur i s di ct i on l i es under28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 1) as an appe al fr om t he gr ant orm odi fi cat i on of an i nj unct i on. Sect i on 1 292( a) ( 1) pr ovi des appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on over “[ i] nt er l ocut or yor der s of the di s t r i ctcour t s . . . gr ant i ng, cont i nui ng, m o d ify i ng, r efus i ng ordi s s ol vi ng i nj unct i ons , or r efus i ng t o di s s ol ve orm odi fyi nj unct i ons . ” A n “i nj unct i on” for t h e p u rp o s e s o f

t h a ts e c t i o n i s a n o r d e r“ d i r e c t e d t o a p a r t y, enfor cea bl e bycont empt , and des i gned t o acc or d orpr ot ect s o m e o r a ll o f

th e s u b s t a n t i v e re lie f

s o u g h t b yth e c o m p la in t.” C ohen v. B d. of

Trus t ees , 8 6 7 F . 2 d 1 4 5 5 , 1 4 6 5 n .9 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A s e x p la in e d in P a rt II .A ., supra , beca us e the cha l l enged mot i ons s oughtevi dence r el at i ng t o t he
m er i t s of the ongoi ng enfor cementpr ocee di ng, t he D i s t ri ct C ou rt ’s orders grant i ng t ho se m oti on s w ere d i scoveryorders .19 A n or dercompel l i ng di s coverydoes not g rantpar tof the
s ubs t anti ve r el i ef s oughtand i s t her efor e notan i nj unct i on for th e p u r p o s e s o f

s e c tio n 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ). Hers hey Foods Corp. v. He rs h e y Cr e a me r

y Co . , 9 4 5 F . 2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectPH A ’ s pr offe r ed al t ernat i ve basi s forour j ur i s di ct i on. III . PH A ’ s cont ent i on t ha twe h a v e ap p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n over it s ap p ea ls i s w h o ll yw ith o u t m erit . Ind ee d , thes e a p p ea ls are
s t ark exampl es of w hy C ongr es s , t hr ough 28 U . S. C . § 1291, has expr es s ed a di s t as t e forpi ece m eal l i t i gat i on. PH A has di s put ed
sev era l i ssu es re so lved b ythe D istri ct C o u rt an d , w ith o u t r eg ard forw hethert heyar e fi nal or w hethert her e exi s t s anyexce pt i on t o t he fi nal i t yrul e, s eem t o have f i l ed a c or r es pondi ng appea l for
eac h. A s a r es ul t , t hi s cas e i s bei ng l i t i gat ed on appe al pi ece by p ie c e , f ro m o rd e r to o rd e r, se ria tim . O nlyt he fir stfew of these1 C ouns el i ndi cat ed thatei ghtappea l s ar e pendi ng. 1. 20 a p p e a l s a r e p r e s e n t l yb e f o r e u s , b u tmo r e a r e s u r e t o f o l l o w. 1 L i t i gat i ng cas es i n t hi s m anneri s undes i r abl e fors ever al
r eas ons . I tcr eat es del ay ; it ad d s t o t he cos t s and ef for t s t hat
m u st b e e x p e n d e d b y b o th th e p a rties a n d th e c o u rts; a n d , as is pr eval enti n thi s cas e, i tdi m i ni s hes t he cohe ren ce of t he p ro c e e d in g s . See J

ohns on v. Jones , 5 1 4 U . S . 3 0 4 , 3 0 9 (19 9 5 ). A l t hough t he numer o u s and fr equentappea l s i n t hi s cas e have
m ud d ied i t s pr ocedur al w at er s , t he r ecor d as i tnow s t ands reveal s that the ch al l eng ed o rder s ar e dis cov eryorders . T ho se or der s exi s ti n t he cont ext o f an o n goi ng pr ocee di ng i n t he D istri ct C o u rtto en fo rce the S ett lem en t A g ree m en t. T h eyare no di ffe r entfr om anyot her or der compel l i ng t he produc t i on of document s i s s ued i n a ci vi l case. B eca us e the col l at er al or der d o c tr in e d o e s n o t p ro v id e a n e x c e p tio n to f in a lity h e re , s eeP o w e ll , 247 F. 3d at524, and bec aus e no al t ernat i ve bas i s for app el l a te ju ri sdi ct i on exis t s for these ap peals , w e w i l l dis m i ss t h e m.