Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 266.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 100 (2009) 

105 

Opinion of the Court 

petition for mandamus or appealing this Order under the col­
lateral order doctrine.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a. 

Mohawk  ﬁled  a  notice  of  appeal  and  a  petition  for  a  writ 
of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit.  The Court of Appeals 
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. 
§ 1291, holding that the District Court’s ruling did not qualify 
as  an  immediately  appealable  collateral  order  within  the 
meaning of Cohen, 337 U. S. 541.  “Under Cohen,” the Court 
of  Appeals  explained,  “an  order  is  appealable  if  it  (1)  con­
clusively  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.”  541  F.  3d  1048,  1052  (2008)  (per  curiam). 
According  to  the  court,  the  District  Court’s  waiver  ruling 
satisﬁed the ﬁrst two of these requirements but not the third, 
because  “a  discovery  order  that  implicates  the  attorney-
client privilege” can be adequately reviewed “on appeal from 
a  ﬁnal  judgment.”  Ibid.  The  Court  of  Appeals  also  re­
jected  Mohawk’s  mandamus  petition,  ﬁnding  no  “clear  usur­
pation of power or abuse of discretion” by the District Court. 
Id., at 1055.  We granted certiorari, 555 U. S. 1152 (2009), to 
resolve  a  conﬂict  among  the  Circuits  concerning  the  avail­
ability  of  collateral  appeals  in  the  attorney-client  privilege 
context.1 

1 Three  Circuits  have  permitted  collateral  order  appeals  of  attorney-
client  privilege  rulings.  See  In  re  Napster,  Inc.  Copyright  Litigation, 
479 F. 3d 1078, 1087–1088 (CA9 2007); United States v.  Philip Morris Inc., 
314 F. 3d 612, 617–621 (CADC 2003); In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F. 3d 954, 
957–964  (CA3  1997).  The  remaining  Circuits  to  consider  the  question 
have  found  such  orders  nonappealable.  See,  e. g.,  Boughton  v.  Cotter 
Corp., 10 F. 3d 746, 749–750 (CA10 1993); Texaco Inc. v.  Louisiana Land & 
Exploration  Co.,  995  F.  2d  43,  44  (CA5  1993);  Reise  v.  Board  of  Regents 
of Univ. of Wisconsin System, 957 F. 2d 293, 295 (CA7 1992); Chase Man­
hattan  Bank,  N.  A.  v.  Turner  &  Newall,  PLC,  964  F.  2d  159,  162–163 
(CA2 1992); Quantum Corp. v.  Tandon Corp., 940 F. 2d 642, 643–644 (CA 
Fed. 1991).