Opinion ID: 176129
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Writ is Appropriate in the Circumstances of This Case

Text: While we have expressed reluctance to issue writs of mandamus to overturn discovery rulings, see, e.g., City of New York, 607 F.3d at 939 (internal quotation marks omitted), when a discovery question is of extraordinary significance or there is extreme need for reversal of the district court's mandate before the case goes to judgment, the writ of mandamus provides an escape hatch from the finality rule. In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 97 (2d Cir.1987) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A writ of mandamus is appropriate to review a pretrial discovery order if the petitioner demonstrates `the presence of a novel and significant question of law ... and ... the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice.'  City of New York, 607 F.3d at 939, quoting United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 137-38 (2d Cir.2001); see also In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 128-29 (2d Cir.2008). We conclude that the writ is appropriate in the circumstances of this case, because the petition raises a novel and significant question of lawspecifically, when a civil discovery order requiring defendants to disclose wiretap materials to a civil enforcement agency would be appropriate and resolving that issue will aid in the administration of justice. See City of New York, 607 F.3d at 939-43; see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 137-38. While we have addressed the propriety of disclosures of wiretap evidence in civil proceedings before, our prior cases have never involved the circumstances here: where there are parallel civil and criminal trials, where the government has disclosed materials to a criminal defendant, where the legality of the wiretaps has yet to be adjudicated, and where a civil enforcement agency suing the defendant in parallel proceedings seeks access to these materials from the defendant. The issues in this appeal are therefore clearly novel. In addition, given the importance of both the privacy rights at stake and the public interest in civil enforcement of the law, these issues are also significant. Cf. City of New York, 607 F.3d at 941-42. Resolving the issues in this appeal would also aid in the administration of justice by helping district courts avoid erroneous discovery orders in the future. As we stated in City of New York, we have previously recognized that the resolution of a novel and significant privilege question in a mandamus proceeding will `aid the administration of justice.' Addressing the merits of this petition ... may `forestall future error in trial courts' by correcting a privilege determination with a potentially broad applicability and influence. Id. at 942, quoting von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 99.