Opinion ID: 409318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Order Compelling Production of Allegedly Privileged Material Final?

Text: 12 As a general proposition most orders granting or denying discovery are not final orders ... and therefore are not immediately appealable. Rouse Construction International, Inc. v. Rouse Construction Corporation, 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). 9 Ordinarily, a litigant seeking to overturn a discovery order has (only) two choices. Either he can comply with the order and challenge it at the conclusion of the case or he can refuse to comply with the order and contest its validity if subsequently cited for contempt for his refusal to obey. Id. 10 13 However, a major exception to this rule has been recognized where an order is directed to a person who has custody of materials as to which another person may claim a privilege of non-disclosure. Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 878 n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). In such a case, the person who holds the privilege may seek immediate review of the disclosure order. Id. 11 The justification for permitting immediate appeal under these circumstances is that the privilege-holder has no power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply with the Court's order. Id. 12 14 Applying the general rule regarding the nonappealability of discovery orders to the facts of the instant case, we find that the appeal of appellant Touche Ross is not properly before this Court. Touche Ross is in possession of allegedly privileged documents which it refuses to disclose. The District Court has ordered Touche Ross to produce these documents, but has not yet backed up this order with a finding of civil contempt. Until such a finding has been made, the trial court's discovery order is not final and is not appealable by Touche Ross. As the party holding the allegedly privileged material, Touche Ross can only appeal if and when it is adjudged to be in civil contempt. 15 Although we find that the appeal of Touche Ross is not properly before this Court, we reach a different conclusion regarding the viability of the appeal brought by Touche Ross's client, International Horizons, Inc. Like Touche Ross, International Horizons claims that the documents here in question are privileged. However, International Horizons does not have custody of the allegedly privileged material. This brings International Horizons within a recognized exception to the general rule regarding the non-appealability of discovery orders. Its appeal is properly before this Court because it claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to produce. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 641 F.2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1981) (party claiming attorney-client privilege may appeal from order compelling his attorney to disclose allegedly confidential information). 13 Accord, W. T. Thompson v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1982) (party claiming accountant-client privilege may appeal from order compelling its accountant to disclose allegedly confidential information); Branch v. Phillips Petroleum, 638 F.2d 873, 878 n.3 (5th Cir. 1981) (dicta ); Overby v. U.S.F. & G., 224 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1955). Thus, we conclude that while we cannot hear the appeal of Touche Ross, we do have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal brought by appellant International Horizons, Inc. 16