Opinion ID: 548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discovery/Protective Order

Text: The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's discovery order. This court has jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A decision is final when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 10 F.3d 746, 748 (10th Cir.1993) (quotation omitted). Discovery orders entered during the course of litigation ordinarily are not final under this definition. Id. Dr. Gerber contends that jurisdiction exists under an exception to the final order rule known as the collateral order rule or  Cohen doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In order to fall under this exception, an order must [1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Boughton, 10 F.3d at 749 (quotation omitted). As a general matter, discovery orders are not appealable under the Cohen doctrine. Id. But we recognized an exception in a case where a third party was granted leave to intervene solely for the purpose of seeking modification of a protective order and where the underlying controversy had already been concluded. United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1426 (10th Cir.1990). In United Nuclear, we held this court had jurisdiction either under the Cohen doctrine or because the order modifying the terms of a protective order was an appealable final judgment. Id. [1] For similar reasons, the order challenged here also meets the Cohen test. It conclusively determined the question of whether the protective order would be modified and the Confidential Material returned to Dr. Gerber. The issue of disclosure of the Confidential Material was wholly separate from the underlying merits of this action, which involves alleged violations of the securities laws by another party. And, while the underlying controversy between the SEC and Merrill Scott may not yet have concluded, that portion of the underlying controversy involving Dr. Gerber is complete. There is no indication that he will have any right of review from the district court's modification of the protective order at the ultimate conclusion of this litigation. Cf. Mohawk Indus. Inc. v. Carpenter, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 599, 607, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2009) (rejecting collateral appeal of discovery order by party in part because district court could vacat[e] an adverse judgment and remand[ ] for a new trial in which the protected material and its fruits are excluded from evidence.). We conclude that we have jurisdiction to address the merits of the challenged order of the district court.