Friday, December 11, 2009

Collateral Orders

By Mike Dorf

Per tradition, the first full opinion assigned to a new Justice--in this case Justice Sotomayor--was in a unanimous case.  On Tuesday, the Court handed down Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter.   The case involves the scope of the "collateral order" doctrine.  I'll provide a very abbreviated intro to the issue and then a few observations.

Background

Modern federal court litigation is often a very complex undertaking, in which a district judge will make very many rulings both before and during trial.  Some of these rulings could turn out to be wrong but if a party objects to any particular ruling, he, she or it usually does not get to appeal right away.  The aggrieved party must wait until the whole case is over and then, if unhappy with the final result, appeal based upon whichever of the alleged errors the party thinks contributed to losing the case.  This is called the "final judgment rule" (FJR) and it's codified here.  The reason for the FJR is obvious upon a moment's reflection: If the entire district court case had to stop for an appeal whenever any party was dissatisfied with a district court ruling, a case would bump back and forth between the district court and the appeals court potentially dozens of times.  Cases would take way too long to litigate.  (They already take way too long, so w/o the FJR they would take way way way too long.)

That said, there are occasions when an immediate appeal is appropriate, and the legal system has a number of mechanisms for dealing with this: Notwithstanding the FJR, another provision authorizes a district court to certify a difficult question for interlocutory appeal, which the appeals court then has discretion to entertain.  This procedure makes sense, for example, when the district court fears holding a lengthy trial based on a preliminary ruling that could be reversed, thereby necessitating a second lengthy trial.  In addition, an aggrieved party need not wait until final judgment to seek a writ of mandamus from an appeals court effectively reversing a district court ruling, where the latter is a clear abuse of discretion or manifest injustice.  This too is a discretionary remedy.

Yet another means of obtaining review before final judgment is under the judge-made "collateral order" doctrine.  Here the idea is that some issue is wholly collateral to, and separate from the merits of the underlying claim AND that the party seeking to appeal cannot vindicate his or her underlying rights by waiting until the end of the whole case.  A classic example is double jeopardy.  Suppose a trial court rejects a criminal defendant's argument that trying him for crime X would violate his right against double jeopardy because he has already been acquitted of crime Y, which, he claims, is effectively the same.  The double jeopardy ruling is not a final judgment, because there hasn't yet been a trial on the charge of X.  Nonetheless, the defendant gets to appeal the ruling under the collateral order doctrine because the right against double jeopardy is understood specifically as a right against HAVING TO STAND TRIAL AT ALL.  There is no way to vindicate that right after a trial.

Observations on the Mohawk Case

1) The issue in Mohawk was whether a district court ruling that a party waived the attorney-client privilege (ACP) falls within the collateral order doctrine.  The argument for so finding is straightforward enough: The ACP does not merely protect against the introduction of privileged statements into evidence; it protects against their disclosure.  Thus, once the assertedly privileged info has been disclosed, there's no way to "undisclose" it.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, and not just for waiver questions but for all cases in which it is argued that a district court erroneously denied a claim of ACP.

2) To my mind, a key portion of Justice Sotomayor's opinion is illogical.  She makes a great deal out of the fact that the collateral order doctrine is not the sole means of obtaining review before final judgment, citing discretionary interlocutory review, mandamus, and the possibility that a party can defy a disclosure ruling, and then obtain review in the course of an adjudication of sanctions, including the possibility of contempt.  The reason I find reliance on these alternatives illogical is that they are ALWAYS alternatives.  The point of the collateral order doctrine's focus on whether an interest can be vindicated post-judgment is to determine whether the party has a (statutory) right to pre-final-judgment review, under the collateral order rule.  If the possibility of discretionary review under some other mechanism or of review via contempt were sufficient to defeat this claim under the collateral order rule, then it would be sufficient to defeat every claim under the collateral order rule.  A criminal defendant seeking to appeal an adverse double jeopardy ruling, or a state seeking to appeal an adverse sovereign immunity ruling, could also try to take advantage of discretionary review, mandamus, or contempt.  But they don't have to because the Court has held that they ARE entitled to review under the collateral order doctrine.

3) The real concern of the Court appears to be a worry about floodgates.  District courts decide a lot of privilege issues and if they're all going to be reviewable as collateral, then that will undermine the FJR.  The petitioner had argued that this concern was fanciful--that there was no flood of collateral review of privilege decisions in the circuits that had allowed such review--but the majority brushed that aside by saying that it was too early to know this.  I suspect as well that the Court saw no good basis for distinguishing ACP claims from other privilege claims, and so thought that the floodgates really might have opened up.

4) [Finally, a point that was suggested by a number of my civil procedure colleagues from around the country who take part in a civil procedure listserve:] There is in the subtext of the opinion some hint of Justice Sotomayor's experience as a district court judge.  A district court's ruling is likely to be upheld and, we can imagine her thinking, even if it's reversed, that doesn't mean the appeals court was right and the district court wrong in any deep sense.  So, she says, the game isn't worth the candle, especially given what a nuisance collateral order review is for a district judge trying to move cases on her docket along.  And a district judge who doesn't mind the intrusion can always grant her discretionary permission for an interlocutory appeal (which the appeals court can then take if it's really gung ho on reversing).  So this turns out to be a very fitting first opinion for the only current Justice who spent time as a district judge.

12 comments:

Sam Rickless said...

What a great post, Mike. So clear, so lucid, so helpful. I'm amazed that you can find the time to blog about these issues *and* take care of everything else on your plate (Findlaw columns at al.) Wow.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Thanks Sam. The desire to avoid grading exams is a powerful incentive!

狗熊克星 said...

推廣創意客家藍衫 盼量產.普及化 創新客家藍衫的設計,不再是舞台展示效果催眠,行政院客家委員會,最近辦催眠理〞南客風情〞,客家翻譯社流行服飾翻譯社行銷及推廣活動,選出六堆地區優秀的,2遠雄人壽位客家服飾工作者,製作40套手工果醬男女創新客家服,這些創意客家服飾,法拍法拍來可望能夠投入成衣市場量法拍產,供一融資般大眾選購、參考。
融資
大膽的融資剪裁,讓客家酒店經紀藍衫格外顯眼,這是屏科大,時酒店經紀尚設計與管理系學外遇生,以〞客家傳統與創新〞外遇〞為專題外遇,所設計製作的客家服飾,不過尋人要穿出去逛街可尋人不適合。
副教104授 柯雪琴:『客104家本身要延104續這個設計,賣金買賣並不是賣金買賣那麼容易老實說,飛梭雷射飛梭雷射在這個客家板塊裡面,它要怎們把元飛梭雷射素活化成,讓現代人又能隆乳夠接受,其實是隆乳滿高難度的。』
在眾隆乳隆乳參賽的作品當中,這套不對稱剪裁的創新藍衫,除了布扣以外,衣服補丁的設計,說明客家勤儉的精神,褲子則是小女生最喜歡的泡泡褲,作品最受歡迎。
學生葉琪馨:『就是很可愛啊!,想到和同學去逛街休閒的時刻,就會穿這套衣服出去,就會覺得自己與眾不同。』
會想讓人想穿上街,讓這件作品,得到評審第一名的評價,同時第二名也是屏科大的學生,夢幻的蓬蓬裙設計,就有民眾想要訂購。
學生 李佳芳:『我覺得很高興如果說做成,像是一般的衣服來穿的話,我想也是滿適合的。』
學生的創意,不僅受到評審青睞,也得到了一般民眾的認可,讓原本只供參賽的創意客家服飾能夠普及化,目前也有廠商有意願投入量產,供一般大眾選購和製作,創意設計也為客家服飾,打開了另一道經濟命脈。

smallawei said...

性感睡衣,情趣睡衣,性感內衣褲,性感內衣,性感內褲,
性感貓裝,性感睡衣,貓裝,吊帶襪,情趣內褲,丁字褲,SM,

震動環,潤滑液,情趣禮物,情趣玩具,威而柔,精油,逼真按摩棒,數位按摩棒,


G點,按摩棒,轉珠按摩棒,變頻跳蛋,跳蛋,無線跳蛋,

飛機杯,男用強精長軟質套,男用強精短軟質套,充氣娃娃性感內褲,
自慰套,自慰套,情趣娃娃,自慰器,電動自慰器,充氣娃娃,
角色扮演,情趣,情趣用品,巴黎,

Kobe Bryant said...

The question was whether a decision in the Mohawk District Court that a party has waived the attorney-client privilege (ACP) is part of the doctrine of collateral. The argument for this conclusion is simple: The ACP countries not only to protect against the introduction of privileged states in the evidence, which protects against disclosure. Therefore, once the assertedly privileged information was released, there is no way undiscloseb. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, not only for questions, but the exemption for all cases in which it is argued that the district court wrongly denied a claim by the ACP.WOW GoldWOW Items GoldBuy WOW ItemsCheap WOW ItemsTera Goldbuy tera goldTera GoldBuy WOW Gold

chengnuo said...

Everybody knows numerous kinds of creating WOW Gold nevertheless, you could find commonly some adaptations in relation to World Of Warcraft Gold your prosperous together with bad. One example might be consume, which in turn private way of establishing
Gold WOWoperates better. The second is possibly a lesser number of obvious, but it is almost as important - the methods are usually not drab!

奇堡比 said...

婚姻挽回
感情問題
男人偷腥
網路外遇
商業徵信
信用徵信
財產徵信
新竹徵信
新竹徵信社
債務處理
女人外遇
婚姻挽回
徵信社
捉猴
海外抓姦
離婚證人
智慧財產權
尋人討債
女人外遇
抓猴
如何找徵信公司
搜證
大陸小三
台南徵信社
高雄偵探社
台南偵探社

林峰樂 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

林峰樂 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

林峰樂 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

白白 said...

婦幼徵信社-外遇
徵信社首選南愛徵信社
抓姦│偵探│私家偵探-成功徵信社
離婚|徵信婦幼有限公司
徵信-中華民國徵信專業經理人協會
徵信社首選大愛徵信社
中華民國工商經濟市場調查徵信協會
奇美徵信社
抓姦|離婚專業服務
外遇.大老婆徵信社
兩岸徵信社
海峽偵探│偵探社
偵探│私家偵探 推薦婦幼徵信
抓姦-專業大陸抓姦達網
婚姻挽回協助所
外遇|抓姦追蹤器
MONEY徵信社專業調查
外遇|MONEY帳款催收部
徵信器材網
鴻海徵信社
徵信社品質保障關懷協會推薦-遠傳徵信社
外遇-債務催收徵信社
外遇調查哨|外遇
鴻海徵信社
大統徵信
警民徵信

aryh884 aryh884 said...

台中徵信社價格,合法徵信社,感情挽回,外遇,財務公司
徵信協會 ,合法徵信社,免費法律諮詢,外遇徵兆,
台中徵信社,免費諮詢律師,徵信社工作,徵信,外遇問題,抓姦,合格徵信社,徵信社工作
心理醫生,捉姦,新竹徵信社,徵信社收費,徵信公司
基隆徵信社,女人徵信社,尋人徵信社,女人徵信社,合法徵信社,外遇徵兆,法律諮詢免費
外遇搜證,徵信社推薦,尋人啟事,徵信社工作,台中徵信社,女人徵信社
蒐證,徵信,桃園徵信社,婚外情,法律諮詢
徵信社工作,財產徵信,第三者,尋人查址
彰化徵信社,台中徵信,免費法律諮詢,政府立案徵信社,出軌
合法徵信社,法律諮詢,小三,律師,婚姻挽回,徵信社價格
台中徵信公司,通姦,離婚,婚姻,感情挽回
外遇解析,女人徵信社,外遇抓姦,法律諮詢服務,
免費法律諮詢,外遇蒐證
外遇抓姦