Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
558 U. S. ____ (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court's order compelling the disclosure of materials allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege is not an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine.
Facts:
- Norman Carpenter worked as a shift supervisor for Mohawk Industries, Inc.
- Carpenter sent an e-mail to Mohawk's human resources department alleging the company was employing undocumented immigrants.
- At the time, Mohawk was a defendant in a separate class-action lawsuit alleging it conspired to suppress wages by hiring undocumented workers.
- Mohawk officials directed Carpenter to meet with the company's retained counsel who was handling the class-action lawsuit.
- During the meeting, Mohawk's counsel allegedly pressured Carpenter to recant his statements about the company's hiring practices.
- After Carpenter refused to recant, Mohawk terminated his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman Carpenter sued Mohawk Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging unlawful termination.
- During discovery, Carpenter filed a motion to compel Mohawk to produce information concerning a meeting between Carpenter and Mohawk's counsel.
- The District Court granted the motion, holding that Mohawk had implicitly waived the attorney-client privilege.
- The District Court denied Mohawk's request to certify the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- Mohawk Industries (appellant) filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing the order was appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and also petitioned for a writ of mandamus.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order did not qualify as an appealable collateral order, and denied the petition for mandamus.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court order compelling the disclosure of materials allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege qualify as an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No. A district court order compelling disclosure of materials protected by attorney-client privilege is not an immediately appealable collateral order. Such orders fail the third prong of the collateral order test because they are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The Court reasoned that the final judgment rule promotes efficient judicial administration and that any harm from an erroneous disclosure order can be adequately remedied post-judgment by vacating the adverse judgment and remanding for a new trial where the privileged material is excluded. Litigants also have other avenues for seeking review, such as certification for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b), a petition for a writ of mandamus, or defying the order and appealing a subsequent contempt citation. The Court emphasized that creating new categories of interlocutory appeals should be done through the formal rulemaking process, not judicial expansion of the narrow collateral order doctrine.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The order is not immediately appealable, but the Court should not have engaged in the Cohen collateral order analysis at all. The proper ground for affirming the judgment is that Congress, through the Rules Enabling Act, has designated the formal rulemaking process as the preferred method for creating new categories of interlocutory appeals. By applying the Cohen test, the Court perpetuates a judicially created policy it has long criticized and prejudices the very issues that the rulemaking process is designed to address with the full experience of the bench and bar. The Court should respect Congress's designation and decline to expand the collateral order doctrine through case-by-case adjudication.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and significantly restricts the scope of the collateral order doctrine, reinforcing its status as a narrow exception to the final-judgment rule. It establishes a uniform federal standard that parties cannot immediately appeal adverse attorney-client privilege rulings, forcing them to rely on discretionary or more drastic review mechanisms like mandamus or contempt. The ruling strongly signals the Court's preference for legislative or rulemaking solutions over judicial expansion of appellate jurisdiction, which will likely curtail future attempts to broaden the collateral order doctrine to other types of discovery disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter