## Facts

- A plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Hamilton County, Ohio, and related officials arising from a detainee’s suicide at the Hamilton County Justice Center.
- Teresa L. Cunningham represented the plaintiff and was served with interrogatories and document requests.
- Cunningham failed to timely comply with discovery obligations and multiple discovery orders.
- A magistrate judge imposed monetary sanctions against Cunningham under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) based on discovery noncompliance.
- The district court affirmed the sanctions order and disqualified Cunningham as counsel in the ongoing case.
- Cunningham attempted to appeal the sanctions order before final judgment in the underlying § 1983 action.

## Issues

1. Whether a Rule 37(a)(4) sanctions order against an attorney is a “final decision” immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Whether such a sanctions order qualifies for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
3. Whether the attorney’s disqualification or nonparty status makes the sanctions order immediately appealable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously held that a Rule 37(a)(4) sanctions order against an attorney is not a “final decision” under § 1291.
- The Court held the order was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
- The Court held the result is the same even if the attorney no longer represents a party due to disqualification.
- The appeal was dismissed; review, if any, must await final judgment in the underlying litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate jurisdiction ordinarily extends only to final decisions that end the litigation on the merits.
- The collateral order doctrine applies only to a small class of interlocutory orders that (1) conclusively determine the question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits, and (3) are effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- Rule 37 discovery-sanctions review is generally not “completely separate from the merits” because assessing sanction propriety can require examining the nature, relevance, and adequacy of discovery responses and objections.
- A monetary sanctions order against counsel is not effectively unreviewable after final judgment; the sanctioned attorney can seek appellate review at the end of the case.
- Final-decision analysis does not turn on whether the appellant is a party or a nonparty attorney; permitting immediate appeals by attorneys would increase piecemeal appellate litigation and delay trial proceedings.

## Conclusion

A discovery-sanctions order imposed on an attorney under Rule 37(a)(4) is not immediately appealable under § 1291, and it does not fall within the collateral order doctrine even when the attorney has been disqualified; the attorney must wait until final judgment in the underlying action to seek appellate review.


Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198 (1999)