## Facts

- Norman Carpenter, a former shift supervisor at Mohawk Industries, alleged he was fired after reporting to human resources that Mohawk employed undocumented immigrants.
- At the time, Mohawk was a defendant in a separate class action alleging it knowingly hired undocumented workers to depress wages.
- Mohawk directed Carpenter to meet with company counsel involved in the separate litigation; Carpenter alleged counsel pressured him to recant.
- Carpenter sued for unlawful termination and sought discovery about (1) his meeting with counsel and (2) the termination decision.
- The district court agreed the information was covered by the attorney-client privilege but found Mohawk had implicitly waived the privilege through disclosures in the related litigation and ordered production.
- The district court declined to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- Mohawk sought immediate appellate review under the collateral order doctrine; the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether orders compelling disclosure over an attorney-client privilege claim are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court order compelling disclosure of attorney-client privileged material qualifies as an immediately appealable collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
- The Court applied a category-based approach and held that, as a class, such orders are not “effectively unreviewable” after final judgment.
- The Court emphasized that post-judgment remedies (including a new trial excluding privileged material and its fruits) generally provide adequate review.
- The Court identified alternative mechanisms for earlier review or protection, including § 1292(b) certification, mandamus in extraordinary circumstances, and appealing a contempt sanction after refusal to comply.
- The Court warned that permitting immediate appeals of privilege-related discovery rulings would increase piecemeal appeals and delay trial-court proceedings.
- Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, expressing skepticism about the collateral order doctrine’s fit with the text of § 1291.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate jurisdiction generally extends only to “final decisions” of district courts.
- The collateral order doctrine covers only a small class of prejudgment orders that are conclusive, separate from the merits, and effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.
- Collateral order analysis is conducted by category, not through case-specific balancing of harms.
- Discovery orders compelling disclosure over an attorney-client privilege objection are generally reviewable after final judgment and therefore do not satisfy the “effectively unreviewable” requirement.
- Interlocutory review of privilege rulings may be available through limited alternatives (e.g., § 1292(b), mandamus, or appeal from contempt), preserving narrow collateral-order treatment and limiting disruption from piecemeal appeals.

## Conclusion

The Court held that orders compelling disclosure of attorney-client privileged material are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, leaving parties to post-judgment review and limited alternative avenues for prompt relief in exceptional cases.


Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009)