## Facts

- E. H. Reise, a recent University of Wisconsin Law School graduate, applied for a faculty position and was not hired.
- Reise alleged the nonselection resulted from race and sex discrimination favoring nonwhite and female candidates.
- The University responded that the selected candidates were stronger lawyers and scholars than Reise.
- Reise sought roughly $4 million in damages, including for mental anguish and emotional distress allegedly caused by the hiring decision.
- Reise sought preliminary injunctive relief requiring the Law School to obtain court approval before hiring or promoting anyone and before spending funds on specified minority-support programs.
- Because Reise claimed substantial mental and emotional harm, defendants moved for a mental examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35; the district court granted the motion.
- The district court set the case for trial on an accelerated schedule; Reise asked the court of appeals to postpone the trial, citing discovery burdens.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction that would substantially restrict the Law School’s hiring, promotions, and certain expenditures pending trial.
2. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to intervene in trial scheduling and discovery management before final judgment.
3. Whether an order compelling a mental examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or any exception to the final-judgment rule.

## Decision

- The denial of the requested preliminary injunction was affirmed.
- The request for appellate intervention in trial scheduling and discovery management was rejected for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The appeal from the Rule 35 mental-examination order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was an interlocutory discovery order.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary injunction rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; relief may be denied where the requested injunction is excessively broad and institutionally intrusive relative to the claims and the posture of the case.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate jurisdiction generally extends only to “final decisions,” and routine case-management orders, including trial scheduling, are not final decisions.
- Discovery orders, including orders compelling physical or mental examinations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, are interlocutory and are not immediately appealable as of right under § 1291.
- The final-judgment rule limits interlocutory appeals to avoid delay and litigation costs, particularly where discretionary discovery rulings would rarely be reversed and can be reviewed after final judgment.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to impose sweeping pretrial restraints on a law school’s operations, declined to supervise the litigation timetable, and enforced the final-judgment rule by dismissing an interlocutory appeal from a Rule 35 mental-examination order.


Reise v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 957 F.2d 293 (7th Cir. 1992)