## Facts

- The United States brought civil antitrust actions against CBS and ABC concerning network acquisition of prime-time programming from independent producers, including major film studios.
- During discovery, CBS and ABC served broad subpoenas on five major studios (nonparty witnesses) seeking large volumes of documents and deposition testimony, including materials dating back to 1960.
- The studios moved to quash while expressly reserving the right to seek reimbursement if required to comply.
- The district court largely enforced the subpoenas, deferred the cost issue, and the studios produced the requested materials over roughly 18 months.
- The studios incurred approximately $2.3 million in compliance expenses (internal and external costs).
- After compliance, the studios moved for reimbursement of discovery costs from the subpoenaing networks.
- The district court denied reimbursement in a brief minute order without articulating findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- The studios appealed; CBS and ABC moved to dismiss, arguing the cost-reimbursement order was not a “final decision” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying nonparty witnesses’ post-compliance discovery-cost reimbursement is immediately appealable as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 via the collateral order doctrine.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying reimbursement to nonparty witnesses without providing findings or reasons, given the asserted magnitude of the burden.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the denial of reimbursement satisfied the collateral order doctrine.
- The court reversed the order denying reimbursement and remanded.
- The court concluded the record was insufficient to review the exercise of discretion because the district court provided no findings or conclusions supporting the denial.

## Legal Principles

- Under the collateral order doctrine, an order is immediately appealable where it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- A cost-allocation ruling that finally determines nonparty witnesses’ entitlement to reimbursement may be appealable because nonparties typically cannot obtain later review through an appeal from final judgment in the underlying litigation.
- District courts have discretion to allocate discovery costs, including ordering reimbursement to nonparty witnesses in appropriate circumstances.
- When denying reimbursement after imposing substantial discovery burdens on nonparties, a court must provide a reasoned basis sufficient to permit appellate review for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit treated the denial of nonparty discovery-cost reimbursement as an immediately appealable collateral order, and it reversed and remanded because the district court’s unexplained denial prevented meaningful review of whether discretion was properly exercised.


United States v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982)