The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter clarified the narrow scope of immediately appealable collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Decided in 2009, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter was significant both for procedural jurisprudence—limiting interlocutory appeals of privilege rulings—and as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first majority opinion. The case also marked the first appearance of the term “undocumented immigrant” in a Supreme Court opinion, replacing earlier usage of “illegal immigrant.”
Facts of Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
In Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, Norman Carpenter, a longtime shift supervisor at Mohawk Industries, emailed the company’s human resources department, alleging that the factory was employing undocumented immigrants. Following this whistle‑blower disclosure, Carpenter was summoned to meet with an in‑house lawyer representing Mohawk. He later claimed that the attorney pressured him to recant his statements. When Carpenter refused, Mohawk terminated his employment, prompting Carpenter to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging wrongful discharge under Georgia law.
During discovery, Carpenter sought production of his communications with Mohawk’s counsel regarding their meeting. Mohawk asserted attorney–client privilege over those communications. The District Court ordered disclosure, finding that the privilege had been waived. Mohawk refused to comply and sought immediate appellate review of the disclosure order.
Procedural History
- District Court (N.D. Ga.)
- Carpenter moved to compel Mohawk to produce documents and communications between Carpenter and Mohawk’s counsel.
- The court held that Mohawk had waived privilege by placing counsel’s communications at issue.
- The court ordered production of the materials.
- Court of Appeals (11th Cir.)
- Mohawk appealed the disclosure order, seeking interlocutory review under the collateral‑order doctrine.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s waiver finding but held that discovery orders adverse to privilege are not immediately appealable collateral orders.
- Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether adverse privilege rulings qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral‑order doctrine.
- Oral argument focused on the final‑judgment rule, the collateral‑order doctrine from Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., and alternative avenues for review (mandamus, § 1292(b), contempt).
Question Presented
Do disclosure orders that invade attorney–client privilege qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral‑order doctrine codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1291?
In other words, must such orders be treated as “collateral orders” that are “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”?
Governing Law: The Collateral‑Order Doctrine
Under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), a district court order may be appealed immediately if it satisfies three criteria:
- Conclusive Determination: The order must conclusively decide a disputed question.
- Separate from the Merits: The order must resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.
- Effectively Unreviewable on Final Appeal: The order must be such that the aggrieved party would lose the right claimed unless the order were appealable immediately.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that this doctrine is “narrow” and applies only in exceptional circumstances.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter Judgment
In Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, the Supreme Court held that discovery orders adverse to attorney–client privilege do not satisfy the third Cohen criterion and therefore are not immediately appealable as collateral orders under § 1291. Such orders may be reviewed on appeal after final judgment, at which point an appellate court can vacate and remand if the disclosure was in error.
Majority Opinion (Justice Alito)
Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, applied the three‑pronged Cohen test:
- Conclusive Determination: The Court acknowledged that an order compelling disclosure of privileged communications is conclusive as to that discovery dispute.
- Separate from the Merits: The issue of privilege does not depend on the substantive merits of the wrongful‑termination claim; it is analytically distinct.
- Effectively Unreviewable on Final Appeal: The Court concluded that disclosure of privileged material can be remedied post‑judgment in the same way erroneous evidentiary rulings are corrected. An appellate court can vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial excluding the privileged evidence and any derivative use of it. Thus, the privilege holder’s interests are adequately protected.
Justice Alito emphasized that expanding collateral‑order jurisdiction to every privilege ruling would “disserve the goals of prompt and efficient litigation and flood the Courts of Appeals with privileged communications review.” The majority noted alternative mechanisms for review—§ 1292(b) certification, mandamus, or contempt sanctions—all of which “afford avenues for more immediate review when truly necessary.”
Concurrence (Justice Thomas)
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but argued that the Court need not invoke the Cohen collateral‑order doctrine at all. Instead, he would rest the decision solely on the final‑judgment rule of § 1291: discovery orders are interlocutory, not final, and thus fall outside the statute’s jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter stands as a landmark in civil procedure, cementing the narrow reach of the collateral‑order doctrine and confirming that privilege disclosures, while important, are not “unreviewable” until after final judgment. It provided clear guidance to both trial and appellate courts on the management of discovery disputes and remains essential reading for practitioners navigating attorney–client privilege, interlocutory appeals, and appellate strategy.