The decision in Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin addresses two important procedural questions in federal civil litigation. First, it examines the limits of appellate review over interlocutory orders, particularly discovery-related orders. Second, it clarifies whether an order directing a party to submit to a mental examination under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be appealed before the case reaches a final judgment.
The case arose from an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a law school graduate who alleged that he was denied a faculty position due to race and gender considerations. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling reinforces long-standing principles governing appellate jurisdiction and the non-appealability of most discovery orders.
Brief Fact Summary of Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
In Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, the plaintiff graduated in the top five percent of his law school class at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. After completing his legal education, he applied for a faculty position at the University but was not selected. The plaintiff believed that the decision not to hire him was motivated by discrimination based on race and gender.
According to the plaintiff, the Law School had a practice of favoring candidates who were black, female, or otherwise members of protected classes. He pointed to hiring patterns to support his allegation, noting that among recent faculty hires, only one was a white male. On this basis, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the University alleging unlawful discrimination.
In addition to seeking relief on the merits of his discrimination claim, the plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction. The requested injunction would have prevented the Law School from hiring or promoting anyone without court approval and from spending funds on minority support programs. The district court denied this request for preliminary injunctive relief.
The plaintiff also sought substantial monetary damages. He claimed $4 million for mental anguish, emotional distress, and illness allegedly caused by the University’s refusal to hire him. Because the plaintiff placed his mental and emotional condition at issue by seeking damages for mental anguish, the University requested that he undergo a mental examination pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff objected to the requested examination. He argued that a mental examination would not reveal anything meaningful, asserting that he was not experiencing emotional distress at the time. Despite this objection, the district court ordered the plaintiff to submit to the mental examination.
The plaintiff attempted to appeal both the denial of the preliminary injunction and the order requiring the mental examination. These procedural appeals eventually reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Procedural History
The Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin case began in the federal district court, where the plaintiff filed his discrimination action and sought preliminary injunctive relief. The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction. Later, during discovery, the district court granted the defendant’s motion for a mental examination under Rule 35.
The plaintiff attempted to appeal these orders before the case reached a final judgment on the merits. The appeal concerning the preliminary injunction was denied, and the appeal related to the mental examination order was challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The Seventh Circuit was asked to determine whether it had authority to review these interlocutory orders.
Issues
The central issue before the court was whether the district court’s order concerning discovery matters—specifically, the order directing the plaintiff to submit to a mental examination under Rule 35—was appealable before a final judgment had been entered.
A related issue concerned whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Court’s Reasoning in Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by addressing the nature of interlocutory orders. The court explained that federal appellate jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to final decisions of the district courts. Discovery orders, including those issued under Rule 35, are classic examples of interlocutory orders and are not considered final judgments.
In Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, the court emphasized that allowing immediate appeals of discovery orders would disrupt the orderly progress of litigation. If parties could appeal every unfavorable discovery ruling, cases would be delayed indefinitely, and appellate courts would be burdened with piecemeal litigation.
With respect to the mental examination order, the court noted that Rule 35 expressly permits such examinations when a party’s mental condition is in controversy. Because the plaintiff sought significant damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, his mental condition became a relevant subject of discovery. The district court’s decision to allow the examination fell squarely within its discretion to manage discovery.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the examination should not be ordered because he claimed not to be experiencing emotional distress at the time. The relevant question was not whether the plaintiff believed the examination would be useful, but whether the defendant was entitled to gather evidence to respond to the plaintiff’s claims.
The court explained that defendants are entitled to test claims of mental and emotional harm through appropriate discovery tools.
The Seventh Circuit also addressed the argument that compliance with the examination order would cause irreparable harm. The court observed that discovery orders frequently require parties to disclose information or submit to procedures they would prefer to avoid.
This alone does not make such orders immediately appealable. If a party believes a discovery order is improper, the usual course is to comply with the order and raise the issue on appeal after a final judgment, or to face sanctions and then appeal those sanctions.
The court further explained that this procedural structure serves an important filtering function. By limiting appeals to final judgments, the judicial system reduces unnecessary appellate review and ensures that only substantial and fully developed disputes reach the appellate courts.
Regarding the preliminary injunction, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion. The requested injunction was extremely broad and would have required ongoing judicial supervision of the Law School’s hiring and financial decisions. Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevailed on his discrimination claim, such sweeping relief was not appropriate at the preliminary stage.
Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin Judgment
The appeal in Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin was dismissed to the extent it sought review of the discovery order, and the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed.
The court held that the order of the district court directing the plaintiff to undergo a mental examination was not appealable before a final decision in the case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
Conclusion
Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin is significant for its clear reaffirmation of the limits on appellate review of interlocutory orders. The case illustrates how federal courts treat discovery orders, including those involving mental examinations, as non-final and therefore not immediately appealable.
The decision also highlights the consequences of seeking damages for mental and emotional harm. When a plaintiff places mental condition at issue, courts may permit discovery measures designed to test those claims. The ruling underscores the broad discretion given to district courts in managing discovery and the reluctance of appellate courts to intervene before final judgment.
By reinforcing these procedural principles, Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin contributes to the stability and efficiency of federal litigation. It confirms that appellate courts will not entertain piecemeal appeals and that parties must generally wait until the conclusion of a case to seek appellate review of most trial court rulings.