Williams v. United Effort Plan

• Decision Date: 29 November 1993
• Citation: 979 F.2d 858
• Parties: NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 858

979 F.2d 858

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Roger E. WILLIAMS; Herber Hammon; Beth Peterson; Connell

J. Bateman; Jesse Beagley; Benjamin G. Bistline; James B.

Blackmore; Harold W. Blackmore; Florence Blackmore; Cyril

Bradshaw; Alma J. Burnham; Claude S. Cooke; Donald B.

Cox; Earline Cox; Harvey J. Dockstader; Leah K.

Dockstader; T. David Dockstader; Boyd Dockstader; Marko

J. Dutson; George Hammon; Jacob Legrande Hammon; Earl

Johnson; James M. Pipkin; Cora Fischer Stubbs; David L.

Stubbs; John Timpson; Ray Timpson; Don Timpson; Fayila

Maureen Blackmore Williams; John M. Williams; Charles

Williams; Thomas J. Williams; Joyce Blackmore; Ellen

Boehmer; Carol Anderson, and John and Jane Does 1 Through

1000, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

UNITED EFFORT PLAN, a Utah Trust; Rulon T. Jeffs; Fred M.

Jessop; Leroy S. Jeffs; Parley J. Harker; James K.

Zitting; Winston K. Blackmore; Truman I. Barlow;

individually and as Trustees for the United Effort Plan

Trust, and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-Day Saints, Defendants-Appellants,

and

CITY OF HILDALE, a municipality; City of Colorado City, a

municipality; Washington County Utah Sheriff, a local

government; Mohave County, a local government; Sam Barlow;

Lewis J. Barlow; E. Jack Knudson; Anna Mae Blackmore;

Twin City Area Improvement Association, an Arizona

corporation, f/k/a Colorado City Area Improvement

Association; Merrill Harker, John and Jane Does, 1 Through

1000, Defendants.

No. 91-4076.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1992.

Before JOHN P. MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS, ^* Senior District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ^**

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant-appellants appeal the district court's denial of their motion to quash subpoenas issued to a nonparty bank. Defendants argue that disclosure of the information subpoenaed would violate defendants' First Amendment rights. Before we can reach the merits of defendants' claims, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Ordinarily, pretrial discovery orders are not appealable because they do not constitute final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Graham v. Gray, 827 F.2d 679, 681 (10th Cir.1987); F.T.C. v. Alaska Land Leasing, Inc., 778 F.2d 577, 578 (10th Cir.1985). "The denial of a motion to quash a subpoena is interlocutory in nature and not an appealable order." In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 857 F.2d 710, 711 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 905 (1989). There is an exception to the finality rule when the order appealed from is a collateral order. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). To be appealable under the Cohen exception, an order must (1) conclusively resolve a disputed question; (2) resolve an issue completely separate from the merits of the underlying action; and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment in the underlying action. United States v. Dickstein, 971 F.2d 446, 448 (10th Cir.1992). We hold that the order appealed from in this case does not meet the requirements of the Cohen doctrine and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to hear this...