VIII. Appealing

There is no case law discussing any of these points in the context of an assertion of reporter's privilege; see generally Fed. R. App. P. 8. Generally, a non-party witness may not appeal an order denying a motion to quash or compelling production of records; an entry of an order holding the witness in contempt of court is deemed a "final" (appealable) order. Of course, counsel should seek to obtain a stay of any contempt sanctions pending the appeal (which is not a foregone conclusion).

In the ordinary case, Idaho courts have said that there is no appeal of right from a contempt order. It is not included in the listing of appealable judgments and orders contained in Rule 11 of the Idaho Appellate Rules. Similarly, contempt orders are deemed “final and conclusive” by statute. Idaho Code § 7-616. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that it has plenary power to review contempt orders and although it has not gone so far as to say it will absolutely not consider a traditional “appeal” of a contempt order, it has said on several occasions that the writ of review is the most appropriate means by which to seek appellate review of a contempt order. See, e.g., Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho 560, 671 P.2d 473 (1983).

As a general matter, you should consult the rules for the court in which the order to be appealed has been made and the rules for the court in which the appeal will be brought. Since 2017, the four departments of the appellate division have generally adhered to the same practice rules, although the Third Department has adopted its own supplement to the statewide rules.

New York’s highest court has ruled that for nonparties subpoenaed in ongoing criminal cases, there is no immediate right of appeal of a decision denying a motion to quash a subpoena. People v. Juarez, 31 N.Y.3d 1186, 1190–91 (N.Y. 2018). However, the court acknowledged that it was not deciding whether an appeal may be brought by commencing a proceeding under CPLR article 78 (which is used for challenging administrative actions by a body or officer in New York State), suggesting it may be possible to do so. Id. at n.5.

Although there is little authority in Oklahoma, orders resolving discovery disputes between parties and orders relating to discovery from non-parties are not appealable orders.  In general, the subject of an order regarding discovery, including orders granting or denying a motion to quash or motion for protective order, may challenge the order by extraordinary writ under Okla. Const. Art. 7, § 4.  See Floyd v. Ricks, 1998 OK 9, 954 P.2d 131; Inhofe v. Wiseman, 1989 OK 41, 772 P.2d 389.  The procedure governing writs is set out in Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 1451, et seq.