In In re Naranjo, 768 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 13-1382, 13-2028), the court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from an adverse privilege ruling on an application made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782, but that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from an adverse discovery ruling regarding a Rule 45 subpoena relating to the same parties and the same requests for documents.  This case was one of many in U.S. federal courts relating to a multi-billion dollar judgment entered against Chevron in Ecuador.  Chevron initially filed applications for discovery pursuant to §1782 to assist it with pending litigation in Ecuador.  Chevron later filed actions in the United States against the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer in the Ecuador matter, Steven Donziger, and others who Chevron alleged conspired with the Ecuador court-appointed expert and the Ecuador trial court to procure the judgment against Chevron.  Chevron served third party subpoenas pursuant to FRCP 45 to obtain documents for the U.S. litigation.  In the matter before the court, lawyers who had worked with Donziger were served with similar requests for documents pursuant to both §1782 and Rule 45.  The lawyers and two of their Ecuadorian clients objected to both requests on grounds of privilege.  The trial court held that privileges had been waived by Donziger’s conduct in a matter that had been litigated in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and affirmed by the Second Circuit.  Presented with appeals from both orders, the Fourth Circuit addressed the question of subject matter jurisdiction over immediate appeals of adverse privilege rulings in the two contexts.  With respect to the §1782 action, the court noted that the Circuit Courts had consistently held that they have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from an order on a §1782 application.  The court explained that §1782 applications aid foreign proceedings, and they are not related to underlying proceedings in the United States in which the privilege ruling could be reviewed at a later time.  The court held, however, that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the domestic subpoena, because immediate appeals generally are not allowed, unless:  (1) a party refuses to comply with the court’s order and is held in contempt; or (2) the Perlman exception applies.  UnderPerlman, if a disinterested third party is subpoenaed for documents over which another person asserts privilege, and the third party does not have a sufficient interest to be willing to be held in contempt, the party asserting privilege may intervene to assert privilege, and may pursue an immediate appeal.  The court held that the Perlman doctrine did not apply here, for among other reasons, the parties asserted their own, personal interest in the work product subpoenaed, and they were not otherwise sufficiently disinterested because they had already evidenced a willingness to face a contempt sanction.