In United States v. Copar Pumice Co., 714 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-2104), the Tenth Circuit held that the Perlman doctrine, which permits immediate appeal of adverse privilege rulings under certain circumstances, was inapplicable where the privilege holder was a party to the action. In this case, the government sought discovery from defendants’ present and former law firms, and the trial court denied defendants’ motions for a protective order and to quash the government’s subpoenas. Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, contending that the appellate court had jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, the Perlman doctrine and the pragmatic finality doctrine. The appellate court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal. In Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that the collateral order doctrine does not extend to disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege because “effective appellate review can be had by other means.” The Tenth Circuit held that there was no basis to distinguish this case from Mohawk. The appellate court also rejected application of the Perlman doctrine. As applied by the Tenth Circuit, the Perlman doctrine provides jurisdiction when an interlocutory appeal is sought by an intervenor who claims a justiciable interest in preventing a third party’s disclosure of documents or testimony, and the party subject to the subpoena indicates that he or she will produce the records or testify rather than risk contempt. The appellate court held that, although the lawyers subpoenaed were third parties, the Perlman doctrine was unavailable because the defendants were the privilege holders, and they had the ability to appeal the ruling after entry of final judgment, which the Supreme Court ruled was generally sufficient in the attorney-client privilege context. With regard to the pragmatic finality doctrine, the appellate court held that, to the extent that the doctrine is still recognized, it may be invoked only in truly unique circumstances and not where, as in this case, the dispute can adequately be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment.