In Drummond Co., Inc. v. Collingsworth, 816 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2016) (No. 14-15722), the Eleventh Circuit held that neither the lawyer who received a third party subpoena, nor the lawyer who was a party to the underlying litigation, were able to take an immediate appeal of an adverse privilege ruling. In this matter, plaintiff filed a defamation action against Collingsworth, an attorney who had sent letters to plaintiff’s customers and business partners alleging human rights violations in Columbia. Plaintiff alleged that Collingsworth had paid witnesses in Columbia to obtain false testimony. Plaintiff served a third party subpoena on attorney Scarola, seeking documents related to any payments made by Collingsworth to these witnesses. Scarola obtained potentially responsive documents while serving as co-counsel with Collingsworth for plaintiffs in an unrelated matter. Scarola moved to quash on the grounds that the subpoena sought Scarola’s protected work product, but the district denied the motion. Collingsworth did not object to the subpoena in the district court. Scarola filed an appeal of the ruling, as did Collingsworth, who asserted for the first time that the materials in Scarola’s possession were Collingsworth’s protected work product. The appellate court held that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), neither Scarola nor Collingsworth had a right to an immediate appeal. As to Scarola, the court held that, despite the fact that he was not a party to the underlying litigation, his only avenue to an immediate appeal would have been to refuse to comply with the order, be held in contempt, and then appeal the contempt order. The court noted that the Court in Mohawkruled that the class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow, and that, except in cases involving the assertion of governmental privilege, the Eleventh Circuit had ‘’never exercised jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review any discovery order involving any privilege.’’ As to Collingsworth, the court held that, as a party, he would have the opportunity to appeal the ruling at the conclusion of the underlying matter.