In In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) (No. 12-1697), the Third Circuit held that an immediate appeal of an adverse privilege ruling was permitted, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), which generally prohibits interlocutory appeals of privilege rulings by parties to a proceeding, and instead requires that a party be held in contempt and appeal the contempt ruling, taking the risk of substantial penalties in the event the appeal fails. In this grand jury proceeding, in which ABC Corp. was a target, the government served subpoenas on ABC’s former outside counsel and on its former in-house counsel. The district court rejected defendant’s assertions of privilege, holding that the crime-fraud exception applied. ABC had previously filed an interlocutory appeal regarding outside counsel’s files. The appellate court affirmed its prior ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, because although the outside firm physically held the documents, ABC had the right to obtain possession and therefore could subject itself to a finding of contempt, which it could then immediately appeal. However, the appellate court held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding documents held by the former in-house counsel. The Perlman doctrine provides that an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a privilege ruling where the privilege holder is not in the possession of the documents, and the party that has possession does not have an interest in the privilege such that they would risk contempt to protect the privilege holders’ interests. Rejecting the position taken by other federal appeals courts, the court held that Mohawk did not narrow the Perlman doctrine, at least in the grand jury context.