Whether orders requiring the turn over of cell phones for cloning and global searching have the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction due to serious privacy consequences

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Plaintiff appeals, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the District Court’s sua sponte Orders in this sexual harassment case that required Plaintiff and her three non-party witnesses to turn over their cell phones to an IT specialist to create exact replica duplication of the contents of each cell phone (cloning), and for global searching of those cell phones after cloning (App. 7-25). After receiving the cell phones, the IT Specialist created numerous spreadsheets (App. 38) containing the entire contents of these cell phones, including the names and phone numbers of the communications between the women who own these cell phones and their husbands, children, boyfriends, business associates and other family members. The District Court ordered those spreadsheets produced to defense counsel. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction (App. 1-6). The Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiff’s argument under Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287-288, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1142-1143 (1988), where this Court held that “orders that grant or deny injunctions and orders that have the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions and have ‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence[s]’ are appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” The questions presented are: 1. Whether Orders requiring the turn over of the cell phones themselves for cloning and global li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued searching are Orders having the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction due to the serious, perhaps irreparable, privacy consequences under this Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 378, 378-379, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014), regarding the privacy interests in cell phones? 2. Whether this Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 378-379, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014), regarding the privacy interests in cell phones, precludes the entry of sua sponte Orders forcing a civil litigant to turn over her cell phone, and the cell phones of her three co-worker witnesses, for cloning and global searching when no showing at all was required or made to justify the entry of those Orders?