Whether Perlman permits an immediate appeal of orders compelling both the objecting privilegeholder and a disinterested third party to comply with a grand jury subpoena

An order enforcing a discovery request or compelling compliance with a subpoena ordinarily “is not a ‘final order’ subject to appellate review.” Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n.11 (1992). Typically, an objecting party “must refuse compliance, be held in contempt, and then appeal the contempt order.” Id. However, in Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 12-13 (1918), this Court recognized an exception to that general rule: a discovery order directed at a disinterested third party is an immediately appealable final order because the objecting party is otherwise “powerless to avert the mischief of the order.” Id. In this case, a grand jury subpoenaed a set of privileged documents from Petitioner, an investment company, which objected to protect its attorneyclient privilege. The grand jury also subpoenaed similar documents from several third parties, which indicated a willingness to produce the documents despite Petitioner’s privilege assertion. The question presented is: Whether Perlman permits an immediate appeal of orders compelling both the objecting privilegeholder and a disinterested third party to comply with a grand jury subpoena.