Beyond Blond Productions, LLC v. Heldman

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEYOND BLOND PRODUCTIONS, LLC, No. 25-3065 D.C. No.

Plaintiff-ctr-defendant - 2:20-cv-05581-DSF-GJS Appellee, MEMORANDUM*

v.

COMEDYMX, INC., COMEDYMX, LLC, Defendants,

EDWARD HELDMAN III,

Defendant-ctr-claimant -

Appellant,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., MICHELLE JUSTICE,

Third-pty-defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Submitted August 4, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, KOH, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Edward Heldman III appeals interlocutory discovery orders compelling his former counsel to produce documents and overruling objections based on attorney-client privilege. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

“Discovery orders are not final appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and courts have refused interlocutory review of such orders under the collateral order doctrine.” Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989). In Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, the Supreme Court held that “disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege [do not] qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009); see also In re Nat’l Mortg. Equity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certificates Litig., 857 F.2d 1238, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of a discovery order compelling the defendant’s former counsel to produce documents over an assertion of attorney-client privilege).

Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not consider Heldman’s remaining arguments.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 25-3065

DISMISSED.2

2 Heldman shall bear the costs associated with this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(1).

3 25-3065