Khalsa v. Puri
34,911
| N.M. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Appellant Inderjit Kaur Puri appealed a district court order denying her motion to quash a subpoena and for a protective order issued at Appellees’ request after judgment in the underlying case.
- The underlying case resulted in a final judgment that had been affirmed on appeal; Appellant argues all merits appeals are exhausted.
- Appellant contends the subpoena service was improper and that her income tax returns are statutorily privileged from discovery.
- The Court of Appeals issued a second calendar notice proposing dismissal for lack of a final, appealable order; both parties filed memoranda in response.
- The panel concluded the order was not a collateral or immediately appealable order because Appellant, as a party, can refuse compliance and seek review after a contempt proceeding.
- The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that review via contempt proceedings and appeal from that order is the appropriate avenue, and that Supreme Court precedent binds this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellees) | Defendant's Argument (Puri) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-judgment order compelling production is immediately appealable as a collateral order | Order is not collateral; standard discovery principles apply (implicitly arguing dismissal appropriate) | Order is collateral and final because underlying merits are resolved and all merits appeals exhausted; subpoena compels privileged tax returns | Not immediately appealable; dismissal affirmed — Appellant can seek review after contempt proceedings |
| Whether King v. Allstate bars immediate appeal of discovery orders after final judgment | King controls; discovery orders generally not collateral | King is distinguishable because merits judgment here is final and appeals exhausted; Breen controls | King applies; distinction to Breen fails because Breen involved subpoenas to nonparties and unreviewable orders; here Appellant is a party with available remedies |
| Whether Breen permits immediate review when subpoena seeks tax returns | Breen limited to nonparty subpoenas and Department enforcement making contempt relief unavailable | Relies on Breen to argue immediate review here despite being a party | Breen does not apply; because subpoena targets a party, the order is reviewable after contempt proceedings |
| Whether compelling tax returns here is effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment | (implicit) Not unreviewable — remedies exist | The subpoena’s effect is final and would render appellate review futile | Court: Not effectively unreviewable; party status preserves review via contempt appeal; equitable objections should be raised to the Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86 P.3d 631 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (discovery-compelling orders are not collateral orders immediately appealable)
- Breen v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 287 P.3d 379 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (nonparty subpoenas to tax authorities may be immediately appealable when the nonparty lacks an effective means to resist)
- Carrillo v. Rostro, 845 P.2d 130 (N.M. 1992) (collateral-order doctrine requires that the order be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment)
- State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 89 P.3d 47 (N.M. 2004) (appellate courts are bound by Supreme Court precedent)