AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff appealed against a district court order that imposed attorney fees and costs related to a previous order which had limited the scope of discovery and mandated the payment of the referenced fees and costs once they were determined.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge: Issued an order limiting the scope of discovery and imposing attorney fees and costs to be paid by the Plaintiff once ascertained.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued against the district court's order imposing attorney fees and costs related to the limited scope of discovery.
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court orders related to discovery and the imposition of attorney fees and costs are final and appealable.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Cynthia A. Fry, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal. The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends only to final, appealable orders, and general discovery orders are not considered final and appealable. The inclusion of attorney fees in the discovery order does not render it final and appealable. The Plaintiff's attempt to characterize the matter as involving contempt was rejected because the district court's orders did not involve the exercise of the district court's contempt power, nor did the Plaintiff fail to obey the lower court. The attorney fees provision was seen as an integral part of the discovery ruling, and thus, not separable for purposes of defining finality (paras 1-5).