"A party seeking certification pursuant to § 1292(b) must meet a high standard to overcome the ‘strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals.’ " Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat. Energy Policy Dev. Group , 233 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 690, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ). The party requesting certification has the burden of establishing all three elements under § 1292(b).
Given the “strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals, ” certification is only appropriate in the court's discretion and upon satisfaction of the elements of section 1292(b). Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974)).
The requirement that an issue be "controlling" means that a ruling on that issue "would require reversal if decided incorrectly or [] could materially affect the course of litigation with resulting savings of the court's or the parties' resources." Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 317 F. Supp. 3d at 4 (quoting Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F. Supp. 2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2002)). "[T]he resolution of an issue need not necessarily terminate an action in order to be controlling, but instead may involve a procedural determination that may significantly impact the action."
The requirement that an issue be “controlling” means that a ruling on that issue “would require reversal if decided incorrectly or [] could materially affect the course of litigation with resulting savings of the court's or the parties' resources.” Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 317 F.Supp.3d at 4 (quoting Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F. Supp.2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2002)). “[T]he resolution of an issue need not necessarily terminate an action in order to be controlling, but instead may involve a procedural determination that may significantly impact the action.”
The requirement that an issue be “controlling” means that a ruling on that issue “would require reversal if decided incorrectly or [] could materially affect the course of litigation with resulting savings of the court's or the parties' resources.” Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 317 F.Supp.3d at 4 (quoting Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F. Supp.2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2002)). “[T]he resolution of an issue need not necessarily terminate an action in order to be controlling, but instead may involve a procedural determination that may significantly impact the action.”
Moreover, “[a] party seeking certification pursuant to § 1292(b) must meet a high standard to overcome the strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals.” Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, 246 F.R.D. 39, 43 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Policy Dev. Grp., 233 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002) (additional citation omitted)).
The requirement that an issue be “controlling” means that a ruling on that issue “would require reversal if decided incorrectly or [] could materially affect the course of [the] litigation with resulting savings of the court's or the parties' resources.” Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., 317 F.Supp.3d at 4 (quoting Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F.Supp.2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2002)). “[T]he resolution of an issue need not necessarily terminate an action in order to be controlling, but instead may involve a procedural determination that may significantly impact the action.”
“A party seeking certification pursuant to § 1292(b) must meet a high standard to overcome the strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals.” Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, 246 F.R.D. 39, 43 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Policy Dev. Grp., 233 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002) (additional citation omitted)). “Although courts have discretion to certify an issue for interlocutory appeal, interlocutory appeals are rarely allowed . . . the movant ‘bears the burden of showing that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final judgment.
"The justification for immediate appeal must therefore be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes." Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107 (2009); Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Pol'y Dev. Grp., 233 F. Supp. 2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002) ("A party seeking certification pursuant to § 1292(b) must meet a high standard to overcome the 'strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals.'" (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974))). The decision to certify an interlocutory appeal lies within the sound discretion of the district court.
Of import here, "[t]he threshold for establishing the substantial ground for difference of opinion' with respect to a 'controlling question of law' required for certification pursuant to § 1292(b) is a high one." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Policy Dev. Group, 233 F. Supp. 2d 16, 19-20 (D.D.C. 2002). "In other words, for interlocutory appeals, 'it matters not whether the lower court simply got the law wrong,' but 'whether courts themselves disagree as to what the law is.'"