“Sum-Certain Contempt Sanctions as Final Decisions”
A Comprehensive Commentary on Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC, 91 F.4th ___ (10th Cir. 2025)

I. Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC, addressed a procedurally thorny question that recurs with increasing frequency in complex civil litigation: When is a contempt order against a non-party witness sufficiently “final” to support immediate appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291? The case arose out of wide-ranging defamation litigation filed by Dr. Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems executive, who alleges that numerous individuals and media personalities defamed him by claiming he helped “rig” the 2020 presidential election.

The most recent skirmish involves Joseph Oltmann, a podcast host and political activist who is not a party to Coomer’s federal defamation suit but was subpoenaed as a material witness. After appearing for deposition, Oltmann abruptly left the courthouse, boasted about his departure on a live podcast, and refused to return. The district court found him in civil contempt, imposed a $1,000-per-day coercive fine and ordered him to pay attorneys’ fees and costs until he complied. Oltmann appealed before the underlying defamation case reached judgment, and the Tenth Circuit took the opportunity to refine its jurisprudence on contempt finality, waiver of objections, and appellate sanctions.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Jurisdiction – The panel (Holmes, C.J., Kelly & Federico, JJ.) held that it possessed appellate jurisdiction because the contempt order contained a specific, unavoidable, sum-certain sanction, rendering it a “final decision” under § 1291 notwithstanding that attorneys’ fees had yet to be quantified.
• Merits – Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the court affirmed the contempt finding. Oltmann waived substantive objections (including a purported “newsperson’s privilege”) by failing to raise them with requisite specificity before the magistrate judge and district court.
• Due Process – No violation occurred because Oltmann had notice, counsel, and an opportunity to be heard before the magistrate judge; an additional district-court hearing was unnecessary when material facts were undisputed.
• Sanctions on Appeal – Citing 10th Cir. R. 46.5, the panel sanctioned Oltmann for frivolous and unsupported arguments, ordering payment of Coomer’s reasonable appellate fees and costs, but declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against counsel.
• Remand – The case returns to the district court solely to calculate the dollar amounts for (a) attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the district court, and (b) additional fees and costs generated in the appeal.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Zurixx, LLC, 26 F.4th 1172 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Zurixx I”) & Zurixx II, 2022 WL 2346726 (10th Cir. 2022)
   The court relied heavily on Zurixx to define the two-part test for contempt finality: (1) a contempt finding and (2) specific, unavoidable sanctions. Zurixx I dismissed an appeal where sanctions were still avoidable; Zurixx II reiterated that unresolved fee amounts alone do not create finality. In Coomer, the per-diem fine satisfied the second prong, distinguishing it from the Zurixx fact patterns.
2. United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, 487 U.S. 72 (1988)
   Provided Supreme Court authority that non-party contempt orders are immediately appealable, forming the doctrinal backbone for the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdictional analysis.
3. Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015); Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177 (2014); Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988)
   Collectively stand for the proposition that unresolved attorneys’ fees are collateral and do not defeat finality.
4. United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) and its progeny
   Articulated the Tenth Circuit’s “firm waiver rule,” which drove the court’s conclusion that Oltmann forfeited objections by failing to raise them specifically below.
5. Standards of Appellate Sanctions – Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc) supplied the doctrinal foundation for imposing monetary sanctions under the court’s inherent authority and Rule 46.5.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Step 1 – Jurisdictional Gatekeeping
   • The panel sua sponte evaluated jurisdiction, as required by Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, 702 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2012).
   • Applying the Zurixx two-part test, the court identified: (a) an express finding of contempt, and (b) an unavoidable sanction – the $1,000 daily fine payable immediately. Thus, the order was final and appealable even though fee quantification remained open.
2. Step 2 – Standard of Review and Merits
   • Contempt orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.
   • Waiver: The court rigorously enforced its firm-waiver jurisprudence. Because Oltmann’s written objections to the magistrate judge were silent on the newsperson’s privilege, those arguments were forfeited.
   • Due Process: Notice, counsel participation, and an earlier magistrate-judge hearing satisfied procedural due process. A second, duplicative evidentiary hearing was not constitutionally required where facts were undisputed.
3. Step 3 – Appellate Sanctions
   • Invoking 10th Cir. R. 46.5, the court determined that portions of Oltmann’s briefing — e.g., the claim of “diminished capacity” akin to pro se status — lacked factual or legal support, crossing the boundary from zealous advocacy into frivolousness.
   • The remedy was tailored: reimbursement of Coomer’s reasonable appellate fees/costs, assessed on remand; no dismissal of the appeal (because merits were addressed) and no formal disciplinary referral.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies Finality Doctrine – Trial courts and litigants in the Tenth Circuit now have bright-line guidance: Any contempt order that imposes a presently effective, sum-certain fine is immediately appealable by a non-party, even if fee amounts remain to be calculated. This will reduce confusion, prevent piecemeal appeals, and ensure timely appellate oversight where coercive fines loom.
• Reinforces the Firm Waiver Rule – The decision underscores that objections must be timely and specific. Failure to raise constitutional or privilege arguments before the magistrate judge almost invariably dooms them on appeal.
• Signals Stringent Treatment of Frivolous Appeals – By imposing Rule 46.5 sanctions yet stopping short of professional discipline, the panel issued a warning shot to attorneys who press facially unsupported arguments.
• Guidance for Journalists and “Citizen-Journalists” – The court did not reach the merits of any newsperson’s privilege, but its insistence on proper procedural preservation serves as a cautionary tale for media actors who attempt to shield sources without following formal steps.
• Discovery Compliance in Defamation Litigation – The ruling bolsters the authority of district courts to conduct depositions in secure settings, enforce subpoenas, and impose meaningful coercive sanctions to prevent “runaway” witnesses.

D. Complex Concepts Simplified

Civil vs. Criminal Contempt

Civil contempt is coercive or compensatory — designed to force compliance or compensate the injured party. Criminal contempt is punitive — intended to punish past defiance and vindicate the authority of the court. Here, the $1,000 daily fine is civil; it stops accruing once Oltmann complies.

Sum-Certain Sanction

A sanction that is immediately calculable (e.g., “$1,000 per day”) rather than discretionary (“reasonable fees to be later determined”). The certainty makes the order “unavoidable” and hence final for appeal purposes.

Firm Waiver Rule

A Tenth Circuit doctrine requiring parties to raise specific objections to a magistrate judge’s findings/recommendations. Failure to do so forfeits those issues on appeal, except in rare circumstances (unrepresented litigant not warned, or manifest injustice).

Newsperson’s Privilege

A qualified privilege—recognized in varying degrees by states and federal courts—that protects journalists from revealing confidential sources or unpublished information. Invocation typically requires timely assertion and balancing against the needs of the litigant requesting disclosure.

Appellate Sanctions (Rule 46.5)

The Tenth Circuit rule mirroring Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for appellate practice. A lawyer’s signature certifies that the brief is (1) not for improper purpose, (2) warranted by existing law or non-frivolous extension thereof, and (3) factually supported. Violations can lead to monetary penalties or disciplinary referrals.

IV. Conclusion

Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic is more than a colorful tale of a deponent who fled mid-deposition to livestream his defiance. It crystallizes an important procedural principle: a civil-contempt order levying an immediate, sum-certain fine against a non-party is a final, appealable decision, regardless of unresolved fee issues. By coupling that holding with a robust application of the firm waiver rule and measured appellate sanctions, the Tenth Circuit’s per curiam opinion fortifies the institutional integrity of discovery, cautions would-be defiers of subpoenas, and provides practitioners with a clearer roadmap for preserving privilege objections and structuring interlocutory appeals. Going forward, litigants in the Tenth Circuit—and likely beyond, given persuasive value—should expect courts to invoke Coomer when confronting contempt orders with coercive monetary components, thereby streamlining appellate review and bolstering compliance with judicial process.