There is no case law discussing any of these points in the context of an assertion of reporter's privilege; see generally Fed. R. App. P. 8. Generally, a non-party witness may not appeal an order denying a motion to quash or compelling production of records; an entry of an order holding the witness in contempt of court is deemed a "final" (appealable) order. Of course, counsel should seek to obtain a stay of any contempt sanctions pending the appeal (which is not a foregone conclusion).
In the ordinary case, Idaho courts have said that there is no appeal of right from a contempt order. It is not included in the listing of appealable judgments and orders contained in Rule 11 of the Idaho Appellate Rules. Similarly, contempt orders are deemed “final and conclusive” by statute. Idaho Code § 7-616. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that it has plenary power to review contempt orders and although it has not gone so far as to say it will absolutely not consider a traditional “appeal” of a contempt order, it has said on several occasions that the writ of review is the most appropriate means by which to seek appellate review of a contempt order. See, e.g., Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho 560, 671 P.2d 473 (1983).
Although there is little authority in Oklahoma, orders resolving discovery disputes between parties and orders relating to discovery from non-parties are not appealable orders.In general, the subject of an order regarding discovery, including orders granting or denying a motion to quash or motion for protective order, may challenge the order by extraordinary writ under Okla. Const. Art. 7, § 4.See Floyd v. Ricks, 1998 OK 9, 954 P.2d 131; Inhofe v. Wiseman, 1989 OK 41, 772 P.2d 389.The procedure governing writs is set out in Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 1451, et seq.