A non-party lawyer objected on privilege grounds to a subpoena compelling him to produce documents and appear at a deposition. The district court ordered compliance with the subpoena, and designated the order (more precisely, the salient parts of the order dealing with this lawyer) a ‛final order“ within Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The lawyer appealed. The Second Circuit held in In re Aircrash at Belle Harbor, N.Y., 490 F.3d 99; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10875 (2d Cir. 2007), that the order was unappealable and that no appellate jurisdiction existed because the lawyer had not submitted to contempt. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes noted that there exists an exception to the contempt requirement, under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), permitting the holder of an asserted privilege to appeal immediately ‛the enforcement of a subpoena when the subpoena is directed at another person who does not object to providing the testimony or documents at issue.“ That exception exists, however, precisely because, in that circumstance, ‛[i]t is impossible for such an appellant to pursue the normal avenue of review — submission to contempt....“ Nor did the Rule 54(b) designation render the order appealable because ‛Rule 54(b) does not provide district courts with the authority to make ‘final’ an order compelling a non-party to comply with a subpoena.“ Because the order did not ‛‘meet[] the standard of finality governing independent litigation,’“ the district court was without ‛authority to change the order's status regarding appealability merely by a pronouncement that the order was ‘final.’“ Appeal dismissed.