Securities and Exchange Commission v. Paulo Fernando De Bastos

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12900
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RBF TRUST LLC,
a Florida company, et al.,
Defendants,
PAULO FERNANDO DE BASTOS,
Defendant-Appellant,
USCA11 Case: 23-12900 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12900
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cv-61831-AHS
____________________
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion
to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Paulo
Fernando De Bastos appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion for deposition via videoconference. The SEC argues
that the court’s order was not a final order or an appealable inter-
locutory order because it was a pretrial discovery order not subject
to immediate appeal, De Bastos’s interest in a remote deposition
was merely a preference, and the order was not certified for inter-
locutory review.
We agree. We lack jurisdiction to review the court’s order
denying De Bastos a remote deposition because it did not end the
litigation on the merits, and it is therefore not final and appealable.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345,
1348 (11th Cir. 2009); Rouse Constr. Int’l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp.,
680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). Additionally, the order is not
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine be-
cause De Bastos may raise arguments about the court’s denial of
his motion to appear remotely for his deposition after a final
USCA11 Case: 23-12900 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12900 Opinion of the Court 3
judgment is issued in the case. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d
1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472
U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985) (stating that the collateral order doctrine is
narrow, and its “reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights
that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate ap-
peal”). Accordingly, De Bastos’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 23-12900 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --