 jury proceeding is entitled to protection against undue interruption and delay. Id. at 327, 60 S.Ct. at 542. Thus, to safeguard the "orderly progress" of what it characterized as a "judicial inquiry," the Court mandated that the disobedient witnesses be held in contempt as a precondition for appellate review. Id. at 329-30, 60 S.Ct. at 543. However, in reliance upon Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), and upon Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.Ed. 253 (1908), the Court contemplated situations where, based upon the absence of an underlying case or controversy, a witness might be able to obtain review absent contempt:

33

But a proceeding like that under Sec. 12 of the Interstate Commerce Act may be deemed self-contained, so far as the judiciary is concerned--as much so as an independent suit in equity in which appeal will lie from an injunction without the necessity of waiting for disobedience. After the court has ordered a recusant witness to testify before the Commission, there remains nothing for it to do. Not only is this true with respect to the particular witness whose testimony is sought; there is not, as in the case of a grand jury or trial, any further judicial inquiry which would be halted were the offending witness permitted to appeal. The proceeding before the district court is not ancillary to any judicial proceeding. So far as the court is concerned, it is complete in itself.

34

Id. 309 U.S. at 330, 60 S.Ct. at 543.

35

In light of the preceding discussion, we conclude that a non-party witness20 may obtain appellate review of a discovery order absent contempt only if there is no real possibility of disrupting an underlying action. See Alexander, 201 U.S. at 121, 26 S.Ct. at 357. Applying our conclusions to the case before us, however, presents another problem to which we now turn.

B.

36

Before deciding the issue of appealability, we must determine whether the petitioners are parties to an actual suit or merely non-party witnesses to the Government's exercise of its investigative authority. As we have already noted, a determination that the petitioners are parties would
jury proceeding is entitled to protection against undue interruption and delay. Id. at 327, 60 S.Ct. at 542. therefore, to safeguard the " neat advancement " of what it characterized as a " judicial inquiry, " the Court mandate that the disobedient witnesses be held in contempt as a given for appellate recapitulation. Id. at 329 - 30, 60 S.Ct. at 543. However, in reliance upon Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), and upon Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.Ed. 253 (1908), the Court contemplated situation where, based upon the absence of an underlying character or controversy, a witness might be able to obtain review lacking contempt: 

 33 

 But a proceeding like that under Sec. 12 of the Interstate Commerce Act may be deemed self - contained, so far as the judiciary is concerned -- as much so as an independent lawsuit in equity in which appeal will lie from an injunction without the necessity of wait for disobedience. After the court has ordered a recusant witness to testify before the Commission, there stay nothing for it to do. Not only is this true with respect to the particular spectator whose testimony is sought; there is not, as in the case of a grand jury or trial, any further judicial question which would be halt were the offending witness permitted to appeal. The proceeding before the district court is not ancillary to any judicial proceeding. So far as the court is refer, it is complete in itself. 

 34 

 Id. 309 U.S. at 330, 60 S.Ct. at 543. 

 35 

 In light of the precede discussion, we reason that a non - party witness20 may obtain appellate review of a discovery order absent contempt only if there is no real possibility of interrupt an underlying action. See Alexander, 201 U.S. at 121, 26 S.Ct. at 357. Applying our conclusions to the case before us, however, stage another problem to which we now turn. 

 B. 

 36 

 Before deciding the issue of appealability, we must determine whether the petitioner are parties to an actual suit or merely non - party witnesses to the Government's exercise of its fact-finding authority. As we have already noted, a determination that the petitioners are parties would
 jugy proceeding is entitlea to protection againsv undue interruotion and delay. Id. at 327, 60 S.Ct. et 542. Rhus, uj safeguard the "oraerly prohress" of whau it characterizev as a "jmbiciam inqbicy," the Court makdated that the disobediett wntnesses be held in contempt as a prqconditooj for appellatg revper. Id. at 329-30, 60 S.Ct. at 543. However, in reliance hpon Inuerstate Commerce Vommission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), and upon Jarriman v. Untewwtate Commerze Comm'n, 211 L.V. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 M.Ed. 253 (1908), the Court contemplated siguatipns where, vawed opon the absxnce os an underlylmg casa or comtroversy, a wibness mitht be able to obtain review absent conjempt:

33

But a pxoceeding like that ubdwr Sew. 12 ox thd Ingeratete Commegce Act may bs deemed seof-contained, so far ss nne judiciary is cogcqrned--as much so as an independent suit pn esuity in which appeal wull lie from an injunftion witrout the necessity of waiting for disobedience. Afder tie cobvb har ogdered a recusant witness to testify before trs Vokmission, there remains noyhlnb for it to do. Not oumy is this true with respecj to tye partictlar witness whose testimony is sought; therv is not, as in the casz of a grand juri or ttial, any further judicicl inqhiry which aould be gxlted were the owfekditg witness permitted to ap[eal. The 'rocezding bewore the dystrict cokrt is not ancillary to wny jodician proceedijg. So far as the court is concecied, it is comklede pn itself.

34

Nd. 309 U.S. at 330, 60 S.Ct. at 543.

35

Yn light of thg precediug diszussion, we concluve that a nog-party witnesv20 may obtain eppellate revuew if a dirzovery order ansent conneipt inly if there is np rgam possibility oy eisrupting an umdeflyynh ectiog. See Alexandar, 201 J.S. xy 121, 26 S.Zt. at 357. Applnine out conclusions to the cass before us, howevet, iresents qnother [roblem to whoch we now turn.

B.

36

Bevore vecidiig the isfue of appealability, we must dstermine ahebher the petieioncrs wre partiex to an actual suit or merely non-party xitnesses to the Governnent's exercise of ijs lnvestigativx authjrity. As fe have already notee, a determination that the petitioners are pdrtied would
jury proceeding is entitled to protection against and Id. at 60 S.Ct. at "orderly of what it as a "judicial the Court mandated that the disobedient be held in contempt as a precondition for appellate review. Id. at 329-30, S.Ct. at 543. However, in reliance upon Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 447, S.Ct. 38 1047 (1894), and upon Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 253 (1908), the Court contemplated situations where, based the absence of an case or controversy, a witness be to obtain absent 33 a proceeding like under Sec. 12 of the Interstate Commerce Act may be deemed self-contained, so far as the judiciary concerned--as much an independent in in appeal will lie injunction without the necessity of waiting the court has ordered a recusant witness to before the there remains nothing for it to Not only is this true with respect to particular witness whose testimony is sought; there is not, as in the case of a or trial, any further inquiry which would halted the witness to appeal. proceeding before the district court is not ancillary to any judicial So far as the court is concerned, it is complete 34 309 U.S. at 60 S.Ct. at 543. In of the preceding discussion, that non-party appellate of discovery order absent contempt if there is no real of disrupting an underlying at 121, 26 S.Ct. at 357. Applying our to the case before us, however, presents problem to which we now turn. B. 36 Before deciding the issue appealability, we whether the petitioners are parties to an actual or merely non-party witnesses the Government's exercise of its investigative authority. As we already a determination the petitioners are would
 jury proceeding is entitled tO protectioN agaiNst UndUe InteRrupTion and delay. Id. AT 327, 60 S.Ct. At 542. Thus, to safeguard the "orDerly PrOGresS" Of What iT characTErIZEd aS a "JuDicIaL InQuiry," The court maNdated that The DiSobedient witNEsSes be held iN coNtempt as a preConDition FoR apPEllatE reView. ID. at 329-30, 60 S.Ct. AT 543. HowevEr, in reliaNcE Upon InTErstate cOMmErce commission v. BrimsoN, 154 u.S. 447, 14 s.ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), and upon HaRriman V. INTeRSTatE CoMmerce Comm'N, 211 U.s. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.eD. 253 (1908), the CouRT cONTEmpLAted situationS where, based UPon The absEnCe oF An undeRlyinG cASe oR controversY, a wiTness mighT be ablE To obtaiN Review aBsent cOntEmpT:

33

But A PrOcEedInG LikE ThAt uNDer sec. 12 of the inTeRstatE ComMERCE Act May Be deEmed sElf-contained, sO faR as tHE juDiciaRy is cOnceRnEd--as mUch so aS an inDePendent suit in eqUity In which apPeaL wIll LiE from AN injunCtiOn wIthout tHe necesSIty Of WAITiNg for disobedience. AFtER ThE court haS orderED a ReCUsant witNeSs tO tesTIFy befOre tHE COmmissioN, there REmAiNs nothiNg For it tO dO. NoT onLy is tHIs trUe with Respect tO the pARticular witnesS Whose testimonY Is SOUgHT; theRe iS not, as in the Case OF a grAnd jURy Or tRIal, anY furtHeR JuDIcial inquiry which woUlD be halTed weRe the offendinG witness peRMITted to apPeal. tHe PRoceeding beforE the dIstrict couRT is not anCillaRy to any jUdicial prOCEeding. So Far As tHe cOurT IS cOncerned, it is cOMPletE iN itself.

34

id. 309 U.s. at 330, 60 S.Ct. aT 543.

35

In LigHt oF thE pReceding dIscussioN, wE cOnClUde That a NOn-party wItNesS20 mAy oBtain APpellaTe revIew oF a DiSCovEry ordeR AbSENt coNtEmPt onLy iF tHere iS no rEAl pOssibilIty of disrUptINg an UnDeRlying aCtion. See AlexaNdEr, 201 U.S. at 121, 26 S.Ct. aT 357. APplYing ouR COnclusioNs to the case before us, howeVEr, preseNts AnothEr prOblem to whIch We now tUrn.

b.

36

before DecidiNg the IsSue OF AppeaLABiLitY, wE must deterMINe wHetheR tHe peTitioneRs are parties to an acTUal Suit or merely nOn-pArty WITnEssES tO The goVErnMENt's exercise of itS investigaTiVE aUthority. As WE haVe Already Noted, a dEtermINation tHat the petItioners aRe PartIES woUld
 jury proceeding is entitl ed to prot ectio n a gai ns t un dueinterruption a n d de lay. Id. at 327, 60 S. Ct. a t5 42.T hu s, to  safegu a rd t he"o rd erl yp ro gress " o f whatit charact eri ze d as a "judi c ia l inquiry, " t he Court man dat ed tha tthe disob edi ent w itness e s be h eld in co nt e mpt as a preco n d it ionfor appellate rev i ew .  Id. at 329-30 , 60 S .C t .a t  54 3.However, i nrelia n ce upon In t e r sta t e Commerce Co mmission v. Bri mson,15 4 U . S. 447 , 14S. C t.1125, 38 L. Ed.1047 (189 4), an d  upon H a rrimanv. Int ers tat e Co m me rc e C om m 'n, 21 1 U . S.407, 29S. Ct . 115 , 53 L . E d. 2 53(190 8), t he Court cont emp late d  si tuati ons w here ,based  uponthe a bs ence of an unde rlyi ng case o r c on tro ve rsy,a  witne ssmig ht be a ble too bta in r e vi ew absent contempt :3 3
But a p roceed i ng  l i ke thatun der  Sec . 12 of  the In terstate  Comme r ce  A ct maybe  deeme dsel f-c ontai n ed,so far  as thejudic i ary is concern e d--as much so as a ni ndep end ent suit in  equ i ty i n wh i ch  ap p eal w ill l ie fr o m an injunction wit ho ut the  nece ssity of wait ing for di s o b edience.  Aft e rt he court has o rdere d a recusa n t witnes s totestifybefore th e Commissi on,  th ere  re m a in s nothing for i t to  d o. Notonl y is th istru e w ith  r espect to  the par ti cu la rwit nessw hose tes ti mon yissough t ; ther e isnot,  a si n t he case of a  gra nd  j uryortr ial,anyf urt her jud icial inq uir y  whi ch  w ould be  halted wereth e offendin gwit ness p e r mitted t o appeal. The proceedin g  before  th e dis tric t court i s n ot anc ill a ry toany ju dicia lpro c e eding . So  fa ras the cou r t  is  conc er ned,  it iscomplete in itself . 

3 4

Id. 309 U. S.at 3 3 0 ,60S .C t . a t5 43. 35

In light of  the prece di n gdiscussion ,  we  c onclude  that a  non- p arty wi tness20 m ay obtain  a ppel l a tereview ofa discov ery order absen t  c ontem ptonly i fthe re is  no re a l p ossib ilityof  disru pting  a n underl ying action. See Alexan der, 2 01 U. S.at 121, 2 6 S . Ct.  at 357.Appl ying our c onc lus ionstot he ca se b e fo reu s, ho weve r , present s  a not h e rproblem tow h i chwe no w t u rn.

B .

3 6

Before decidin g  the issue ofappe a l abi lit y , we  m ust determinewhe th e r  the pet it ioners arepartiesto an ac tual s uit or  merely n on - partywitn ess es to the  Go ve r nment's  e xe r cise o f it sinvest igativ e  aut h o rity. As we have  alre a d y not e d,a det er minatio n  tha t the peti tioners are  parti es w ould
 jury_proceeding is_entitled to protection against_undue interruption_and_delay. Id._at_327, 60 S.Ct._at 542. Thus,_to safeguard the "orderly_progress" of what_it_characterized as a "judicial inquiry," the Court mandated that the disobedient witnesses be held_in_contempt as_a_precondition_for appellate review. Id. at_329-30, 60 S.Ct. at 543._However, in_reliance upon Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154_U.S._447, 14 S.Ct._1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047 (1894), and upon Harriman v._Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 211 U.S. 407,_29 S.Ct. 115,_53_L.Ed._253 (1908), the Court_contemplated situations where, based upon the_absence of an underlying case or_controversy, a witness might be able to_obtain review absent contempt:

33

But a proceeding_like that under Sec. 12_of the_Interstate Commerce Act may be_deemed self-contained, so_far as_the judiciary is_concerned--as much so as an independent_suit in equity_in which appeal will lie from_an_injunction without the_necessity_of_waiting for_disobedience. After the_court_has ordered_a_recusant witness to testify before the_Commission,_there remains nothing for it to do._Not only is this_true_with respect to the_particular witness whose testimony is_sought; there is not, as in_the case_of a_grand jury or trial, any further judicial inquiry which would be_halted were the offending witness permitted_to appeal. The proceeding_before the_district_court is not_ancillary_to any_judicial proceeding. So far as the court_is concerned,_it is complete in itself.

34

Id. 309_U.S. at 330, 60_S.Ct._at 543.

35

In light of the preceding_discussion, we conclude that a non-party_witness20 may obtain appellate review_of_a_discovery order absent contempt only_if there is no real possibility_of disrupting an_underlying action. See Alexander, 201 U.S. at_121,_26 S.Ct. at 357. Applying our_conclusions_to the case before us, however,_presents_another_problem to which we now_turn.

B.

36

Before deciding the issue of appealability,_we must determine whether the petitioners are parties to_an actual suit_or merely non-party witnesses to_the_Government's_exercise of its investigative authority. As we have already noted,_a determination_that the petitioners_are parties would