COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA


Present:  Judges Frank, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
Argued at Salem, Virginia


BLUE FOX, INC.
			MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v.	Record No. 2400-00-3	JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III
									MAY 22, 2001
TIMOTHY F. ROGERS


	FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY
Thomas H. Wood, Judge

		(Nancy A. Frank; Edmunds, Willetts & Frank, 
P.C., on brief), for appellant.  Appellant 
submitting on brief.

		Frankie C. Coyner for appellee.


	This appeal involves a discovery dispute that arose in a 
divorce proceeding between Timothy F. Rogers and his wife, Barbara 
Rogers.  In the divorce action, Timothy Rogers obtained a subpoena 
duces tecum from the circuit court for various corporate documents 
from appellant Blue Fox, Inc., a witness in the divorce.  Barbara 
Rogers is an employee of Blue Fox, a company primarily owned and 
operated by her father.  Blue Fox sought to quash the subpoena 
duces tecum and now appeals the order of the circuit court denying 
its motion.
	Code  17.1-405, provides "[a]ny aggrieved party may appeal" 
to this Court from "any final judgment, order, or decree of a 
circuit court" involving divorce or other domestic relations 
matters.  That statute further defines this Court's jurisdiction 
to include "[a]ny interlocutory decree or order . . . (i) 
granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction or (ii) 
adjudicating the principles of a cause."  Id.  
	We dismiss this appeal on two grounds.  First, because Blue 
Fox is a third party witness to the divorce proceeding and is not 
an "aggrieved party" under Code  17.1-405, and, second, because 
the order denying Blue Fox's motion to quash the subpoena is 
interlocutory in nature and is not a final judgment, order, or 
decree.  
	In this case, Blue Fox was not a party to the underlying 
divorce proceedings.  "A person cannot appeal a case to which he 
is not a party."  Tidewater Psychiatric Institute v. Buttery, 8 
Va. App. 380, 383, 382 S.E.2d 288, 290 (1989).  Unless and until 
Blue Fox refuses to comply with the discovery order and is found 
in civil contempt by the court, it will not be a "party" to a 
case or controversy with standing to appeal.  See HCA Health 
Services v. Levin, 260 Va. 215, 219, 530 S.E.2d 417, 419 (2000).
	Furthermore, the circuit court order from which Blue Fox 
appeals is not a final order.  "A final decision is one 'which 
disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief that is 
contemplated and leaves nothing to be done by the court.'"  
Hoyle v. Virginia Employment Commission, 24 Va. App. 533, 537, 
484 S.E.2d 132, 133 (1997) (quoting Southwest Va. Hosps. v. 
Lipps, 193 Va. 191, 193, 68 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1951) (citation 
omitted)).  
	"Ordinarily, a trial court's discovery orders are not 
subject to review on direct appeal because they are not final 
within the contemplation of Code  [17.1-405]."  America Online 
v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 261 Va. 350, 358, 542 S.E.2d 
377, 381 (2001) (holding, however, that an order granting or 
refusing a protective order in a proceeding brought in this 
Commonwealth under the Uniform Foreign Deposition Act is a final 
order subject to appellate review).  The "order in dispute 
neither adjudicates the underlying cause nor relates to an 
attendant injunction, but simply resolves an issue arising from 
discovery incidental to the claim, clearly an interlocutory 
determination over which this Court has no jurisdiction."  City 
of Richmond-Fire & Emergency v. Brandon, 32 Va. App. 787, 789, 
531 S.E.2d 22, 23 (2000).
	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 
										Dismissed.
* Pursuant to Code  17.1-413, this opinion is not 
designated for publication.