1. In a civil defamation case where a discovery protective order is filed to shelter evidence of crimes, does a District Court err in affirming the disqualification of Petitioner's counsel of choice for violating the protective order, where she was obligated by state statute (MCL 750.149) to report criminal activity found in the discovery documents to law enforcement?

2. Where a civil litigant's right to retain counsel is rooted in Fifth Amendment notions of due process, was it a violation of Petitioner's constitutional rights for the District Court to disqualify his counsel of choice and for the Court of Appeals to refuse to hear this substantive and directly impactful ruling on jurisdictional grounds? See, e.g., Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1118 (5th Cir. 1980); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932); Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2010).

Whether a District Court erred in disqualifying counsel of choice in a civil defamation case for violating a protective order by reporting potential criminal activity to law enforcement, and whether such disqualification violates the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights