a sanctions motion, as it was clearly injured by the fraud. Because neither Silverstein nor YCST were aggrieved by the sanctions imposed on JTR and Miscovich’s estate, neither may appeal the order granting them. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Only a litigant who is aggrieved by the judgment or order may appeal.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We also agree that the district court had more than sufficient basis to invoke the crime-fraud exception. There can be no serious dispute with the court’s finding of a “massive fraud of the court.” The district court was authorized to compel discovery which would reveal existence of the fraud as well as efforts to conceal it. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 842 F.2d 1223 (11th Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>); see also In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours &
holding that state and city tax evasion considered relevant conduct under conviction for federal tax evasion holding that franchisees tax evasion scheme provided cause for termination holding crimefraud exception applied to testimony of attorney and accountant who prepared his clients tax returns during grand jury investigation for tax evasion holding that agency could not claim confidentiality for tax returns that had been exhibits in tax court and were therefore public records holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns