U.S. Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 80-1647
| Decision Date | 12 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1647,80-1647 |
| Citation | 663 F.2d 68 |
| Parties | 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 459 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gobel MATTINGLY, et al., Defendants. Eugene E. MORRIS, Etc., Plaintiffs, v. Gobel MATTINGLY, et al., Defendants. Bruce W. Christ, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Lee Dale, Sherman & Howard, Denver, Colo., John R. McCall, Middleton & Reutlinger, Louisville, Ky., for United States Steel Corporation.
Joseph F. Dolan, U.S. Atty., C. Scott Crabtree, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., Leonard Schaitman, John C. Hoyle, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Benjamin Civiletti, Atty. Gen., Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., William P. Arnold, David H. White, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Bruce W. Christ.
Before BARRETT, BREITENSTEIN and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of appellee, United States Steel Corporation, to vacate the order of this Court granting the government's motion for temporary stay of the order of the United States District Court compelling enforcement of a subpoena directed by United States Steel Corporation against appellant, Bruce W. Christ, an employee of the Bureau of Standards.
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments, we have concluded that the motion of United States Steel Corporation for vacation of our temporary stay must be denied and that the merits of this dispute are controlled by United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417 (1951) and Saunders v. The Great Western Sugar Company, 396 F.2d 794 (10th Cir. 1968). Thus, we hold that the District Court erred in enforcing the subpoena.
The judgment of the District Court, 89 F.R.D. 301, is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to recall the subpoena and dismiss all proceedings with regard thereto.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ceroni v. 4front Engineered Solutions Inc.
...Circuit Court of Appeals— Saunders v. Great Western Sugar Co., 396 F.2d 794 (10th Cir.1968), and United States Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 663 F.2d 68 (10th Cir.1980)—in its argument that it is not required to comply with the subpoenas. [793 F.Supp.2d 1273] In Saunders the Small Business Admi......
-
Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
...(1967). At least the 10th Circuit has done likewise. See Hefley v. Textron, Inc., 713 F.2d 1487 (10th Cir.1983); United States Steel v. Mattingly, 663 F.2d 68 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 980, 101 S.Ct. 1515, 67 L.Ed.2d 815 (1981); Saunders v. Great Western Sugar Co., 396 F.2d 79......
-
Lindenau v. Alexander, 80-1066
...... See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. (, 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450). In this ......
-
Smith v. CRC Builders Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 82-F-2120.
...the Tenth Circuit has recognized the continuing vitality of Boske and Touhy in several post-1958 cases. In United States Steel Corporation v. Mattingly, 663 F.2d 68 (10th Cir.1980), the Tenth Circuit reversed a District Court order compelling enforcement of a subpoena against an employee of......
-
How to Properly Seek Testimony or Documents from a Federal Agency
...Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 89 FRD 301 (D.Colo. 1980) (Mattingly I). [43] Id. at 302. [44] Id. at 304. [45] U.S. Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 663 F.2d 68 (10th Cir. 1980) (Mattingly II). [46] Id. [47] See, e.g., Kansas v. Call, 961 F.2d 220 (table) (10th Cir. 1992) (quashing subpoena on nonparty......
-
Subpoenaing Federal Government Witnesses and Documents: an Overview of Touhy Regulations
...85th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3352, 3352. 4. 5 U.S.C. § 301. 5. See also U.S. Steel Corp. v. Mattingly, 663 F.2d 68 (10th Cir. 1980) (background discussed at 89 F.R.D. 301 (D.Colo. 1980)); Saunders v. Great Western Sugar Co., 396 F.2d 794 (10th Cir. 1968). 6.......