Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | 85-5529 and 85-5530,Nos. 85-3423,85-3424,s. 85-3423 |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 1108 |
| Parties | , 54 USLW 2485, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 170 Antonio CIPOLLONE, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants-Petitioners. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation, Petitioners, v. Honorable H. Lee SAROKIN, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Nominal Respondent. Susan HAINES, as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum and Executrix of the Estate of Peter F. Rossi, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a New Jersey Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and the Tobacco Institute, Defendants-Petitioners. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a New Jersey Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation, Petitioners, v. Honorable H. Lee SAROKIN, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Nominal Respondent. Antonio CIPOLLONE, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone, v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and Loews Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation. Appeal of LIGGETT GROUP, INC., Philip Morris Incorporated, and Loew's Theatres, Inc. Susan HAINES, as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum and Executrix of the Estate of Peter F. Rossi v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a New Jersey Corporation; Philip Morris Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and the |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
the District of New Jersey, Nominal Respondent.
Antonio CIPOLLONE, individually and as Executor of the
Estate of Rose D. Cipollone,
v.
LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Philip Morris
Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and Loews
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and
Loew's Theatres, Inc., a New
York Corporation.
Appeal of LIGGETT GROUP, INC., Philip Morris Incorporated,
and Loew's Theatres, Inc.
Susan HAINES, as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum and
Executrix of the Estate of Peter F. Rossi
v.
LIGGETT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Loew's
Theatres, Inc., a New York Corporation, R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., a New Jersey Corporation; Philip Morris
Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation; and the Tobacco Institute.
Appeal of LIGGETT GROUP, INC., Loew's Theatres, Inc., R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Incorporated,
and the Tobacco Institute.
Nos. 85-3423, 85-3424, 85-5529 and 85-5530.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 26, 1985.
Decided March 12, 1986.
Donald C. Cohn (Argued), Alan S. Naar, Paul A. Rowe, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin, Davis & Bergsteind, Newark, N.J., for appellant-petitioner Liggett Group, Inc.
Joel C. Balsam, Sills, Beck, Cummis, Zukerman, Radin, Tischman & Epstein, Newark, N.J., for appellant-petitioner Loew's Theatres, Inc.
Murray H. Bring (Argued), Arnold & Porter, Washington, D.C., Raymond F. Drozdowski, Brown, Connery, Kulp, Wille, Purnell & Greene, Camden, N.J., for appellant-petitioner Philip Morris, Inc.
Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, N.J., for appellant-petitioner R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
John T. Dolan, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, Newark, N.J., for appellant-petitioner The Tobacco Institute, Inc.
Marc Z. Edell (Argued), Lisa Murtha, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, Morristown, N.J., for appellees-plaintiffs Antonio Cipollone and Susan Haines.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BECKER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
These appeals require us to apply the principles and case law pertaining to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to a claim that certain materials obtained in civil discovery but alleged by the producing party to be confidential may be disclosed by the discovering party to the public. We must also consider whether we have appellate jurisdiction over the district court's interlocutory order permitting disclosure of the materials.
The appeal arises from two of the several cases nationwide in which cigarette smokers or their personal representatives have instituted product liability suits against tobacco companies. In both cases, the parties had already engaged in extensive discovery, including production of a very large number of documents by defendants, when the defendants sought protective orders that would prevent the dissemination, either to the public or to counsel in other similar cases, of any documents they had produced or would produce during discovery. 1 A federal magistrate entered identical protective orders in both cases along the lines requested by the defendants.
On appeal from the magistrate's orders, the district court substantially revised them. The court altered the procedure that the magistrate's orders had established for deciding disputed claims of confidentiality, and restricted the orders' scope so that release of the documents to the press and public would have followed almost as of course but for this appeal. The revised orders also permitted the documents to be used in other cases in which plaintiffs' counsel was the counsel of record.
The defendants thereupon appealed to this Court and petitioned for mandamus, asserting that the revised orders violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and reflected a skewed reading of Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984). The defendants also moved for an expedited appeal and a stay of the district court's orders, as well as reinstatement of the magistrate's orders pending appeal. We granted those motions. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals for want of appellate jurisdiction, and also moved to dismiss the petition for mandamus.
We hold that: (1) we do not have jurisdiction to review the order pursuant to the collateral order doctrine as enunciated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); (2) we do have mandamus jurisdiction to review the order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 (1982); (3) because the district court's reading of Seattle Times constituted a clear error of law, the ruling on the defendants' motion for protective orders was incorrect; and (4) the district court also clearly erred in relying on Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984) to exercise plenary review of the magistrate's protective order, for the court was bound to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard. We therefore grant the writ of mandamus. To assist the district court in future proceedings, we discuss two additional points relevant to this case: the definition of "good cause," and the administration of protective order proceedings.
Rose Cipollone and her husband Antonio filed a complaint against Liggett Group, Inc., Phillip Morris, Inc., and Loew's Theaters, Inc., all manufacturers of cigarettes, 2 in the district court for the District of New Jersey on August 1, 1983. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants manufactured or sold cigarettes and that Rose Cipollone had smoked defendants' cigarettes for almost forty years. As a result of her smoking, the complaint alleged, she acquired bronchogenic carcinoma and other personal injuries; it further alleged that she had experienced severe pain and suffering and that her illness had caused her--and would continue to cause her--great expense. Plaintiffs sought compensation for Rose Cipollone's injuries, suing under theories of negligence and strict liability. Central to plaintiffs' case was their allegation that defendants had withheld scientific evidence from the public and had misrepresented the effects upon health of smoking cigarettes. They also sought compensation for Antonio Cipollone's loss of consortium.
Shortly thereafter, Susan Haines as administratrix ad prosequendum and executrix of the Estate of Peter F. Rossi brought suit in the same court against the same three defendants as well as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the Tobacco Institute, Inc. Haines was represented by the same attorney who represented the Cipollones. Jurisdiction was based on diversity, and once again the complaint alleged tortious conduct sounding in strict liability and negligence. The complaint also included an allegation of misrepresentation. The plaintiff sought compensation for the decedent's pain and suffering and for his death, which she alleged was the result of his smoking defendants' cigarettes.
The district court ordered discovery in both cases under the supervision of a federal magistrate. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(A) (1982). Discovery proceeded until March 1985, and a large number of documents were produced by the defendants for inspection pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. On that date, the defendants moved for an "umbrella" protective order. The defendants argued that such an order would facilitate the discovery process by reducing the number of occasions for lawyers' conferences and discussions about the confidentiality of particular documents. Defendants also argued that they had good cause for the protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) 3 and that the closely analogous Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984), permitted a protective order in this case. Plaintiffs objected to the defendants' proposal, countering that the defendants' real purpose was to make it impossible for plaintiffs in other suits against the cigarette companies to share information gathered from the defendants. The defendants' strategy, said plaintiffs, was to raise the expense of litigation for future plaintiffs, thus making the cost of suits prohibitive.
After hearing the matter, the magistrate found for defendants. On March 25, 1985, he entered identical protective orders in both cases. The crucial aspects of the protective orders may be summarized as follows: (a) "all information" produced in discovery, presumably confidential and nonconfidential alike, could be used only for the instant cases and not for other cases or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.
..."broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning." Id. (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986) ). The Court has little difficulty in finding that Plaintiffs have met their burden in demonstrating that good cause ......
-
McKenna v. Pacific Rail Service
...to determine whether that decision was "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(A); Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1120 (3d Cir.1986). The question before the magistrate judge, the district court and us does not, as Pacific Rail argues, arise in the......
-
Public Interest Research Group v. Hercules, Inc.
...upon a non-dispositive motion can only be set aside if found to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1113 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976, 108 S.Ct. 487, 98 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987). Particularly in discovery motions, a Magistrate J......
-
Pierce v. Blaine
...issues raised in this appeal without touching on an issue central to the merits of the habeas petition. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1117 (3d Cir.1986); New York v. U.S. Metals Refining Co., 771 F.2d 796, 799-800 (3d Second, the Commonwealth's cases do not support ap......
-
The Apex Doctrine And Depositions Of High-Level Executives: The Divide Among Circuit Courts
...test: if there is a particularized harm, then the private and public interests should be balanced. See Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986); Smith v. BIC Corp., 869 F.2d 194, 201 (3d Cir. 1989); Glenmede Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995); Ph......
-
Privileges
...reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Live-say , 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978); Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. , 785 F.2d 1108, 1117 (3d Cir. 1986) (applying the Coopers & Lybrand case in the attorney-client privilege context). Review by writ of mandamus. NOTE: Ge......
-
Privileges
...reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Live-say , 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978); Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. , 785 F.2d 1108, 1117 (3d Cir. 1986) (applying the Coopers & Lybrand case in the attorney-client privilege context). Review by writ of mandamus. NOTE: Ge......
-
Interrogatories
...181 F.R.D. 441 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 141 Meese v. Eaton Mfg. Co., 35 F.R.D. 162 (N.D.Ohio 1964). 142 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3rd Cir. 1986); Doe v. National Hemophilia Foundation, 194 F.R.D. 516 (D.Md. 2000). See also EEOC v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 195 F.R.D. 678 (D.K......
-
Privileges
...reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Live-say , 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978); Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. , 785 F.2d 1108, 1117 (3d Cir. 1986) (applying the Coopers & Lybrand case in the attorney-client privilege context). Review by writ of mandamus. NOTE: Ge......