Sedlock by Sedlock v. Bic Corp.
| Citation | 926 F.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | WAL-MART,No. 90-1323,90-1323 |
| Parties | Season SEDLOCK, a minor by her next friend, Brenda K. SEDLOCK and Frank Sedlock, Appellees, v. BIC CORPORATION, Appellant.STORES, INC., and Andover Togs, Inc., v. WESTPOINT PEPPERELL, INC., d/b/a Alamac Knitted Fabrics. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Michael S. Ryan, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
John R. Overchuck, Orlando, Fla., for appellees.
Before ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and McMILLAN, * Senior District Judge.
Season Sedlock brought this product liability action against Bic Corporation claiming a defective Bic cigarette lighter burned her. During the discovery process, Bic refused to produce certain documents and answer certain interrogatories, asserting the discovery sought trade secrets. The district court ordered Bic to produce some of the discovery, but issued an order protecting dissemination of trade secrets at Bic's request. Contrary to Bic's proposal, however, the protective order allows counsel for plaintiffs in similar product liability suits against Bic access to the discovery if notice and hearing are afforded to Bic. Bic appeals the district court's discovery order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Although the discovery order is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), Bic asserts we have jurisdiction to review its appeal under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule, see Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Under Cohen, a collateral order is directly reviewable as a final order if it " 'conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.' " Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 375, 101 S.Ct. 669, 674, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457-58, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)). Assuming without deciding the first two requirements are satisfied, we conclude the discovery order is effectively reviewable on appeal from final judgment, thus, Cohen does not permit us to review the discovery order now.
Generally, pretrial discovery orders are not immediately appealable because they can be effectively reviewed after final judgment. Coleman v. Sherwood Medical Indus., 746 F.2d 445, 446 (8th Cir.1984). Rather, an aggrieved party may defy the order, suffer a contempt citation, and challenge the order on direct appeal of the contempt ruling to obtain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reis, 1D05-576.
-
Remington Arms Co., Inc., In re
...for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 We find the present case to be distinguishable from Sedlock by Sedlock v. Bic Corp., 926 F.2d 757 (8th Cir.1991). There, the district court apparently had given the defendant corporation an opportunity to establish the fact that the re......
-
Tenkku v. Normandy, 99-1930
...discovery orders are not immediately appealable because they can be effectively reviewed after final judgment." Sedlock v. Bic Corp., 926 F.2d 757, 758 (8th Cir. 1991). This rule applies to discovery against a nonparty such as the FDIC when the order is issued by the court in which the main......
-
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., Civil No. 12-2672 (JRT/FLN)
...to the district court to determine whether AEO was sufficient in light of the attorney's alleged past behavior); Sedlock v.Bic Corp., 926 F.2d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding an AEO designation adequate where the attorney's past behavior was not at issue in that case). Monsanto only argue......