926 F.2d 757 (8th Cir. 1991), 90-1323, Sedlock by Sedlock v. Bic Corp.

Docket Nº:90-1323.
Citation:926 F.2d 757
Party Name:Season SEDLOCK, a minor by her next friend, Brenda K. SEDLOCK and Frank Sedlock, Appellees, v. BIC CORPORATION, Appellant. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Andover Togs, Inc., v. WESTPOINT PEPPERELL, INC., d/b/a Alamac Knitted Fabrics.
Case Date:February 26, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 757

926 F.2d 757 (8th Cir. 1991)

Season SEDLOCK, a minor by her next friend, Brenda K.

SEDLOCK and Frank Sedlock, Appellees,

v.

BIC CORPORATION, Appellant.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Andover Togs, Inc.,

v.

WESTPOINT PEPPERELL, INC., d/b/a Alamac Knitted Fabrics.

No. 90-1323.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

February 26, 1991

Submitted Oct. 10, 1990.

Page 758

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.

FAGG, Circuit 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP