Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., No. 94-2752
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and FAIRCHILD; POSNER |
| Citation | 32 F.3d 1175 |
| Parties | ALLENDALE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Factory Mutual International, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BULL DATA SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Zenith Data Systems France, Zenith Data Systems Europe, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 19 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2752 |
Page 1175
International, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BULL DATA SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Zenith Data Systems France,
Zenith Data Systems Europe, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Seventh Circuit.
Decided Aug. 19, 1994.
Page 1176
Robert Michael Kalec (submitted), Altheimer & Gray, Chicago, IL, Franklin M. Sachs, Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Newark, NJ, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Bruce E. Fader, Steven C. Krane, Nancy J. Kilson, James F. Parver, Pamela L. Dreizen, Patricia J. Clarke, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, George L. Saunders, Jr., Thomas F. Bush, Jr., Thomas A. Doyle, Saunders & Monroe, Chicago, IL, for Bull Data Systems, Inc., Zenith Data Systems France, Zenith Data Systems Europe.
Marc L. Fogelberg, Nancy L. Pionk, William M. Stevens, McBride, Baker & Coles, Chicago, IL, for Alexander & Alexander, Inc.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Chief Judge.
Marx once said that every great event or character in history appears twice, the first time as tragedy and the second as farce (he had in mind Napoleon and his nephew). This case bids fair to illustrate the adage. In its previous appearance before this court, we were asked to set aside an injunction against the defendants' trying to litigate before a French arbitral tribunal their dispute with the plaintiff insurance company (Allendale) over liability for the damage caused by a fire which destroyed the contents of the warehouse in France in which the defendants, collectively Groupe Bull, had stored their huge inventory of unsold computers and related goods. Allendale had brought suit in this country to establish its nonliability on the ground that the fire was due to arson committed by the defendants themselves. Groupe Bull brought a countersuit in the same court. Discovery was proceeding apace, and the date of trial was drawing near; the question was whether the defendants should, nevertheless, be allowed to pursue a parallel suit in France. The district judge thought not, and we upheld his injunction. 10 F.3d 425 (7th Cir.1993).
The most important witness to the fire--the only person inside the warehouse when it started and spread--was the nightwatchman, a Frenchman named Pascal Thomas. With the trial rapidly approaching (it is scheduled to begin on September 19), Allendale, which apparently had not tried to depose Thomas, invited him to come to the United States, at its expense, to discuss his testimony. According to the defendants, Allendale offered Mr. Thomas up to $10 million for favorable testimony, as well as trying to soften him up with an all-expenses Grand Tour of the United States and secreting him from the defendants' lawyers, who wanted to depose him. The defendants asked the district judge to order Allendale to disclose Thomas's whereabouts to them so that they could depose him, and to desist from its ex parte dealings with him. The judge issued the order requested by the defendants, and Allendale has appealed. A stay of the order being denied, Thomas was disclosed and, on July 26, deposed. At his deposition, he answered all interesting questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. The defendants speculate that if permitted to resume ex parte contacts with Thomas, Allendale will "somehow persuade Mr. Thomas to surrender his rights and provide them with the useful 'information' that they have been trying to get from him for nearly three years." One imagines that $10 million would be a pretty powerful persuader.
These are lurid accusations, in fact defamatory, but it is privileged defamation, and, for all we know, true. But with that we
Page 1177
shall have nothing to do; we start and end with the question of our appellate jurisdiction. Section 1292(a)(1) confers appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory injunctions. An injunction is an order to do or not to do something, and the order that Allendale seeks to appeal is both: it orders Allendale to disclose Thomas's whereabouts, and it orders Allendale to stop meeting with him privately. The first part of the order is now moot, but the second is not and Allendale argues that it is an injunction and therefore appealable.We do not agree. It is a discovery order, and such orders, while they have the form of an injunction (an order to do or not to do something, as distinct from an award of damages or a sentence of a fine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v. Magnant, Nos. 93-3255
...Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987); Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 32 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir.1994); Reise v. University of Wisconsin, 957 F.2d 293 (7th Cir.1992); In re Springfield, 818 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.1987); Uehlein v. Jackson......
-
Am. Bank v. City of Menasha, No. 10-1963
...being interlocutory, generally are not appealable in the federal court system, Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir.1994); Goodman v. Harris County, 443 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir.2006); International Products Corp. v. Koons, 325 F.2d 403, 406 (2d Ci......
-
In re Vos, Document: 00713430352
...11Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................ 1Bagley v. Blagojevich, 646 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2011) .......................................................
-
Harrisonville Telephone v. Illinois Commerce, No. CIV. 06-73-GPM.
...1080 must refuse compliance, be held in contempt, and then appeal the contempt order."); Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir.1994) (a district court's order prohibiting a plaintiff from meeting privately with a witness was a discovery order and not i......
-
Mercer v. Magnant, Nos. 93-3255
...Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987); Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 32 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir.1994); Reise v. University of Wisconsin, 957 F.2d 293 (7th Cir.1992); In re Springfield, 818 F.2d 565 (7th Cir.1987); Uehlein v. Jackson......
-
Am. Bank v. City of Menasha, No. 10-1963
...being interlocutory, generally are not appealable in the federal court system, Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir.1994); Goodman v. Harris County, 443 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir.2006); International Products Corp. v. Koons, 325 F.2d 403, 406 (2d Ci......
-
In re Vos, Document: 00713430352
...11Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................ 1Bagley v. Blagojevich, 646 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2011) .......................................................
-
Harrisonville Telephone v. Illinois Commerce, No. CIV. 06-73-GPM.
...1080 must refuse compliance, be held in contempt, and then appeal the contempt order."); Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir.1994) (a district court's order prohibiting a plaintiff from meeting privately with a witness was a discovery order and not i......