Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 92-55677

• Decision Date: 23 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. 92-55677,92-55677
• Citation: 54 F.3d 1422
• Parties: Lawrence EPSTEIN; John Linder; Jane Rockford, as trustee of the Michael J. Rockford Trust; Maurice Karlin; Ruth Karlin; Beth Ann Karlin; Bert P. Karlin; Walter Minton, Plaintiffs, v. MCA, INC.; Matsushita Acquisition Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Matsushita Holding Corporation; Lew Wasserman; Sidney J. Sheinberg, Defendant-Appellees. Roger W. Kirby; Kaufman, Malchman, Kaufmann & Kirby, Applicants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1422

54 F.3d 1422

32 Fed.R.Serv.3d 840

Lawrence EPSTEIN; John Linder; Jane Rockford, as trustee of the Michael J. Rockford Trust; Maurice Karlin Ruth Karlin; Beth Ann Karlin; Bert P Karlin; Walter Minton, Plaintiffs, v. MCA, INC.; Matsushita Acquisition Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Matsushita Holding Corporation; Lew Wasserman; Sidney J Sheinberg, Defendant-Appellees Roger W. Kirby; Kaufman, Malchman, Kaufmann & Kirby, Applicants-Appellants.

No. 92-55677.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 1993.

Submission Vacated Aug. 13, 1993.

Resubmitted Oct. 12, 1994.

Memorandum Filed Feb. 24, 1995.

Order and Opinion Filed May 23, 1995.

Irving Malchman, Roger W. Kirby, and Ernest T. Kaufman, Kaufman, Malchman, Kirby & Squire, New York City, for Epstein plaintiffs-applicants-appellants.

Barry R. Ostrager and Mary Kay Vyskocil, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for Matsushita and MCA, defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before: NORRIS, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on February 24, 1995 is redesignated as a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in holding the Epstein plaintiffs and their counsel in contempt of court for failing to comply with a discovery order. Resolution of this question depends, as an initial matter, on whether the district court's order to compel plaintiffs to comply with Matsushita's discovery requests was proper. Because we hold that it was not, we vacate the district court's order holding plaintiffs and their counsel in contempt. See Thomassen v. United States, 835 F.2d 727, 732 (9th Cir.1987) (when order with which contemnor failed to comply is vacated on appeal, "the contempt order naturally falls because it is predicated on" the vacated order).

Matsushita requested from all plaintiffs in this case detailed information about (1) whether plaintiffs owned MCA shares, (2) how they invested their tender offer proceeds, (3) whether their investment history made it likely that they would have elected to receive Wasserman's preferred stock instead of cash, and (4) whether they would in any event pay taxes on the cash proceeds they received.

An order compelling a party to comply with discovery requests is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a "broad right of discovery" because "wide access to relevant facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for the truth." Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.1993). However, the right of a party to obtain discovery is not unlimited. A discovery request must be " 'relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action' or 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' " Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)).

The first piece of information Matsushita sought to obtain through discovery--whether plaintiffs owned MCA stock--is without doubt relevant to the subject...