Fish and Neave, In re, No. 75-1183
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, LAY, Circuit Judge, and REGAN; MILES W. LORD |
| Citation | 519 F.2d 116 |
| Parties | 1975-2 Trade Cases 60,500 In re Subpoenas addressed to FISH & NEAVE and Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1183 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1975 |
Page 116
Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, Appellants.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided June 11, 1975.
Sheldon Oliensis, New York City, for appellants.
Paul Owens, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, LAY, Circuit Judge, and REGAN, District Judge. *
This matter comes before us on appeal from citations for civil contempt of individual lawyers and law firms for refusal to produce certain documents for in camera inspection subpoenaed under the federal rules relative to ongoing litigation in the case of United States v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., filed in July 1969.
The history of the proceedings is set forth in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law filed April 15, 1975, appended to this order. 1 After
Page 117
review of the briefs and record this court concludes that the district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and we find the subpoenas valid.This matter is remanded to the district court and appellants are directed to comply with the subpoenas by submitting the documents for in camera inspection by the Special Masters and the district court. Appellants shall group those matters which they claim not to be discoverable and shall particularize their objections as the masters may direct. The claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product were specifically reserved by the district court. Until such a determination has been made by the district court, submission of this issue to this court is premature. If appellants fail to submit the documents to the district court within 20 days, the fines imposed by the district court shall thereafter commence, subject to modification by the district judge.
It is so ordered.
MILES W. LORD, District Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., and based on all files, records, memoranda, and arguments of counsel for all parties, both orally and in writing, the Court makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.
(1) On November 21, 1974, this Court authorized the issuance of trial subpoenas, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 23.
(2) The subpoenas were subpoenas duces tecum that called for the production of approximately 150 documents which are in the possession, custody, or control of the Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts law firm or the firm of Fish & Neave and which are presently within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. A list that identified these 150 documents by author's name, addressee's name, and a brief description of the subject matter was also sought.
(3) On February 26, 1975, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the subpoenas were served personally on Merrell E. Clark, a partner in the Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts law firm and Henry J. Zafian, the managing partner of the law firm of Fish & Neave.
(4) At that time and presently, all parties to the subpoenas are before the Court in the case of United States v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., filed July 15, 1969.
(5) To insure that privileged documents were not in the documents turned over to the government because of these subpoenas, the attorneys were instructed to segregate those documents upon which they claimed privilege and to produce them to the Court for in camera inspection.
(6) The documents sought by the United States are relevant to the issues now on trial since both law firms were counsel for Bristol-Myers Co. during the period 1954-56 when Bristol was seeking its antibiotic patents in this area and was involved in litigation with Cyanamid and Pfizer. This litigation is of critical importance since it is plaintiffs' contention that through this lawsuit, Bristol became aware of the illegal activities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., No. 77-1474
...Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord, 522 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 424 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1421, 47 L.Ed.2d 356 (1976); In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1975); Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp., No. 74-1425 (8th Cir. July 26, 1974); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 545 (8th......
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...In re Cordova Gonzalez, 726 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2154, 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir.1975). Finally, some cases hold that there is no jurisdiction over an attorney's immediate appeal of a sanction order, either under th......
-
Murphy, In re, Nos. 76-1916 and 76-1931
...sustained the validity of the subpoenas and ordered the law firms to submit the documents for in camera review. In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 8 In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on its prior decision in Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 4......
-
Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, G.m.b.H., MAICO-FAHRZEUGFABRI
...to or an officer of a party, an appeal generally need not wait until final judgment in the case as a whole. See In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1975) (attorney may appeal civil contempt sanction); David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 416-17 (9th Cir. 1977) (officer of party may a......
-
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., No. 77-1474
...Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord, 522 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 424 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1421, 47 L.Ed.2d 356 (1976); In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1975); Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp., No. 74-1425 (8th Cir. July 26, 1974); Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 545 (8th......
-
Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, No. 85-1996
...In re Cordova Gonzalez, 726 F.2d 16 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2154, 80 L.Ed.2d 540 (1984); In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir.1975). Finally, some cases hold that there is no jurisdiction over an attorney's immediate appeal of a sanction order, either under th......
-
Murphy, In re, Nos. 76-1916 and 76-1931
...sustained the validity of the subpoenas and ordered the law firms to submit the documents for in camera review. In re Fish & Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 8 In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on its prior decision in Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 4......
-
Solargen Elec. Motor Car Corp. v. Am. Motors Corp., No. 80-Civ-3809
...grounds for the issuance of a protective order, such as the existence of a privilege. Id. See In re Subpoenas Addressed to Fish and Neave, 519 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1975); Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. City of Burlington, Vt., 351 F.2d 762 (D.C.Cir. 1965); Biliske v. American Live-Stock......