Multistate Tax Commission v. U.S. Steel Corp., s. 80-3457
| Decision Date | 07 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-3457,80-3494,s. 80-3457 |
| Parties | MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION, Eugene F. Corrigan, et al., Petitioners/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, et al., Respondents/Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William D. Dexter, Tumwater, Wash., for Multistate Tax Com'n.
Dale G. Higer, Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow & Gillespie, Boise, Idaho, Neil Papiano, Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, Los Angeles, Cal., for U. S. Steel Corp.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
Before KILKENNY and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
This is an action by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) seeking an order compelling production of documents for its audit of United States Steel Corporation. These appeals are from the district court's order delineating the rights and duties of the parties.
The district court stayed its order pending this appeal, but conditioned the stay upon the filing by U.S. Steel of a 60-day waiver of the statute of limitations. Such a condition was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1962); Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183, 188-89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 912, 79 S.Ct. 1297, 3 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1959); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c).
The district court did not consider any issues concerning the effectiveness of the waiver and the continued viability of the audit in the light of provisional assessments issued by some states. No such questions are properly before us.
The contested issues with respect to the substance of the order itself concern, first, the ruling that U.S. Steel should permit inspection of allegedly proprietary information, and second, the prohibition against MTC's copying U.S. Steel documents. The first issue could well have been avoided by an in camera inspection by the district court to determine whether the documents in question do in fact contain information which should not be disclosed. We conclude that such an inspection would still be helpful in the circumstances. The district court's order should be modified to provide for disclosure of the disputed materials subject to in camera inspection upon motion by U.S. Steel. With respect to copying, we believe that if, after MTC has completed its final inspection, it wishes to have copies of a reasonable number of documents, it may apply to the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
...Our authority to modify a district court order derives from 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1976). See also Multistate Tax Commission v. United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (affirming a district court order as 8 We take judicial notice that MDL-450 was decided on July......
-
Trump's Castle Associates v. Tallone
...back as Taylor Iron and Steel Co. v. Nichols, 73 N.J.Eq. 684, 690, 69 A. 186 (E. & A.1908); see also Multistate Tax Commissioner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931, 933 (9th Cir.1981); Management Assistance, Inc. v. Computer Dimensions, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 666, 678 (N.D.Ga.1982), aff'd sub nom......
-
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board
...audit the operations of such taxpayers, and compel the production of information necessary for the audit.4 In Multistate Tax Com'n v. United States Steel Corp. (1981) 659 F.2d 931, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's determination that inspection of the withheld i......
-
Multistate Tax Com'n v. U.S. Steel Corp., 83-3611
...which affirmed the order as modified to permit in camera inspection of certain sensitive documents. Multistate Tax Commission v. United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931 (9 Cir.1981). Meanwhile, to avoid the statute of limitations bar, the eight states participating in the audit issued defic......