Rouse Const. Intern., Inc. v. Rouse Const. Corp., No. 81-7655

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore VANCE, JOHNSON and HENDERSON; VANCE
Citation680 F.2d 743
PartiesROUSE CONSTRUCTION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROUSE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; Conoc, Incorporated; Mr. Gerald Kadonoff; Mrs. Joan Kadonoff; and Mr. Salvatore Dilandro, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date16 July 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-7655

Page 743

680 F.2d 743
ROUSE CONSTRUCTION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROUSE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; Conoc, Incorporated; Mr.
Gerald Kadonoff; Mrs. Joan Kadonoff; and Mr.
Salvatore Dilandro, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 81-7655.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
July 16, 1982.

Page 744

Wasson, Sours & Harris, W. Hensell Harris, Jr., T. Bart Gary, John D. Sours, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellants; J. Richard Margulies, Ashton, Md., of counsel.

Griffin, Cochran & Marshall, Bowman S. Garrett, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before VANCE, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

VANCE, Circuit Judge:

In 1973 appellee, Rouse Construction International, Inc. (Rouse International), entered into a licensing agreement with appellants, collectively referred to as Rouse Construction. The agreement licensed appellants to use the name Rouse Construction and transferred to them approximately $6,000,000 in extant construction contracts in exchange for $9,500 and twenty-five percent of Rouse Construction's net pre-tax profits in the years 1974 to 1994. The agreement also provided that the parties would resort to arbitration in the event of a dispute over the terms of the contract.

A dispute over fees 1 soon arose and Rouse International filed a demand for arbitration on August 4, 1977. The arbitration panel rendered a decision for Rouse International on July 28, 1979 and ordered Rouse Construction to pay the twenty-five percent of net pre-tax profits called for in the contract. The award also changed the accounting method, the accounting period, and the triggering event for the determination of the amounts due under the contract. On September 4, 1979 Rouse International requested that the arbitration panel expand its award to grant Rouse International the right to inspect Rouse Construction's books without supervision. The panel denied the request, stating that its award adequately defined the rights and obligations of the parties. On July 11, 1980 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia confirmed the arbitration award, but it expressly excluded from the confirmation the panel's refusal to modify the award.

Prior to the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award, Rouse Construction transmitted to Rouse International its financial statements for the first three years of the contract accompanied by a certified public accountant's opinion letter. The statements and opinion letter claimed that Rouse Construction had not cleared a net pre-tax profit for any of the three years in question and that no fees were due under the contract and award. On June 26, 1980 Rouse Construction transmitted to Rouse International its financial statements for the 1980 fiscal year and an accompanying opinion letter, which again reported no pre-tax profits. Seeking to verify the claimed lack of profits, Rouse International served Rouse Construction on March 4, 1981 with a post-judgment discovery request pursuant to rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Rouse Construction moved for

Page 745

a protective order, 3 and Rouse International moved to compel discovery. 4 Rouse International argued that in light of substantial pre-arbitration profits and the ease with which financial statements can be manipulated, an independent audit of Rouse Construction's books was needed to verify compliance with the arbitration award. The district court granted the discovery request and this appeal followed.

At the outset, we are confronted with a challenge to our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Rouse International argues that the grant of discovery by the district court was not an appealable final order, so the issue raised by this case is not yet ripe for review. We agree and accordingly we dismiss the appeal. 5

The courts of appeals "have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States ... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 6 As a general proposition most orders granting or denying discovery are not final orders within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • International Horizons, Inc., Matter of, No. 82-8024
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1982
    ...1001 orders ... and therefore are not immediately appealable." Rouse Construction International, Inc. v. Rouse Construction Corporation, 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). 9 "Ordinarily, a litigant seeking to overturn a discovery order has (only) two choices. Either he can comply with the ......
  • Ofs Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., No. 07-10200.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 28, 2008
    ...Cir.2008). Therefore, discovery orders are normally not immediately appealable. Id.; Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir.1982). Congress has not statutorily authorized interlocutory appellate review for discovery motions, and for sound policy reason......
  • Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, In re, JOHNS-MANVILLE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 2, 1994
    ...1449 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 295, 121 L.Ed.2d 219 (1992); Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 746 (11th 12 This section reads: (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transf......
  • Depuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 2020-1514
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • March 12, 2021
    ...is exchanged between the parties, there is generally no issue of public access. See Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp. , 680 F.2d 743, 745–46 (11th Cir. 1982) ; see also Awuah , 585 F.3d at 483 (collecting cases to this effect). But where the protective order purports to addre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • International Horizons, Inc., Matter of, No. 82-8024
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1982
    ...1001 orders ... and therefore are not immediately appealable." Rouse Construction International, Inc. v. Rouse Construction Corporation, 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir. 1982). 9 "Ordinarily, a litigant seeking to overturn a discovery order has (only) two choices. Either he can comply with the ......
  • Ofs Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., No. 07-10200.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 28, 2008
    ...Cir.2008). Therefore, discovery orders are normally not immediately appealable. Id.; Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir.1982). Congress has not statutorily authorized interlocutory appellate review for discovery motions, and for sound policy reason......
  • Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, In re, JOHNS-MANVILLE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 2, 1994
    ...1449 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 295, 121 L.Ed.2d 219 (1992); Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 746 (11th 12 This section reads: (a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transf......
  • Depuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 2020-1514
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • March 12, 2021
    ...is exchanged between the parties, there is generally no issue of public access. See Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp. , 680 F.2d 743, 745–46 (11th Cir. 1982) ; see also Awuah , 585 F.3d at 483 (collecting cases to this effect). But where the protective order purports to addre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT