United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., No. 89-2205

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BRORBY; LOGAN
Citation905 F.2d 1424
PartiesUNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CRANFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, now known as American Special Risk Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation; Sphere Insurance Company, Ltd., now known as Sphere Drake Insurance, PLC, a British Corporation; International Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, formerly known as Northbrook Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Rohm & Haas Company; South Macomb Disposal Authority; Waste Management, Inc.; Chemical Waste Management, Inc.; Generators of Waste at the Environmental Conservation and Chemical Corporation Site, in Zionsville, Indiana, Intervenors-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 89-2205
Decision Date15 June 1990

Page 1424

905 F.2d 1424
UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
CRANFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, now known as American Special
Risk Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation; Sphere
Insurance Company, Ltd., now known as Sphere Drake
Insurance, PLC, a British Corporation; International
Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellants,
and
Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, formerly
known as Northbrook Insurance Company, an Illinois
corporation, Defendant,
Rohm & Haas Company; South Macomb Disposal Authority;
Waste Management, Inc.; Chemical Waste Management, Inc.;
Generators of Waste at the Environmental Conservation and
Chemical Corporation Site, in Zionsville, Indiana,
Intervenors-Appellees.
No. 89-2205.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
June 15, 1990.

Page 1426

John A. Klecan of Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendants-appellants.

Bruce D. Drucker, Matthew W. Cockrell and Michelle J. Gilbert, also of Rivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, Chicago, Ill., for intervenors-appellees Waste Management, Inc., Chemical Waste Management, Inc. and SCA Services, Inc.

Donald W. Kiel of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, N.J., for intervenor-appellee Rohm & Haas Co.

Philip B. Davis, Albuquerque, N.M., for intervenors-appellees, with him on the brief).

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

LOGAN, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Cranford Insurance Company (Cranford), Sphere Insurance Company, and International Insurance Company (International) appeal from an order of the district court which allowed Rohm & Haas Company, South Macomb Disposal Authority, Waste Management, Inc., Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and numerous generators of waste at the Environmental Conservation and Chemical Corporation site in Zionsville, Indiana, (Intervenors) to intervene in this action, and which modified a protective order and an order sealing the record to permit Intervenors access to discovery for use in collateral federal and state litigation with defendants.

Plaintiff United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) filed the instant action in 1985, seeking a declaration of liability under environmental impairment liability (EIL) insurance policies issued by defendants. To facilitate discovery, the district court entered a stipulated protective order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), declaring all discovery materials to be confidential and prohibiting their use or disclosure other than for preparation for or use at trial. In 1986, the parties settled; the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice, sealed the record and file "until further order of the Court," I R. tab 136, and ordered that depositions not be disclosed except on order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, documents produced by defendants were to be retained at UNC's expense for ten years. Defendants-Appellants Brief-in-Chief at 2.

Intervenors are all litigants in suits in other state and federal courts seeking determinations that they have coverage under EIL insurance policies issued by defendants Cranford and International. In 1989, they sought to intervene in the instant suit for the sole purpose of seeking modification of the protective order and the order sealing the record to permit them access to discovery produced in this lawsuit for use in their actions against defendants in other courts. The district court granted permissive intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) and modified its prior orders to allow Intervenors access to discovery for use in their collateral litigation. The court placed Intervenors under the same restrictions as the original parties: they could use and disclose the information solely for litigation purposes. Defendants have appealed, and we affirm.

I

Intervenors challenge our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Although most orders granting intervention or modification of a protective order are interlocutory and not immediately appealable, intervention here was solely for the purpose of seeking modification of the protective order; the underlying controversy had already been concluded. Therefore, we believe the orders at issue are appealable, either as final orders, see Martindell v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293-94 (2d Cir.1979), or collateral orders, see Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298 (7th Cir.1980). Therefore, we proceed to the merits.

Page 1427

II

Defendants initially challenge the district court's grant of permissive intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Of course, permissive intervention is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not disturb its order except upon a "showing of clear abuse." Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1345 (10th Cir.1978).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
154 practice notes
  • Rosales v. Bradshaw, CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 17, 2021
    ...will not disturb the district court's exercise of that discretion absent clear abuse. See United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). The Court has previously stated: Rule 24(b) allows permissive intervention under the conditions: (i) the application to ......
  • Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic, No. 17807.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 2, 2009
    ...Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 292 Conn. 64 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir.1992); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir.1990); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 790-92 (1st Cir.1988); Wilk v. American Medical Assn., 635 F.2d ......
  • State v. Rivero, Case Number: 118033
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 2, 2021
    ...by the stipulation has the power by virtue of his designation to administer any necessary oath. 95. United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford, 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Am.Special Risk Ins. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 498 U.S. 1073, 111 S.Ct. 799, 112 L.Ed.2d 860 (1991)......
  • U.S. v. Ray, No. 03-30339.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 23, 2004
    ...Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (an award of attorneys' fees); United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance Company, 905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir.1990) (post-judgment modification of a protective order); Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.1983) (a postjudg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
154 cases
  • Rosales v. Bradshaw, CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 17, 2021
    ...will not disturb the district court's exercise of that discretion absent clear abuse. See United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). The Court has previously stated: Rule 24(b) allows permissive intervention under the conditions: (i) the application to ......
  • Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic, No. 17807.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 2, 2009
    ...Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 292 Conn. 64 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir.1992); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir.1990); Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 790-92 (1st Cir.1988); Wilk v. American Medical Assn., 635 F.2d ......
  • State v. Rivero, Case Number: 118033
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • June 2, 2021
    ...by the stipulation has the power by virtue of his designation to administer any necessary oath. 95. United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford, 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Am.Special Risk Ins. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 498 U.S. 1073, 111 S.Ct. 799, 112 L.Ed.2d 860 (1991)......
  • U.S. v. Ray, No. 03-30339.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 23, 2004
    ...Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (an award of attorneys' fees); United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance Company, 905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir.1990) (post-judgment modification of a protective order); Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.1983) (a postjudg......
  • 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