In re Recticel Foam Corp. (I)

Brief Fact Summary.

For discovery purposes, cases arising out of a hotel fire that involved almost 2000 plaintiffs and 200 defendants, were consolidated. One codefendant moved to compel discovery of videotapes and photographs from another. The holder of the tapes and photographs sought reimbursement of half the cost of reproducing the materials. The district court ordered all served defendants to share in the expense. A codefendant appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The finality principle that limits appellate jurisdiction should be afforded great deference. In the usual case, discovery and case management orders are not final. The “collateral order” exception may, if applicable, alter this result.

Facts.

Litigation that ensued after the San Juan hotel fire involved almost 2000 plaintiffs and 200 defendants. The proceedings were consolidated for discovery purposes, all before one district court. One codefendant moved to compel discovery of videotapes and photographs from another. The holder of the tapes and photographs initially claimed that the material was work product, and therefore immune from discovery. Thereafter, however, the holder of the tapes and photographs agreed to waive the work product privilege in exchange for reimbursement of half the cost of reproducing the materials. The district court ordered all of the served defendants to share in the discovery reproduction expense. A codefendant appealed.

Issue.

Were the discovery orders that required defendants to share the cost of reproducing materials final orders such that they were appealable and could be determined by the Court of Appeals?

Held.

No. The discovery orders were not final appealable orders and the“collateral order” doctrine did not apply to alter this result.

Discussion.

In the usual case, as in this case, discovery and case management orders are not final. The “collateral order” exception might, if applicable, alter this result. To be applicable, the collateral order doctrine requires that the order from which appeal is sought have all of the following characteristics: (1) be essentially unrelated to the merits of the main dispute (i.e., “separability”) (2) completely resolve the issue presented( i.e., “finality”); (3) involve a right that cannot be vindicated on appeal from a final judgment (i.e., “urgency”); and (4) involve an important and unsettled question of controlling law; (i.e., “importance). In this case, the court found that the “urgency” element was missing; thus, the collateral order doctrine did not apply.