2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-23-2006 

# In Re: M ar t in H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-9017

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: M ar t in H orn " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 846. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/846NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 04- 9017 & 04- 9018

I N R E : M AR T I N HORN, J OSEPH M AZU RK I EW I CZ, a n d GEO RG E R. W HI TE, Pet i t i oner s atN o. 04- 9017

DO NA LD H AR DC ASTLE

v. M A R T IN H O R N , P enn sy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; G E O R G E R . W H I T E , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atPi t t s bur gh; J O SE PH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof the S t a t e Co r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tRo c k v i e w, A ppel l ant s atN o. 04- 9018

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 98- cv- 3028 ( H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova) Sub mi t t e d o n Pe t i t i on fo rW r i tof M a nd a mus U nd e rRul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P. and A ppel l ee’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s A ppeal forL ack of J ur i s di ct i on M ay18, 20062

B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, A M B R O and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J une 23, 2006) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M. T h e se c o n so lid a ted m a tters in v o lv e a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l an d a p e tit io n f o r a w rit of m andamus br oughtbythe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a i n a capi t al habea s corpus pr ocee di ng. Speci fi cal l y , the C om m onw eal th s eeks t o chal l enge a di s coveryor deri s s ued bythe D i s tr i ctC our tatthe r eques tof D onal d H ar dcas t l e, w ho s eeks habea s corpus r el i ef on a c l a i m of r a c i a l di s c r i mi na t i on i n j urys e l e c t i on un de rBat s on v. K e ntuc ky , 47 6 U. S. 79 ( 1986) . A ft erthe C om m onw eal th att empt ed t o i nvoke thi s C our t ’ s appel l at e and m andamus j ur i s di ct i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tvaca t ed the cha l l enged di s coveryor derand e n ter e d a n e w o rd e r in c o m p lete a c c o rd w ith th e p a rties ’ a g re e m e n t. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e a g re e w ith H a rd c a stle th a t w e lac k a p p e llate j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the ch al l eng ed d i scoveryorder and w i l l granthis m oti on t o d i sm i ss the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ap p ea l. W e a lso a g ree w ith H ard ca stl e tha t th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s m andamus pe t i t i on i s m ootand w i l l denyi tas s uch. I . Backg r ound In 198 2, a P hil adelphi a j uryfou nd D on al d H ardcast l e gu i l tyof tw o co un t s of fir st d e g r e e mu r d e r . Th e tr i a l c o u r ti mp o s e d a s e n t e n c e o f d e a th . Th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me3

C our taff i r m ed H ar dcas t l e’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence , C om m onw eal th v. H ar dcas t l e, 546 A . 2d 1101 ( Pa. 1988) , and s ubs equent l yaff i r m ed the deni al of s t at e pos t - convi ct i on reli ef , C o m m o n w ea lth v . H ard ca stl e, 70 1 A . 2 d 5 4 1 (P a. 19 9 8 ). O n fe d era l hab ea s co rpu s rev iew , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted re li ef o n H ard ca stl e’s B at s on cl ai m al l egi ng thatJ udi th R ubi no, the as s i s t antdi s tr i ctatt orneyw ho conduct ed juryselec ti o n at his tr ial , ex erc ised h er p ere m p torystr ikes in a ra ciall yd iscri m inato ry m anneri n vi ol at i on of the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e. O n appea l , w e agr eed w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourt ’ s r ej ect i on of H ar dcas t l e’ s B at s on cl ai m w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e bas ed on the curr entr ecor d. H ar dcas t l e v. H orn, 368 F. 3d 246, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , cert . deni ed, 543 U . S. 1081 ( 2005) . W e conc l uded, h o w e v e r, th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth h a d b e e n d e n ied a n o p p o rtu n ityin th e D istric t C o u rt to pr es entevi dence i n s uppor tof i t s pos i t i on, and r emanded fora hea r i ng and r eexa m i nat i on of H ar dcas t l e’ s B at s on cl ai m . I d. O n r emand, H ar dcas t l e moved fordi s coveryof “a nyand al l not es gener at ed by [R ubi no] r egar di ng the j urys el ect i on pr ocee di ngs i n [H ar dcas t l e’ s ] tr i al thatar e i n [the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s] actu al or c o n stru cti v e p o sses sion o r co n tr o l. ” (D isco v eryM o t. ¶ 3 . a.) H ar dcas t l e al s o m oved t o di s coverR ubi no’ s j urys el ect i on not es i n otherhom i ci de pr os ecut i ons and var i ous document s r egar di ng the D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s j urys el ect i on p o li cies a n d p rac ti ce s w h il e R u b ino serv ed as a p rose cu tor, an d to tak e R u b ino ’s d e p o sitio n p rio r to th e h e a rin g . In re sp o n se , the C o m m o n w e a lth e x p re ss lya g re e d to4

pr ovi de R ubi no’ s not es fr om j urys el ect i on i n H ar dcas t l e’ s cas e, butobj ect ed t o the re m a in in g re q u e sts a s o v e rb ro a d , b u rd e n so m e , an d /o r n o t re lev a n t. B yo rde r en tered A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted H ard ca stl e’s di s coverym ot i on overthe C om m onw eal th’ s obj ect i ons . O n A ugus t27, 2004, the C om m onw eal th chal l enged the di s coveryor derbyfi l i ng a pet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus ( N o. 04- 9017) and a not i ce of appea l ( N o. 04- 9018) . B yor derent er ed Sept ember10, 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtv ac ated it s p ri o r disco v eryo rde r en ti rely , then g ran ted d isco v ery onl yof R ubi no’ s not es fr om j urys el ect i on i n H ar dcas t l e’ s cas e, i . e. , the port i on of H ard ca stl e’s req u est t o w h ich th e C o m m o n w ea lth ex p resslyag ree d . T h e D istri ct C o u rt has con du ct ed n o fu rther proceedings. A fter co n so li d ati n g the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ap p ea l and m an d am u s p eti ti o n , the C lerk in stru c ted th e p a rties to sh o w c a u se w h yth e c a se s s h o u ld n o t b e d ism iss e d a s m o o t in l i gh tof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s S eptem ber 10, 2004 order. W e hav e recei ved the p art i es’ re sp o n se s re f

lec tin g th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s b e lief th a t th e c a se s a re n o t m o o t. H a rd c a stle i n turn m oves t o di s m i s s the ca s es forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, ori n the al t ernat i ve foran expedi t ed br i efi ng s chedul e. I I . D i s cus s i on F ro m a p ra c tica l p e rsp e c tiv e , the re so lu tio n o f th e c u rre n t m a tters is s im p le b e c a u se n o th in g re m a in s f o r u s to a d

ju d ica te. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth a g re e d , an d stillI n r es pons e t o t he C l erk’ s s ugges t i on of m ootnes s , the C om m onw eal th r ei t er at es t hat 1 it “d o e s n o t o b

jec t to p re -h e a rin g d isc o v e ryo f th e p ro se c u to ry ’s ju ryse lec tio n n o tes in th is c a s e .” (C o m m o n w e a lth ’s R e s p o n s e a t n .1 .) 5 agr ees , t o pr oduce Rubi no’ s not es fr om j urys el ect i on i n H ar dcas t l e’ s cas e. T he D i s tr i ct

1 C o u rt’s s e c o n d d isc o v e ryo rd e r o f S e p tem b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , req u ire s n o th in g m o re . W e c o u ld notpr ovi de the C om m onw eal th anyr el i ef be y ond thatw hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our thas al r eadyfas hi oned. Foral l pr act i cal purpos es , then, thes e mat t er s ar e moot . See D onovan ex r el . D onovan v. Punxsut aw neyA r ea Sch. B d. , 336 F. 3d 211, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng C ountyof M orr i s v. N at i onal i s tM ovement , 273 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “The ab il ityto g ran t eff

ec ti v e re li ef

li es a t th e h ea rto f th e m o o tnes s d o ctri n e.”)). N o tw ith s ta n d in g , th e C o m m o n w e a lth m a in ta in s th a t th e s e m a tte rs a re n o t m o o t. T he C om m onw eal th ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi r s tdi s coveryor derof A ugus t18, 2004, i s s t i l l val i d, and thati t s s econd di s coveryor deri s a nul l i ty . I nvoki ng the gene r al not i on thatfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l di ves t s a di s tr i ctcourtof j ur i s di ct i on, s ee V enen v. Sw eet , 758 F. 2d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 1985) , the C om m onw eal th cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rtlack ed the a u tho ri tyto v ac ate it s firstd isco v eryo rde r. B efor e addr es s i ng the C om m onw eal th’ s ar gum ent , w e paus e t o ques t i on w hyt he C o m m o n w ea lth inv o k es th is ge n era l ru le i n an att em p t t o inv ali d ate the sec o n d d isco v ery or der . A ft eral l , the s econd di s coveryor derembodi es the pr eci s e t erm s t o w hi ch the C om m on w eal th ag reed. T he C om m on w eal th co uld have avo i ded con si derabl e exp ense and del ayi f i thad vol unt ar i l yw i thdr aw n i t s appea l and mandam us pet i t i on as s oon as t he6

D i stri ctC ou rtvacated t he ch al l eng ed o rder . T he C om m on w eal th’s r espon se i nd i cat es a d iffe ren t strateg y , h o w ev er: T h i s i s s u e h a s a l s o a r i s e n w i th e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g f r e q u e n c y i n ot her cas es . H ar dcas t l e’ s i ns t i tut i onal couns el , w ho r epr es entvi r tual l yeverydeaths ent ence d Penns y l vani a pr i s oneri n fede r al court , now r out i nel yas k for s i m i l ardi s coveryi n s uppor tof B at s on cl ai m s thatw er e r ej ect ed, ornot lit ig a ted , in th e sta te c o u rts. . . . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth h a s a stro n g in ter e st in h av ing this C o u rtset g u idelines fo r suc h req u ests – a d ec isi o n b ythis C o u rt w i l l s ave t axpay erm oneyand cons erve the C om m onw eal th’ s l i m i t ed res ou rces , w hil e al l ow i ng dis tri ctj ud ges t o fo cus on otheri ssues. (C o m m o n w e a lth ’s M o o tn e ss R e sp o n se a t 5 -6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).) T h is re sp o n se su g g e sts an i nvi t at i on forus t o i s s ue an a dvi s oryopi ni on on the s cope of di s coveryforB at s on cl ai m s . B eca us e w e ar e noti n t he bus i nes s of i s s ui ng advi s oryopi ni ons , w e dec l i ne the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s i n v it ati o n . S ee M ag az iner v . M o n tem u ro, 46 8 F . 2 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 4 (3d C ir . 1972) ( quot i ng W r i ght , Feder al C our t s , § 12 at37) ( “The ol des tand mostcons i s t ent threa d in the fe d era l l aw o f ju sti ciab il ityis th at th e f ed era l cou rt s w il l no t give ad v isory o p inion s. ”). W hat everi t s s tr at egy , the C om m onw eal th i s corr ectthatfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l gener al l ydi ves t s a di s tr i ctcourtof j ur i s di ct i on. T he C om m onw eal th negl ect s t o expl ai n, how ever , thata di s tr i ctcourtdoes notl os e j ur i s di ct i on w hen a not i ce of appea l i s fi l ed f r o m a n o r d e ro rj u d g me n twh i c h i s n o ta p p e a l a b l e . S e e Ve n e n , 7 5 8 F . 2 d a t1 2 1 . An a p p e a l f ro m su c h a n o rd e r is “ a n u lli ty .” Id . O th e rw ise , a litig a n t co u ld tem p o ra rily “depr i ve a di s tr i ctcourtof j ur i s di ct i on atanynon- cr i t i cal orcr i t i cal j unctur e i ncl udi ng7

tr i al i t s el f, thus br i ngi ng pr ocee di ngs i n the di s tr i ctcourtt o a s t ands t i l l w hi l e a nonappea l abl e rul i ng w ends i t s w aythr ough the appe l l at e pr oces s . ” I d. F o r p u rp o se s o f

d e ter m in in g o u r a p p e llate ju risd ictio n , the n , the q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt’s A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 d isc o v e ryo rd e r is a n im m e d iate ly appea l abl e or der . I f not , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on and mustdi s m i s s the appe al . W hi l e a d isc o v e ryo rd e r is n o t a f in a l o rd e r su b

jec t to a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , itm a yin narr ow ci r cumst ance s be appe al abl e underthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. See A D A PT of Phi l a. v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. , 417 F. 3d 390, 394 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he col l at er al or der doctr i ne pr ovi des that“[a ] n appea l of a nonf i nal or derw i l l l i e i f ( 1) the or derfr om w hi ch the appe l l antappea l s concl us i vel ydet erm i nes the di s put ed ques t i on; ( 2) the or derr es ol ves an i m por t anti s s ue thati s compl et el ys epar at e fr om the mer i t s of the di s put e; and ( 3) t he o rd e r is e f

f e c tiv e lyu n re v iew a b le o n a p p e a l f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t.” B a c h e r v . A llstate Ins. C o . , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 5 2 , 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s prudence es t abl i s hes thatthe r equi r ement s of the col l at er al or der doctr i ne ar e met“w hen a pa r tyappea l s a di s coveryor deri nvol vi ng i nform at i on w hi ch the partycl ai m s t o be pr i vi l eged ort o cons t i tut e a tr ade s ecr et . ” I d. T hes e pr i vi l eges i ncl ude the att orney - cl i entpr i vi l ege a nd the w or k pr oductpr i vi l ege. I n r e For d M ot orC o. , 110 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 6 2 -6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). In its p e tit io n f o r m a n d a m u s re lief

f iled in th is C o u rt, the C om m onw eal th pos i t s “a pr i vi l ege pr obl em. ” A ccor di ng t o the C om m onw eal th,8

R ubi no’ s j urys el ect i on not es ar e “e ncompass ed bythe ‘ w or k pr oductpr i vi l ege’ ” and thus n o ts u b j e c tt o d i s c o v e r y. H ar dcas t l e count er s thatthe C om m onw eal th di d notcl ai m the w or k pr oduct pr i vi l ege oranyot herpr i vi l ege i n i t s r es pons e t o hi s di s coverym ot i on. I n thatm ot i on, H ard ca stl e re q u ested d isco v eryo f R u b ino ’s j u ryselec ti o n n o tes i n h is tri al, h er jury s el ect i on not es i n al l ot herhom i ci de tr i al s i n w hi ch s he conduc t ed j urys el ect i on, and document s r egar di ng j urys el ect i on pol i ci es and pr act i ces bythe Phi l adel phi a D i s tr i ct A tto rn e y ’s O f

f ic e . H e a ls o a s k e d to d e p o s e R u b in o p ri o r t o a n ye v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . N othi ng i n t he C om m onw eal th’ s r es pons e s ugges t s thatanyi t em or r eques ti s pr ot ect ed fr om di s coverybythe w or k pr oductpr i vi l ege oranyotherpr i vi l ege. Forthi s r eas on, H ar dcas t l e bel i eves thatthe C om m onw eal th di d notpr oper l ycl ai m the w or k pr oduct pr i vi l ege. H a rd c a stle ’s p o in t is w e ll t a k e n . P re su m a b ly , if th e C o m m o n w e a lth h a d e x p re ss ly cl ai m ed the w or k pr oductpr i vi l ege, the D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d have a ddr es s ed the appl i cabi l i tyof the pr i vi l ege. I f s o, the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d have e xami ned ea ch of the r eques t ed di s coveryi t ems and de ci ded w hi ch, i f any , w er e di s cover abl e. I f the C o m m o n w e a lth h a d th e n f iled a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l f ro m su c h a d e c isio n , w e c o u ld re a d ilyd e ter m in e o u r a p p e llate ju risd ictio n u n d e r th e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e . W e c o u ld al s o r eadi l ydet erm i ne w hetherthe C om m onw eal th w oul d be ent i t l ed t o anyr el i ef f r om the d isco v eryo rde r.9

In re sp o n se, th e C o m m o n w ea lth p o ints t o a re fe ren ce in the D istri ct C o u rtrec o rd as p roo f th at i t i n v o k ed the w o rk p rod u ct privil eg e. A tho rou g h rev iew o f th e re co rd confi r m s thatw hen H ar dcas t l e fi l ed hi s amended habea s pet i t i on i n N ovember1999, he in d ic a te d th a t h e w o u ld s e e k d is c o v e ry si m ila r t o th a t r e q u e s te d in h is d is c o v e ry m o tio n . ( A m ended Pet . at80 n. 42; 81- 82 n. 43; 82- 83 n. 44. ) I n i t s ans w ert o the amended pet i t i on, the C om m onw eal th as s ert ed thatanydi s coveryr eques t s w er e pr ematur e and w i thout m e rit. (A n sw e r a t 1 3 3 .) In h is re p ly , H a rd c a stle re itera ted h is d isc o v e ryre q u e sts . (R e p ly at 12 0 n . 1 0 0 ; 12 1 n . 1 0 2 . ) In it s su rrep ly , the C o m m o n w ea lth ch all en g ed an yd isco v ery r eques t s as i r r el evant , non- exi s t ent , and pr ematur e bec aus e no form al di s coverym ot i on had bee n fi l ed. I n a footnot e, the C om m onw eal th s t at ed thatno di s coverys houl d be gr ant ed bec aus e the B at s on cl ai m i s m er i t l es s and R ubi no’ s not es ar e pr ot ect ed as a tto rn e yw o rk p ro d u c t. ( S u rr e p ly at 2 9 n .9 .) A br i ef e xami nat i on of di s coverypr ocedur es i n habea s pr ocee di ngs demonstr at es th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s u n e x p lain e d re f e re n c e to th e w o rk p ro d u c t p riv ileg e – tu c k e d in a footnot e i n a l engthydocumentfi l ed y ear s befor e anyform al di s coveryr eques tw as m ade – i s i nsuff

i ci ent t o clai m the p ri vil ege. I n h abeas p roceedings i n the di stri ctcou rt s, the i ni t i a l di s c l os ur e rul e s r e ga r di ng di s c ov e rydo no ta pp l y . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 2 6 (a )(1 )(E )(ii). R a th e r, th e d istric t ju d g e “ m a y , fo r g o o d c a u se , au th o riz e a p a rtyto conductdi s coveryunderthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and mayl i m i tthe ext entof di s covery . ” R ul e 6( a) of the R ul es G overni ng Sect i on 2254 C as es ; s ee M ayberryv.10

P etso ck , 8 2 1 F . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (st ati n g that p ri o r co u rtap p rov al fo r disco v ery i s r equ i red und er R ule 6( a)) . A partyseeki ng dis cov eryi n a h abeas p roceeding m ust m ak e sp ec ifi c re q u ests an d m u st pro v ide re aso n s fo r th e re q u ests. S ee R u le 6(b ). U n d e r th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , as re f e re n c e d in R u le 6 (a ), a p a rty c laim in g th a t d isc o v e rym a ter ial is p riv ileg e d a s w o rk p ro d u c t “s h a ll m a k e th e c laim e xp r e s s l ya nd s ha l l de s c r i be the na tur e ” of the r e qu e s t e d mat e r i a l . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 26( b) ( 5) . T he partyr eques t i ng s uch mat er i al bear s the bur den of s how i ng thathe “ha s s ubs t ant i al need of

the mat er i al s ” and “ i s unabl e w i thoutundue har ds hi p t o obt ai n the s ubs t ant i al equi val entof the mat er i al s byotherm eans . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 26( b) ( 3) . T he dis tri ctcou rt , i n o rder i ng dis cov eryof p ri vil eged m at eri al s, “shal l prot ectagainst di s cl os ur e of the ment al i m pr es s i ons , concl us i ons , opi ni ons , orl egal theor i es ” of a n att orneyconce r ni ng the l i t i gat i on. I d. H er e, i n hi s di s coverym ot i on, H ar dcas t l e made s peci fi c di s coveryr eques t s , as des cr i bed pr evi ous l y ; he al s o pr ovi ded r eas ons forthos e r eques t s . I n i t s s i xt een- page r es pons e, the C om m onw eal th di d nots ugges tthatanydocumenti s pr ot ect ed fr om di s coverybythe w or k pr oductpr i vi l ege, m uch l es s “cl ai m i texpr es s l y , ” as R ul e 26( b) ( 5) r equi r es . B eca us e the C om m onw eal th di d notpr oper l ycl ai m the pr i vi l ege, the D i s tr i ct C o u rtd id n o t exa m ine a n yo f th e d o cu m en ts t o d ec ide w h ich p o rt ion s (i f a n y ) w ereW e d o n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e C o m m o n w e a lth w a iv e d th e p riv ileg e b yf a ili n g to 2 cl ai m i tpr oper l yi n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . A l though the part i es have a gr eed t o the s cope of di s covery , i ti s conce i vabl e thatH ar dcas t l e w i l l l at err eques tfur therdi s coveryt o pr ove h is B atso n claim . If so , an d if th e C o m m o n w ea lth claim s the p ri v il eg e, th e D istri ct C o u rt can de ci de i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance w hetherthe C om m onw eal th w ai ved the pr i vi l ege. 11 pr ot ect ed fr om di s coveryas w or k pr oduct . B eca us e the C om m onw eal th di d not 2 su f f icie n tlyc laim th e p riv ileg e , the D istric t C o u rt’s A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 d isc o v e ryo rd e r is noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e underthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. I n the abs ence of an i mm e d i a t e l ya p p e a l a b l e d i s c o v e r yo r d e r , we l a c k a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w ill g ra n t H a rd c a stle ’s m o tio n a n d w ill d ism iss th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a p p e a l. T h e re m a in in g is s u e o f

th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s m a n d a m u s p e titio n is e a s ily re s o lv e d . I n the abs ence of an e ffe ct i ve appe al , the D i s tr i ctC our tr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on on S ep tem b er 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , to v ac ate it s A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 4 o rde r an d to issue a n ew d isco v ery or der . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s econd di s coveryor deri s val i d. T he or derr equi r es no thing m ore from the C om m on w eal th than t hat t o w hich i texp res sl yagreed. B ecause the D i s tr i ctC our thas al r eadygr ant ed thatw hi ch the C om m onw eal th r eques t s , the m andamus pe t i t i on i s m oot . W e w i l l gr antH ar dcas t l e’ s r eques tt o denyi tas s uch. I I I . C oncl usi on Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antH ar dcas t l e’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the C om m onw eal th’ s appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. W e w i l l denyas m ootthe C om m on w eal th’s pet i t i on for a w ri tof m and am us.