UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-31131

_____________________________________

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, doing

business as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

VERSUS

BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MISSISSIPPI, INC., ET AL,

Defendants,

JAMES H. “JIM” BROWN, in his official capacity as

Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Louisiana,

Department of Insurance

Movant - Appellant,

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MISSISSIPPI, INC., ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, doing

business as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana,

Defendant - Appellee,

JAMES H. “JIM” BROWN, in his official capacity as

Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Louisiana,

Department of Insurance

Movant - Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2 We agree with the Department that this order is appealable

under the reasoning of our decision in Branch v. Phillips Petroleum

Company, 638 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1981). 

2

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(94-CV-432-B-M2)

______________________________________________________

October 9, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Louisiana Department of Insurance (“the Department”),

through James H. “Jim” Brown in his official capacity as

Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Louisiana, challenges the

district court's order directing the Department to produce

documents it gathered during an examination of Louisiana Health

Service & Indemnity Company, which was under the administrative

supervision of the Department.2

We learned for the first time at oral argument that after the

district court ordered the documents produced and then declined to

stay its own order, the Department delivered the documents to the

appellee. We inquired as to what relief the appellant sought from

this court. Counsel for the Department argued that because the

district court's order established a serious adverse precedent, the

Department was entitled to our review of that order.

The concrete issue originally presented in this case--whether

the documents were protected under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1302(j)
3

(West 1995)--was rendered moot by the actual production of the

documents. The appellant’s present desire to clarify the

Department's obligation to produce similar documents in the future

will not suffice to keep this suit alive. In re Corrugated

Containers Grand Jury, 659 F.2d 1330, 1331 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.

denied, 456 U.S. 936 (1982) (deciding that an appeal challenging a

district court order that required the Department of Justice to

turn over to plaintiffs the transcripts of testimony before the

grand jury was moot, where transcripts already had been produced).

See also Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure:

Jurisdiction 2d §§ 3533, 3533.1 (1984).

This case is moot. The appeal is dismissed.