Pursuant to 5th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this op inio n s hould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60731

FR EDERI CK M

. S EI FE RT H, r e p r e s e n t a t iv e o f t h e He i r s a tL a w o f

J a m e s A. S e ife r th , D e c e a s e d , P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t , v. M AR KCA M U S, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lle e .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 4: 03- c v- 00463

B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , H IG G IN B O T H A M a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A pp el l an tF rederi ck M

. Seif ert h a p p e a l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of
sum m ar y j udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ee M ar k C am us de te r m i ni ng t hat M i ssissi p p i ’ s W ork m en ’ s C om p en sa ti on A ct b a rred S eif erth ’ s w ron gfu l d e a th act i on againstC am u s, a co- em pl oyee. H e al so al l ege s th a t the d i st ri ctcourt
er r ed i n fai l i ng t o f

i nd C am us’ s c o- em pl oye e de fens e t o b e pr ec l uded by the “l aw o f t he c as e ” do c t r i ne , c o l l at e r ale s t o ppe l , a nd r e s j udi cat a. In ad di t i o n, he
c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to co m p e l d is c o v e r yo f c e r ta in United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 10, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2010N o. 09- 60731

C amus’s namewas mi sspelle d “C amos” in theinitial filings and in the first opinion 1 of th e di strictcourtonthismatter . 2 do c um e nt s w hi c h he a l l e ge s a r e r e l e va ntt o hi s c l ai m s aga i ns tSeife r t h. Fort he fo llo w in gre a s o n s , w e A F F IR M
. I. In 200 1, Jam es Sei fert h , an em pl oyee of A i r2, L L C , fel lt o hi s death w h en th e baseof

t he hel i c opt er - m ount ed w or k pl at f or m , on w hi c h he w as s t andi ng, br oke w hi l e the hel i c opt erw as i n m i d- f l i ght

. The ac c i dentoc c urr ed nea r In d i a n ola, M i ssissi p p i w h i l e Se i ferth an d th e ai rcrew w ere f l yin g from tow er to t ow erduri ng t he i nspec t i on o f a po w ert r ansm i ss i on l i ne. M ar k C am us had 1 desi gn ed an d p atented t h e e x te rn a lw ork pl atf orm f or use w i t h a heli copter
. C am u s w as a T en n essee dom i cil i ary, an d all of h i s desi gn w ork w as cond u ct ed i n F l ori da , w h ere he l ivedat t h e t i m e. C am u s als o serveda s C h i ef P i l otf or A i r2 at t h e t i m e of

t h e acci den t , bu the w as not pi l ot i n g t h e ai rcr af tf rom w h i ch S ei fert h fel l

. It i s un di spu t ed that C am u s w as not i n M i ssi ssi pp iat t h e t i m e of t he ac c i de nt , but he had i ns pe c t e d t he w o r k pl at f o r m i n M i s s i s s i ppim ont hs b efore S eif

erth ’ s ac ci d en t. In 200 3, F rederi ck S ei fert h , representat ive of Jam es Sei fert h ’ s hei rs, sued H e lic o p te r o s A u te r n o s , In c ., th e le s s o ro f th e h e lic o p te r , a n d M a r kC a m u s , inh is
c apac i t i es as des i gnerof t he e xt er nalw or k pl at f or m an d as C hi ef

P i l otforA i r 2, i n f e de r alc o ur to n t he b as i s o f dive r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n. Se i fe r t h b r o ugh tf o ur c l ai m s a ga i ns tCam us : de fe c t ive des i gn , fail ur e t o w ar n, ne gli ge nc e , a nd
n egl i gen ce p e rse . T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the defenda n t s’m ot i on t o di sm i ss al lcl ai m s f

or l ack of

persona lj u ri sdi ct i on , an d i tal so den i ed S ei fert h ’ s r equ est for l i m i tedj u ri sd i cti on a ldiscov e r ya s to H eli cop teros A tu n ero s. S eif erth
a p p e a le dto th e F ifth C ir c u it, w h ic h a ffir m e din p a r t a n dre v e r s e din p a r t. W ith re g a r dto th e q u e s tio n o f p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n , th e F ifth C ir c u it h e ld t hat “[ a] p l ai nt i f

f b r i ngi ng m ul t i pl e c l ai m s t hata r i s e o uto f dif fe r e ntf o r um Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2010N o. 09- 60731

3 c o n ta c ts o f th e d e fe n d a n t m u s t e s ta b lis h s p e c ific ju r is d ic tio n fo re a c h cla im .” S eif e r t h v

. He l i c o

pt e r o s At une r o s , I

nc . , 4 72 F. 3d2 66 , 2 74 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)

. The court determ i n ed that Sei fert h ’ s f i rstcl ai m — defec t ive des ign— arose f rom Cam us ’ s de s i gn o f

t he w o r k p l at f

o r m f r o m w hi c h Se i fe r t h f e l l , w h i l e t he
r e m ai ni ng t hr e e c l ai m s a r o s e f r o m Cam us ’ s c o nt ac t s w i t h M i s s i s s i ppihe
e s t ab l i s he d d ur i ng hi s e m pl o ym e ntw i t h Ai r 2. Bas e d o n t he s e em pl o ym e nt
con tacts, the cou rt con cl u d ed pe rson a lj u ri sd ic ti on ex i stedw i th reg a rdto S ei fert h ’ s c l ai m s f

or negl i gen ce, neg l i gen ce per s e , a n d fai l ur e t o w ar n. Acc o r di ngly, t he co ur tvac at e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f t ho s e c l ai m s a nd
r em anded f

ort he c our tt o de t er m i ne w het hert he e xer c i se of per so nal j u ri sd i cti on ag a i n st C a m u s w a s fa i r an d r e a s o n a b l e. B y co n trast, the F i fth C ir c u i ta f

f i r me dt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a lo f S e i fe r th ’ s d e f

e c t iv e - d e s i g nc l a i m, c o n c lu d in gth a tp e r s o n a l j u r is d ic t io n w a s la c k in gw h e r e “[ n ]o n e o f C a m u s ’s M i ssissi p p icon tacts relate[d ] to h i s d esign of th e p l a tf orm . ” Id

. a t2 75
. The Fi f t h C i r c ui tal soaf

f i r m ed t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof l i m i t ed j urisdi c t i onal d is c o v e r ya s to H e lic o p te r o s A tu n e r o s . O n re m and, t he dis t r i c tc our tdet er m i ned t hatt he e xer c i se of per so nal ju r is d ic tio n o v e rC a m u s a s to th e r e m a in in g c la im s d idn o t v io la te n o tio n s o f fa ir pl aya nd s ubs t ant i alj us t i c e a nd d e ni e d Cam us ’ s m o t i o n t o di s m i s s . Dur i ng t he
case- m an agem en tconference h el d i n Jan u ary 200 8, Seif ert h sough tt o di scover do c um e nt s r e l at i ng t o t he de s i gn andl i c e ns i ng o f t he pl at f

o r m a nd
c o m m uni c at i on s wi t h t he Fe de r alAvi at i o n Adm i ni s t r at i o n r e ga r di ng t he pl atf orm . C am u s’ s c ou n selw ou l d n otagree. Sei fer t h f i l ed a m ot i on t o com pel t h e docum en t s, w h i ch the court d e n ied

. C am u s f i l ed a m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , asser t i n g t h at a M i ssi ssi pp iw orker’ s co m pen sati on l aw barred t ort cl ai m s f i l ed ag ai n sta co- em pl oyee. C on cl u di n g t h at C am u s w as a n em pl oyee of Ai r 2, a nd t he r e bySei fe r t h’ s co - e m pl o ye e , t he co ur tg r ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e nt
on al lcl ai m s i n favor of C am u s. Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/10/2010N o. 09- 60731

4 II
. W e rev i ew th e d i stri ct co u rt’ s gr a n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo . S ee Pa u l v. L a n d safe Flo o d Det e r m i nat i o n, I nc ., 5 5 0 F .3d 5 1 1 , 5 1 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). S u m m ary j u dg m en ti s app ropri ate onl y w h en “ ‘ th e pl ead i n gs, dep osi t i on s, an sw ers t o i n t errogat ori es, an d ad m i ssi on s on f i l e, t ogether w i t h t h e af f i da vi t s, i f a ny, s ho w t hatt he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue as t o a ny m at e r i alfac ta nd t hatt he
m o v in g p a r ty is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f la w .” F e d

. R
. C iv. P

. 5 6 (c). In d e te r m in in gw h e th e rafa c t is s u e e x is ts , w e re v ie w a ll fa c ts a n din fe r e n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t. Moore v. Wi l l i s I n d ep. S ch

. D ist. , 233 F
. 3d 871 , 874 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)

. A f t er ad equ ate t i m e f

or di scovery, R u l e 56(c)

“ m and at e s t he e nt r y o f s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. . . aga i ns tapa r t y w ho fail s t o m ak e a s how i ng s uf

f i c i ent to establ i sh t he e xi st enc e o f an el em entes se nt i alt o that p a r ty ’ s ca s e , a n do n w h ic h t h a tp a r tyw ill b e a rth e b u r d e n o f p r o o f a t t r ia l.” Celo texCo rp . v. Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ). “W e r e v ie w a d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di scove r y de c i s i o ns f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n a nd we w i l la f f i r m s uc h de c i s i o ns
u n l es s t h e ya re a rb i traryor cl ea rl y u n rea son a b l e.” Moore , 233 F. 3d at876 (c i t i ng Kri m v. B an cT exas G roup , I

n c. , 9 8 9 F .2d 1 4 3 5 , 1 4 4 1 -4 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 )).

III. O n appeal , Seifer t h ar gu es ( 1) t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s c onc l usi on w as coll a tera l l y e stop p ed bythe F i fth C i rcu it’ s d ecisi on in S eifert h v. Hel i copt eros At une r o s , I

nc .; (2 ) t h e d is t r ic tc o u r te r r e din c o n c lu d in gth a tM is s is s ip p i’s W o r km e n’ s Com pe ns at i o n Ac tbar r e d hi s c l ai m s a ga i ns tCam us ; a nd ( 3) t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng hi s di s c o very re que s tr e ga r di ng th e all eg ed de fective de sign of th e w ork platform

. W e a d d ress the se a rg u m en ts i n t ur n. Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/10/2010N o. 09- 60731

5 F i rst , Seif

ert h argu es t h at t h e “l aw of t h e case” doct ri n e an d the pri n ci pl es o f r e s j udi c at a andc o l l at e r ale s t o ppe lpr e ve nt e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf r o m f i ndi ng t hatSe i fe r t h’ s c l ai m s a ga i ns tCam us w e r e b ar r e d b y t he excl us ive r e m e dy p rov i sion s of M i ssissi p p i ’ s W ork m en ’ s C om p en sa ti on A ct b eca u se th e p ri or F i fth C i rcu i tpaneldec i si on det er m i ned t hatC am us’ s c o- em pl oye e de fens e w as i nap pl i c ab l e . The s e ar gum e nt s ar e w i t ho utm e r i t
. “The l aw of t he c as e do c t r i ne p r o v id e s th a t a n is s u e o f la w o rfa c t d e c id e do n a p p e a l m a yn o t b e e x a m in e d

. . . b y th e a p p ell a te cou rt ona su b seq u en t ap p ea l

. ” Fu hrm an v. D ret ke , 442 F. 3d 8 9 3 , 8 9 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (ci t a t io n a n din te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). S i m i l arl y, coll ater alest opp el , or “ i ssue precl u si on , ” bars t h e rel i t i gati on of

“ i ssues act u al l y adj u di cat ed an d essenti alto t h e j u dg m en t” i n a pri or li t i gati on b e tw e e n th e s a m e p a r tie s .” Kas parWi r eW

o r ks , I nc . v. L e c o E ng’

g & Mac hi ne , Inc. , 5 7 5 F .2 d5 3 0 , 5 3 5 -3 6 (5 th C ir .1 9 7 8 ). A c c o r d in gto S e ife r th , th e F ifth C ir c u it
m a d e a f

i n d i n g th a t “th e co-em p l oy ee de fen se is pre cl u d ed ” byvirtue of i ts
s t at e m e ntt hat : “ [i] n s ho r t , Cam us i s a l l e ge d t o ha ve dir e c t l y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n t he
c o m m is s io n o f ato r t in M is s is s ip p i. Itis im m a t e r ia l w h e th e rh e d ids o w ith in th e sco p e of h i s A i r 2 e m p l oy m en t. ” S eifer th , 4 72 F. 3d at 27 2. The c o ur tm ad e t hi s s t at e m e nt i n t he c o nt e xt o f r e f ut i ng Cam us ’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he M i s s i s s i ppi
c o nt ac t s he m ad e t hr o ughhi s e m pl o ym e ntc o ul d no tb e c o ns i dered for t he p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l is h in gp e r s o n a l ju r is d ic t io n ; itd id n o ts u g g e s tth a tC a m u s ’s
s ta tu s a s aco -e m p lo y e e w a s “im m a t e r ia l” t o S e ife r th ’ s a b ilityto u ltim a te ly preva i lon h i s clai m s. I n deed , t h e court ne ve re ve n r e ac he d t he m e r i t s o f t he
c as e , a s t he o pi ni o n a ddr e s s e d o nl y t he is sues of pe r s o nalj ur i s di c t i o n a nd ju r is d ic tio n d is c o v e r y . T h u s , S e ife r th ’ s a r g u m e n ts fa il. Se i fe r t h a l s o a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s gr ant o f s um m ar y j udg m e nt
w a s im p r o p e rb e c a u s e m a t e r ia l is s u e s o f fa c te x is t e da s to w h e t h e rM is s is s ip p i’s W o r km e n’ s Com pe ns at i o n Ac tb ar s Se i fe r t h’ s c l ai m s f o rr e l i e f

w he r e t he deceden tdi ed as a resul tof C am u s’ s act i on s i n desi gn i n g t h e m ou n t ed p l atf orm , Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/10/2010N o. 09- 60731

P erk ins, 799F .2d at 9 59 (“[I]tis clear that under the Mi ssissippi worker’s 2 compen sation statute, an employee inj ured in the scope of his employment bythe negligence of aco-e mployee maynot recover from the co-employee because workers’ compensationis the inj ured employee’s exclu siveremedy for work-relate d injuries again st eitherhis employer or hise mp loyee s.”); accord Medders v. U.S. F

id. &Guar. Co. , 6 2 3 So

. 2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4(Mi ss. 1 9 9 3); McClusky v. Thompson , 3 6 3S o. 2 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 4(Mi ss. 1 9 7 8). 6 no tf r o m Cam us ’ s a c t i o ns i n hi s c ap ac i t y as a n Ai r 2 e m pl o ye e . Thi s a r gum e nt is w ith o u t m e r it. T h e F i f t h C ir c u it’s p r io rd e c is io n in Se if e r t h he l d t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e dju r is d ic tio n t o c o n s id e rS e ife r th ’ s d e fe c tiv e d e s ig n cla im
a g a in s t C a m u s . S ee S eifer th , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d a t 2 7 7
. S eif erth m a y n ot n ow attem p t t o escape t h i s r u l i n g by t ran sf orm i n g h i s defec t ive- desi gn cl ai m i n t o h i s c l ai m s f or
n egl i gen ce, neg l i gen ce per s e , a nd fail ur e t o w ar n. Con s e que nt l y, w e f i nd n o er r orin th e di st r i c tc our t ’ s gr antof s um m ar y j udgm entc onc l udi ng t hat Se i fe r t h’ s r e m ai ni ng c l ai m s a ga i ns tCam us a r e b ar r e d b y t h e M i s s i s s i ppi W orkm en ’ s C om pen sati on A ctan d the co- em pl oyee defense p u rsuan tt o Pe r ki ns v. I n suran ce Co. of

Nort h A m eri ca , 7 9 9 F .2d 9 5 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). 2 F i n al l y, S ei fert h argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed byden yi n g h i s m ot i on t o c o m pe ldi s c o ve r y o f do c um e n t s “r el ati ng t o de s i gn o f t he pl at f

o r m . . . a nd
c o m m uni c at i o ns w i t h t he Fe de r alAvi at i o n Adm i ni s t r at i o n. ” W e f i nd thatt he
c o u r t d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gh is m o tio n . S ee Moore , 233 F. 3d at 8 7 6
. A ccord i n gly, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/10/2010