Opinion ID: 503514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Schumaier's Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Text: 21 On August 19, 1986, Schumaier petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to relieve it from the effect of the protective order now at issue in this appeal. The arguments Schumaier presented in the petition are virtually identical to the arguments Schumaier now presents in its brief. On October 24, 1986, a motions panel of this court denied the petition. Uniden contends that such denial operates to bar Schumaier from relitigating the propriety of the protective order on this appeal. 22 [U]nder the 'law of the case' doctrine one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case. Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826, 100 S.Ct. 49, 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979). The doctrine applies, however, only when the first panel ruled on the merits. See United States v. Dean, 752 F.2d 535, 541 (11th Cir.1985) ([A] prior denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus will have res judicata effect only if the denial was 'on the merits,'....), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 97, 93 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986); Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 673 F.2d 1110, 1112-13 (9th Cir.1982) (first panel's summary denial of petition for writ of mandamus did not constitute law of the case because it did not reach the merits); 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4478 at 798-99 n. 31 (1981) [hereinafter Wright ] (Denial of mandamus by an appellate court ordinarily does not rest on a determination of the merits that should become binding as the law of the case.). 23 [W]hen the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus is, or may be, the result of the special limitations inherent in the writ, such a denial does not establish the law of the case. Dean, 752 F.2d at 542; accord Connolly, 673 F.2d at 1113 (where first panel's denial of petition may have been motivated by any of several guidelines governing issuance of writ, second panel would not speculate as to motivation for denial, and denial did not constitute law of the case); Key v. Wise, 629 F.2d 1049, 1054-55 (5th Cir.1980) (second panel not bound by first panel's denial of petition for writ of mandamus raising same issue, where first panel provided no explanation for its ruling), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1103, 102 S.Ct. 682, 70 L.Ed.2d 647 (1981); 18 Wright Sec. 4478 at 798 (Rulings that simply deny extraordinary relief for want of a clear and strong showing on the merits, ... do not trigger law of the case consequences.) (footnote omitted). 24 Denial of Schumaier's petition for a writ of mandate was based on the following grounds: Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in directing the return of documents it found to be privileged or that it is faced with harm incapable of correction on a subsequent appeal, if necessary. The court's statement reveals that its denial was based not on the merits of Schumaier's petition but on the presence of two factors that counsel withholding of any extraordinary writ--petitioner's failure to demonstrate clear error by the district court and the availability of relief by means of direct appeal. See Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977) (identifying five guidelines to be considered in determining whether to issue writ of mandamus). 25 Because the denial of Schumaier's petition was the result of the special limitations inherent in the writ, such a denial does not establish the law of the case. Dean, 752 F.2d at 542. Accordingly, the denial does not operate to bar Schumaier from challenging the propriety of the protective order on this appeal.