Opinion ID: 78179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Text: In United States v. Procter & Gamble Co ., the government filed a civil antitrust lawsuit following a grand jury investigation in which no indictment was returned. 356 U.S. at 678, 78 S.Ct. at 984. Because the government was using the grand jury transcript to prepare for the civil trial, the defendants sought access to the transcript as well. Id. The government refused, but the district court ordered production. Id. at 679, 78 S.Ct. at 985. The government, adamant in its refusal to obey, moved the district court to either (1) stay its order pending the filing of an appeal and an application for an extraordinary writ, or (2) amend its order to state that if the government failed to produce the transcript, the district court would dismiss the complaint. Id. The district court granted the government its latter option and amended its order to provide for dismissal if the grand jury transcript was not produced. Id. The government refused to produce the transcript, and the district court dismissed the case. Id. at 679-80, 78 S.Ct. at 985. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court confronted the question of jurisdiction. Id. at 680, 78 S.Ct. at 985. The Supreme Court first noted that the dismissal order was a final order that ended the case. Id. The Supreme Court then acknowledged the familiar rule invoked by the defendants in arguing that jurisdiction was lackingthat a plaintiff who has voluntarily dismissed his complaint may not appeal. Id. However, the Supreme Court concluded that [t]he rule has no application here, because the government had at all times opposed the production orders and invited the dismissal sanction as a way of getting review of the adverse ruling. Id. In that regard, the Supreme Court held that when the government proposed dismissal for failure to obey, it had lost on the merits and was only seeking an expeditious review. Id. at 680-81, 78 S.Ct. at 985. In other words, `[t]he plaintiffs did not consent to a judgment against them, but only that, if there was to be such a judgment, it should be final in form instead of interlocutory, so that they might come to this court without further delay.' Id. at 681, 78 S.Ct. at 986 (quoting Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66, 83, 37 S.Ct. 353, 358, 61 L.Ed. 597 (1917)). Thus, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the merits of the appeal.