Court Opinion

ID: 2961916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:49:44.889277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:22.790337
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 6, 1993           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                                                     ___________________________          No. 93-1316                         IN RE TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY,                                     Petitioners.                                                                                     ___________________________                        ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO                           THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                                                                     ___________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                          Feinberg,* Senior Circuit Judge,                                      ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                                                                     ___________________________               Alan  D.  Rose, with  whom  Charles R.  Parrott,  Matthew D.               ______________              ___________________   __________          Poppel, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Michael B. Rosen, and Dennis C.          ______  ________________________  ________________      _________          Hart were on brief, for petitioners.          ____               Dahlia Rudavsky,  with whom Ellen J.  Messing and Shilepsky,               _______________             _________________     __________          Messing & Rudavsky, P.C. were on brief, for respondents.          ________________________                                                                                     _________________________                                                                                     _________________________                                   _______________          *Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.                    Per Curiam.  The trustees of Boston University petition                    Per Curiam.                    __________          for  issuance of a writ  of prohibition which,  if granted, would          vitiate two district court orders concerning the production  of a          document.  We temporarily  stayed the orders, expedited appellate          proceedings, ordered  the district court to  inspect the document          in camera,  received both the  district court's findings  and the          __ ______          disputed document, and entertained oral argument.  We now decline          to issue the requested writ and dismiss the petition.                    We  need not wax longiloquent.  It suffices to say that          writs   of  mandamus   and  prohibition      we  use   the  terms          interchangeably     "are drastic  remedies"  that  "must be  used          sparingly and only in extraordinary situations."  In  re Pearson,                                                            ______________          No. 92-2158, slip op. at 4 (1st Cir. Mar. 16, 1993).  Among other          things, the writ-seeker must establish a "clear and indisputable"          right  to the  relief  requested.   Bankers  Life &  Cas.  Co. v.                                              __________________________          Holland,  346  U.S. 379,  384  (1953) (quoting  United  States v.          _______                                         ______________          Duell,  112 U.S. 576, 582 (1899)).   In effect, a petitioner must          _____          show "that the challenged order is palpably erroneous."  Pearson,                                                                   _______          slip  op. at  6.   We apply  this high  standard with  particular          vigilance to  orders such as the one at issue here because, as we          have repeatedly cautioned, "[i]nterlocutory procedural orders . .          . rarely will satisfy this precondition for mandamus relief."  In                                                                         __          re  Recticel Foam  Corp., 859  F.2d 1000,  1006 (1st  Cir. 1988).          ________________________          After  all, "[d]ecisions regarding the  scope of discovery  . . .          and  the  protections to  be  afforded parties  in  the discovery          process,  are ordinarily  left to  the  informed judgment  of the                                          3          district judge . . . ."  Id.                                    ___                    In this  case, we have examined  the petitioners' claim          of attorney-client privilege in light of the record, the parties'          arguments, the  disputed  document itself,  the district  court's          specific  findings,  and  the  applicable  law.   We  are  firmly          convinced  that  the  district  court's  turnover  order  is  not          palpably erroneous.  Thus, the petition falls squarely within the          generality  of the  aforestated  rule, not  within the  long-odds          exception to it.                    The  petition for issuance of  a writ of prohibition is                    The  petition for issuance of  a writ of prohibition is                    _______________________________________________________          denied and  dismissed, the  stay previously issued  is dissolved,          denied and  dismissed, the  stay previously issued  is dissolved,          _________________________________________________________________          and  the case  is  remitted to  the  district court  for  further          and  the case  is  remitted to  the  district court  for  further          _________________________________________________________________          proceedings.  Mandate shall  issue forthwith.  Costs in  favor of          proceedings.  Mandate shall  issue forthwith.  Costs in  favor of          ___________   ______________________________   __________________          respondents.          respondents.          ___________                                          4