Court Opinion

ID: 2962894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:03:21.869781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:35.895923
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 15, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 94-1399                              RICHARD POLIQUIN, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                               GARDEN WAY INCORPORATED,                                 Defendant, Appellee,                              __________________________                                  MAURICE A. LIBNER,                                      Appellant.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________                             and Keeton,* District Judge.
                                          ______________                                 ___________________               Maurice  A. Libner  and McTeague,  Higbee, Libner,  MacAdam,
               __________________      ____________________________________          Case & Watson on brief for appellant.
          _____________               Ray E. Thompson, Jr., Glenn H. Robinson and Thompson & Bowie
               ____________________  _________________     ________________          on brief for appellee, Garden Way Incorporated.                                   __________________                                  __________________          ___________________          *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                 Per  Curiam.   Attorney  Maurice A.  Libner appeals  the
                 ___________            order of the United States District Court for the District of            Maine, dated April 7, 1994.   The order grants the motions of            appellee, Garden Way, for compliance with a previously issued            protective  order and  for  sanctions for  violations of  the            order.   It also orders Libner to undertake specific steps to            comply  with  the previous  order.   We  dismiss for  lack of            appellate jurisdiction.                 This  court has jurisdiction  only over "final decisions            of  the district  court."   28 U.S.C.    1291;   Willhauck v.
                                                             _________            Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 701 (1st  Cir. 1991).  A final decision
            ______            is generally one that "leaves nothing for the court to do but            execute the judgment."  Zayas-Green v. Casaine, 906 F.2d  18,
                                    ___________    _______            21 (1st  Cir. 1990) (quoting  Van Cauwenberghe v.  Biard, 486
                                          ________________     _____            U.S. 517, 521 (1988)).                   In  the  instant  case,  although  the   district  court            determined that Libner had  violated the protective order and            that   sanctions  were   appropriate,  sanctions   were  only            "conditionally  granted,  subject  .   .  .  to  the  Court's
                            _______            determination and  imposition of  an appropriate  sanction on            Attorney  Libner."   Since  the  district  court has  yet  to            determine what sanctions will be applied, the portion of  the            order  imposing sanctions  upon Libner  for violation  of the            previously issued protective order is not a final order.  See
                                                                      ___            In re Tetracycline Cases,  927 F.2d 411, 413 (8th  Cir. 1991)
            ________________________                                         -2-

            (finding  that  attorney was  in  contempt  for violation  of            limited  appearance and protective  orders and that sanctions            were appropriate was not  appealable final order since amount            of sanctions yet to be determined).                 Nor is the portion of  the order imposing obligations on            Libner  yet appealable.  Discovery orders  are not in general            appealable final orders.   In re Insurers Syndicate for Joint
                                       __________________________________            Underwriting,  etc., 864 F.2d 208, 210 (1st Cir. 1988); In re
            __________________                                      _____            Recticel  Foam Corp.,  859 F.2d  1000, 1002 (1st  Cir. 1988).
            ___________________            Libner claims, however, that the order  in this case operates            as an  injunction  and hence  is  appealable pursuant  to  28            U.S.C.   1292(a)(1).  However, even if we were to assume that            the April 7 order operates as an injunction, the order is not            yet  appealable since Libner has failed to meet his burden of            showing the order "might cause [him] irreparable consequences            if  not immediately  reviewed."   Carson  v. American  Brands
                                              ______     ________________            Inc.,  450 U.S. 79, 84  (1981); see also  In re Unanue-Casal,
            ___                             ___ ____  __________________            998 F.2d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing cases).                 This appeal is hence premature and must be dismissed for
                                                            _________            lack of appellate jurisdiction.                                         -3-