IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-60792
_____________________
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------------------------
PROTECTION MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
as Subrogee of Cardox Corporation, a
Division of Air Liquide American
Corporation; ARKWRIGHT MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, as Subrogee of Farmland Industries,
Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
TERRA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(5:96-CV-150)
_________________________________________________________________
January 26, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Defendant-appellant Terra International, Inc. (“Terra”)
seeks direct appellate review of the district court’s orders
affirming certain discovery orders entered by the magistrate
judge in a lawsuit between Terra and Mississippi Chemical
Corporation (“MCC”). These orders include (1) orders requiring
Terra to produce certain documents that Terra alleges are
undiscoverable and (2) an order granting MCC’s motion for a
protective order sequestering fact witnesses prior to their
depositions and barring fact witnesses from attending the
depositions of other witnesses. MCC has filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Terra contends that we possess jurisdiction to review the
above discovery orders pursuant to the collateral order doctrine
as established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337
U.S. 541 (1949). We conclude that the orders that are the
subject of this appeal do not meet the Cohen test. See Texaco,
Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 995 F.2d 43, 43-44
(5th Cir. 1993); Honig v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 404 F.2d
410, 410 (5th Cir. 1968). The cases that Terra cites in support
of its contrary position are inapposite. We therefore DISMISS
Terra’s appeal without prejudice.
DISMISSED.
2