F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 13 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FRONTIER REFINING, INC., a
Wyoming corporation;
COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE COMPANY, PLC;
OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY, NORTHERN
ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD;
INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD; SIRIUS (UK)
INSURANCE PLC, UNI
STOREBRAND
SKADEFORSIKRING, CODAN
INSURANCE, HOUSTON
CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, GJENSIDEGE
FORSIKRING, HULL AND
No. 96-8015
COMPANY and ALEXANDER
(Dist. of Wyoming)
HOWDEN ENERGY, INC.,
(D.C. No. 94-CV-172)
Plaintiffs,
v.
GORMAN-RUPP COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
-------------------
JOE M. TEIG and HOLLAND &
HART,
Movants-Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, HENRY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
This case arises out of a related appeal, Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-
Rupp Co., No. 96-8014. In that case, Frontier Refining Inc. (“Frontier”) brought
an indemnity action against Gorman-Rupp Co. (“Gorman-Rupp’), claiming that a
pump manufactured by Gorman-Rupp caused a fire and explosion at Frontier’s
Cheyenne, Wyoming refinery. Frontier sought to recover approximately $19.25
million it paid in settlement of claims brought by victims of the fire and
explosion. Joe Teig and Holland & Hart represented Frontier in the underlying,
settled litigation.
During the subsequent indemnity action brought by Frontier against
Gorman-Rupp, the district court ordered Holland & Hart to divulge documents
relating to the underlying litigation. Holland & Hart claimed the documents were
protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The district
court also ordered Teig to answer questions in deposition and to testify at trial
regarding communications and documents he claimed were privileged and
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
protected by the work product doctrine. Teig and Holland & Hart complied with
the orders. Following trial, Teig and Holland & Hart brought this appeal,
challenging the district court’s attorney-client and work product rulings. 1
Based on our conclusion in Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co.,
No. 96-8014, that the district court erred in compelling disclosure of the
privileged materials and work product and that the issue need not be revisited on
remand, we conclude that this appeal is moot. United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d
955, 967 n.6 (10th Cir. 1996); Longley v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1366, 1367 (8th Cir.
1994). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
This court previously concluded, in a written order, that this case should
1
be submitted on the briefs without oral argument.
-3-