F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 17 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ASHLEY CREEK PHOSPHATE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 01-1074
v. (D.C. No. 99-M-2099)
(D. Colo.)
CHEVRON CORPORATION;
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; CHEVRON
PIPE LINE COMPANY; CHEVRON
CHEMICAL COMPANY; CHEVRON
INDUSTRIES, INC.; SF PIPELINE
LIMITED COMPANY;
SF PHOSPHATES LIMITED
COMPANY; FS, INC.; FARMLAND
INDUSTRIES, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT
COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________
AGRIUM U.S., INC.,
Real Party in Interest-
Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Before MURPHY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Ashley Creek Phosphate Company (Ashley Creek) appeals the
district court’s orders relating to discovery of information from the real party in
interest, Agrium U.S., Inc. (Agrium). The disputed discovery materials were
relevant to the principal litigation between Ashley Creek and the defendants, filed
in a Utah federal court. This court has resolved all claims in the principal
litigation. Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc. , 315 F.3d 1245
(10th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed , 71 U.S.L.W. 3760 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2003)
(No. 02-1758). As a result of that opinion, there are no claims pending between
the principal litigants, and thus, no reason to pursue discovery from Agrium.
Defendants and Agrium maintain that this appeal is moot. Ashley Creek responds
that the appeal is not moot because its petition for a writ of certiorari has not been
ruled on by the Supreme Court. Rather, Ashley Creek maintains that the appeal
-2-
should be abated pending a ruling on its certiorari petition. All parties agree that
the appeal is moot unless the Supreme Court grants certiorari.
We have determined that abating this appeal pending the Court’s
adjudication of the certiorari petition would be an unnecessary burden on judicial
resources. Because we are confident that our holdings in the principal litigation
are correct and will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court, we conclude that the
appeal is moot and should be dismissed.
Appeal DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-