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May 6, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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