Tobacco Documents - MN Court of Appeals Order (January 13, 1998)
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS
Office Of Appellate Courts
Jan. 14, 1998
Filed
O R D E R
#C5-97-2349
|
The State of Minnesota,
By Hubert H. Humphrey, III,
Its Attorney General,
Respondent,
and
Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
Respondent,
vs.
Philip Morris, Inc.,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
B.A.T. Tobacco Co.,
Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
The American Tobacco Co.,
The Council for Tobacco
Research - U.S.A., Inc.,
The Tobacco Institute,
Liggett Group, Inc.,
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Kalitowski, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD,
AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
Petitioners seek writs of prohibition and mandamus. They object to the district court's employment of a categorical review of their claims of privilege and seek to compel a review of individual documents, as well as individual findings pertaining to each document. Respondents oppose the petition and seek attorney fees and costs.
To obtain a writ of prohibition, a party asserting privilege must establish that the district court has ordered disclosure of information that is clearly not discoverable. Mampel v. Eastern Heights State Bank, 254 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1977). But the focus of this petition is on the process employed to review claims of privilege and not on the specific documents ordered disclosed. We note that the documents ordered disclosed by the district court became available to the public by alternative means. In large part, petitioners appear to be seeking an advisory opinion on the process employed by the district court over the course of the past seven months, rather than review of the specific rulings made on December 16, 1997.
To the extent that petitioners are challenging the employment of categories rather than a line-by-line review of every document, the petition is untimely. See Ebenezer Soc'y v. Minnesota State Bd. of Health, 301 Minn. 188, 193, 223 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1974) (petition for extraordinary relief should be filed within time permitted for appeal from an order). To the extent they are challenging the procedures employed by the special master, they have not established that they suffered injury for which extraordinary relief is the only remedy, that the procedures they seek would have yielded any greater protection, or that the procedures now being employed are identical. Based on a review of the complete record submitted to this court and the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that extraordinary relief is inappropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The petition for prohibition and mandamus is denied.
2. The supplemental appendices are accepted.
3. The motion for fees and costs and for oral argument are denied.
Dated: January 13, 1998
BY THE COURT
/s/ Edward Toussaint
&Chief Judge