Tobacco Documents - Order of MN Court of Appeals (March 17, 1998)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
___________________________________
The State of Minnesota,
By Hubert H. Humphrey, III,
Its Attorney General,
and
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Minnesota,
| | ORDER #CX-98-414
#CX-98-431 |
Respondents,
vs.
Philip Morris, Inc., et al.,
Liggett Group, Inc.,
___________________________________
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Petitioners seek prohibition and mandamus, for relief from orders compelling discovery. Petitioners also seek oral argument on the petitions and a stay, in the event that relief is denied. Respondents oppose the petitions and motion for stay and seek attorney fees and costs incurred in defense of the petitions.
The focus of the petitions is the trial court's use of a process of categorical review to evaluate claims of privilege. This process was established by order of May 9, 1997, and we have previously denied extraordinary relief on a similar petition involving production of a different group of documents. To the extent that petitioners are challenging the use of categories rather than a line-by-line review of every document, the petitions are 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 to be filed within time permitted for appeal from an order).
To obtain a writ of prohibition, petitioners must establish that the documents ordered disclosed are clearly not discoverable. Mampel v. Eastern Heights State Bank, 254 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1977). Prohibition is appropriate "only in extreme cases where the law affords no other adequate remedy." Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 54 151 N.W.2d 577, 579 (1967). It is issued to prevent a trial court from acting when it is wholly without jurisdiction or from exceeding its legitimate powers. Id. at 55, 151 N.W.2d 579. Petitioners have not established that specific documents are clearly not discoverable, that the remedies afforded them are or were inadequate, or that the trial court exceeded its legitimate powers, and prohibition will not lie.
Petitioners did not (a) provide a complete record of the proceedings before the special master; (b) identify the documents on which they made individualized argument in support of their claims of privilege, either before the special master or the trial judge; or (c) establish that claims made in this court as to specific documents were raised and preserved in the trial court. We have carefully reviewed the arguments of the petitioners and the appendices submitted to this court (which lack many of the documents to which petitioners refer in their arguments) and are mindful of the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the numerous interlocutory petitions previously filed by these parties, the submissions made in connection with those petitions, and our previous rulings in this case. Petitioners have failed to establish (a) that their opportunity to present argument or evidence in support of claims of privilege was limited or abridged in any significant way; (b) the existence of errors of law in the application of the standards governing the crime-fraud exception; or (c) that the detailed findings of the special master are inadequate to support the trial court's order compelling disclosure. Petitioners are not entitled to relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The petition in CX-98-414 and CX-98-431 are consolidated.
2. The petitions and motions of the parties are denied.
3. This order shall be effective at noon on Thursday, March 19, 1998, unless a stay is granted by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
4. Counsel shall retrieve their confidential appendices from the clerk of the appellate courts by noon on Thursday, March 19, 1998.
Dated: March 17, 1998.
BY THE COURT
/s/ Edward Toussaint
Chief Judge