Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

785 F.2d 130

Docket Nos. 85-4352, 85-4578.

Superior Oil Company v. American Petrofina Company of Texas American Petrofina Co of Texas

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 1986.

6 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[q]uestions of the discoverability in the [collateral] litigation of the materials discovered in [this] litigation”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance Company, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Relies on Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1986-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2009

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

50198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

John M. McCollam, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Stuart & Duplantis, Mark T. Drapanas, New Orleans, La., John E. Kennedy, J. Craig Youngblood, James W. McCartney, Ben H. Sheppard, Jr., Houston, Tex., for American Petrofina Co., et al.

¶1

Lawrence E. Donohoe, Jr., Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, et al., Edward C. Abell, Jr., Lafayette, La., for Transco Energy Co.

¶2

Andrews & Kurth, Alfred H. Ebert, Jr., Houston, Tex., for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. & Transco Energy.

¶3

Fulbright & Jaworski, M.W. Parse, Jr., Houston, Tex., for Transco Exploration Co. & TXP Operating Co.

¶4

Earl H. Willis, St. Martinville, La., for Nonparty Washington Gas Light Co.

¶5

Roxanne Armstrong, Dan A. Spencer, Houston, Tex., for Superior Oil Co.

¶6

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; John M. Duhe, Jr., Judge.

¶7

Before BROWN, JOHNSON, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶8

IT IS ORDERED that the protective order entered by the district court as amended in Civil Action No. 84-2138 shall be modified to make American Petrofina Company of Texas, Fina Oil & Gas, Inc., and Fina Exploration, Inc. (collectively "Fina") a party to the protective order subject to the same restrictions and conditions as the other parties to the protective order. Fina shall therefore not be barred by the protective order from making discovery requests in the pending litigation in the state courts of Louisiana for materials produced by Transco Energy Company, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Transco Exploration Company, Transco Exploration Partners, Ltd. and TXP Operating Company (collectively "Transco") in this federal action, including interrogatory answers, documents, and depositions of Transco employees and witnesses, under the same restrictions and conditions as the other parties to the protective order. This order is expressly conditioned on Fina's assent to the terms, restrictions and conditions of the protective order.

¶9

In holding that the protective order cannot bar Fina's discovery efforts in the state court proceeding, we are persuaded by the rationale of Judge Wisdom, sitting by designation, in Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir.1980).

¶10

Questions of the discoverability in the state litigation of the materials discovered in the federal litigation are, of course, for the state courts of Louisiana, before whom the litigation between Fina and Transco is pending.

¶11

VACATED AND REMANDED.

/785/f2d/130 · .json · Public domain