In re: Robinson Helicopter Co.

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Morris S. Arnold and Steven M. Colloton (PUBLISHED) [4386912] [16-1572, 16-1604]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1572
___________________________
In re: Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.,
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner.
___________________________
No. 16-1604
___________________________
Kimberly Long; Ronald Long; Wayne M. Holtmeier, Sr.; Juanita Miner.
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees,
Sacha Wood; Ray Aaron; Melinda Aaron; Travis Fairchild,
lllllllllllllllllllllIntervenors - Appellees.
v.
Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: March 30, 2016
Filed: April 8, 2016
[Published]
____________

Appellate Case: 16-1572

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/08/2016 Entry ID: 4386912

Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robinson Helicopter Company petitions for a writ of prohibition that would
prevent the district court from enforcing an order filed February 23, 2016. The order
directs Robinson Helicopter to file with the district court exhibits from depositions
taken in Long v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., No. 09-3283-CV-S-ODS (W.D.
Mo.), a civil case that was filed in 2009 and closed in April 2012 after a settlement
and judgment. Respondents Melinda Aaron, Ray Aaron, and Travis Fairchild,
intervenors in the district court, seek the deposition exhibits for use in a civil action
filed against Robinson Helicopter that is pending in California state court and
scheduled for trial on April 11, 2016.
A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary form of relief that is available to
correct a clear error of law where the aggrieved party has no other adequate means
to attain the desired relief. In re Union Elec. Co., 787 F.3d 903, 908 & n.4 (8th Cir.
2015). We conclude that a writ should issue here, because the district court lacks
power to impose any new discovery-related requirements on the parties to the Long
case after that lawsuit was settled and closed in 2012. See Public Citizen v. Liggett
Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 781 (1st Cir. 1988). The district court asserted authority
to ensure that discovery materials from Long were available “to those who might have
a valid use for them.” R. Doc. 77, at 2. The exhibits at issue, however, were never
filed in the district court or otherwise made part of the record in Long. The district
court lacks authority at this juncture to require production of these documents for use
by third parties. Cf. Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 683 (3d Cir. 1988).
Insofar as Robinson Helicopter seeks additional prospective relief concerning
deposition transcripts from Long that were filed pursuant to an order of the district
-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1572

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/08/2016 Entry ID: 4386912

court in 2014, the petition is denied. Robinson Helicopter complied with the order,
and the district court already disclosed the transcripts to the respondents. Even
assuming Robinson Helicopter has not waived any objection to the district court’s
exercise of authority over the transcripts, there is no current controversy over access
to them. We also deny Robinson Helicopter’s request for an award of fees and
expenses.
The petition for writ of prohibition is granted in part. The district court’s order
of February 23, 2016 is vacated. The petition is otherwise denied.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1572

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/08/2016 Entry ID: 4386912