Zander v. Craig Hospital et al

Filing 87

USCA ORDER re: 85 USCA Order, as to petition for writ of mandamus. This court's May 29, 2010, temporary stay order is vacated, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Petitioners requiers for oral argument is also denied. USCA case no. 10-1232. (bjrsl, )

Case: 10-1232

Document: 01018438923

Date Filed: 06/10/2010 FILED 1 Page: U n i t ed States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit

U N I T E D STATES CO U R T O F APPEALS E l i s a b e t h A. Shumaker F O R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT C l e r k of Court

J u n e 10, 2010

I n re: C R A I G HOSPITA L ; RICK BA Y L E S , P h . D . , CNIM , P etition ers. N o . 10-1232 ( D . C . No. 1:09-CV-02121-REB-BNB ) ( D . Colo.)

ORDER

B e f o r e HA R T Z , O'BRIEN, and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

C r a i g Hospital and Rick Bayles filed a petition for writ of mandamus a s k i n g this Court to reverse the district court's orders directing Craig Hospital to p r o d u c e quality management documents that the district court determined were n o t protected by Colorado's quality assurance privilege, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-3-109. W e deny the writ. " [ A ] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances." In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1 1 8 6 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). It "is used only to confine an inferior c o u r t to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise i t s authority when it is its duty to do so." Id. (quotations omitted). "Therefore, w e will grant a writ only when the district court has acted wholly without

Case: 10-1232

Document: 01018438923

Date Filed: 06/10/2010

Page: 2

j u r i s d i c t i o n or so clearly abused its discretion as to constitute usurpation of p o w e r . " Id. (quotations omitted). "Three conditions must be met before a writ of m a n d a m u s may issue": (1) "the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no o t h e r adequate means to attain the relief he desires"; (2) "the petitioner must d e m o n s t r a t e that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable"; and (3) "the i s s u i n g court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is a p p r o p r i a t e under the circumstances." Id. at 1187 (quotations omitted). W e have considered the petition in light of the district court's M a r c h 2, A p r i l 8, and M a y 10, 2010, orders, and we conclude that the petitioners have f a i l e d to demonstrate a right to the writ that is clear and indisputable. "It is not a p p r o p r i a t e to issue a writ when the most that could be claimed is that the district c o u r t [ ] . . . erred in ruling on matters within [its] jurisdiction." Id. (quotations o m i t t e d ) . And that is what we have before us: petitioners' arguments that the d i s t r i c t court erred in ruling that Craig Hospital's organic documents were not p r o t e c t e d by Colorado's quality assurance privilege, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-3-109. The district court's rulings were within its jurisdiction and petitioners have failed t o demonstrate that this case justifies the drastic remedy they seek. A c c o r d i n g l y , this court's M a y 29, 2010, temporary stay order is vacated,

-2-

Case: 10-1232

Document: 01018438923

Date Filed: 06/10/2010

Page: 3

a n d the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED . Additionally, petitioners' r e q u e s t for oral argument is D E N I E D .

E n t e r e d for the Court,

E L I S A B E T H A. SHUM A K E R , Clerk

-3-