Goldstone et al v. TMST, Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 5/25/11. (bmh, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN RE:
*
TMST, Inc.
f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
et al.
*
Civil No. JFM-11-1033
*
*
******
MEMORANDUM
Larry A. Goldstone, Clarence G. Simmons, III, and SAF Financial, Inc. (“Appellants”)
have filed a motion for leave to appeal in this bankruptcy proceeding, and the Chapter 11 Trustee
has filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. Appellants’ motion for leave to appeal will be
denied, and the Trustee’s motion to dismiss the notice of appeal will be granted.
No extended discussion is necessary. The primary issue that Appellants attempt to raise
on this appeal is whether the Trustee has the right to review the non-privileged data in the
“Unallocated Space” on the two laptop computers in question. That issue was decided by the
Bankruptcy Court on December 16, 2010 when it entered its Order Granting In Part Motion For
Protective Order. If Appellants desired to challenge that ruling, they should have done so soon
after the order was entered. Their present attempt to appeal the ruling is untimely.
As for the “Inadvertent Disclosure” order, I do not believe that there is any substantial
dispute of law involved in the entry of the order about which there is a substantial ground for a
difference of opinion. In any event, to permit an interlocutory appeal of that order would
certainly not materially advance the termination of the litigation. To the contrary, it would allow
Appellants an opportunity to further delay these proceedings as they evidently want to do.
U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered
herewith.
Date: May 25, 2011
U.S. District Court (Rev. 1/2000
/s/
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?