Today, the Tenth Circuit published one civil opinion — a previously unpublished order released on August 25 that the court decided sua sponte to publish.
In re RBS Securities, Inc. (No. 14-3151), involved a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the district court be ordered to strike one paragraph of a master discovery protocol entered in related cases filed in the District of Kansas, the Central District of California, and the Southern District of New York. The paragraph at issue created a procedure for discovery disputes to be handled by one “coordinating” judge, with consultation of the judges in the other two districts, and entered in the New York action. The petitioner objected that the procedure improperly ceded authority to a judge outside the District of Kansas.
A petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus only where: (1) the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief desired; (2) the petitioner demonstrates that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.
The Tenth Circuit denied the writ because the petitioner did not demonstrate that the right to the writ is clear and undisputable. The court “appreciate[d] the concerns” raised in the writ and noted that some orders were initially entered by the New York judge that purported to control the Kansas cases. However, the Kansas judge entered a subsequent order signing the New York orders nunc pro tunc and stating that all future orders would be signed by a District of Kansas judge and entered in the Kansas action — a procedure that had been followed since the order was issued. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Colorado Appeals 