FRED BENIOFF CO.
v.
MCCULLOCH, JUDGE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to prevent an appeal on the issue of deposition costs.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to order the respondent to vacate an order requiring payment of opponent's counsel travel costs for depositions. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
DENMAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner seeks leave to file its petition for a writ of mandate ordering respondent to vacate an order for the taking of depositions of certain witnesses in New York by oral examination. The district court required, as a condition precedent to ordering the taking of the depositions by such examination, the payment by petitioner of the costs, in the amount of $1,681.14, of the travel expenses and fees of its opponent’s counsel to attend and participate in the taking of the depositions. Petitioner claims the order imposing such costs is beyond the power conferred upon the district court by Section 30(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
The question of the legality of the imposition of such costs is one which may be entertained by us on appeal if petitioner win on the merits. Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 265 U.S. 78, 83, 44 S.Ct. 481, 68 L.Ed. 909. If it lose on the merits its appeal on the entire case brings before us error claimed in such interlocutory orders not immediately appealable.
What the petitioner asks of us is that we prevent an appeal on this question of costs by a prior decision on the merits of its contention in a mandamus proceeding. This we have not the power to do. Such prevention of an appeal is not action in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, which is the only ground upon which the court may grant the writ of mandamus. 28 U.S.C.A. § 377, 36 Stat. 1162.
The petition is denied.
WILBUR, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Bartley PEN Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. OF Cal., 287 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1961)
-
United States v. ONE Motor Yacht Named Mercury, 527 F.2d 1112 (1st Cir. 1975)
-
Adams v. Heckler, 794 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1986)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Newton v. Consol. Gas Co. of N.Y., 265 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1924)