holding that an order directing a non-party to pay attorney’s fees as a sanction was iip-mediately appealable, but not addressing whether a non-party can appeal a collateral discovery order after the entry of final judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding that an order directing a non-party to pay attorney’s fees as a sanction was iip-mediately appealable, but not addressing whether a non-party can appeal a collateral discovery order after the entry of final judgment
- holding that predecessor to section 362 did not bar enforcement of a pre-petition discovery order nor did it bar contempt proceedings pursuant to rule 37 of the federal rules of civil procedure
- ruling that actions to be stayed would not include contempt proceedings arising out of disobedience of an order made prior to the stay
- affirming district court order requiring corporate defendant's sole non-party officer to pay plaintiff's expenses resulting from corporate defendant's failure to answer interrogatories
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in all aspects of the opinion except that relating to the amount of the award made to plaintiff under Rule 37(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P. While I entertain no doubt that plaintiff is entitled to an award of expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees for the disobedience of Haffkine, there is simply no factual support in the record before us for the assessment of $2,000.00. Therefore, I would remand on this issue for further proceedings.