TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Superior Oil Company

The Superior Oil Company, Transco Energy Company v. American Petrofina Company of Texas, Intervenors-Appellants. In Re American Petrofina Co. Of Texas, Fina Oil & Gas, Inc., and Fina Exploration, Inc.

In re Superior Oil Co., 785 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1986
Docket
No. 85-4352
Citations
785 F.2d 130

Opinion

785 F.2d 130

The SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Transco Energy Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. AMERICAN PETROFINA COMPANY OF TEXAS, et al., Intervenors-Appellants. In re AMERICAN PETROFINA CO. OF TEXAS, Fina Oil & Gas, Inc., and Fina Exploration, Inc., Petitioners.

Nos. 85-4352, 85-4578.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 1986.

John M. McCollam, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Stuart & Duplantis, Mark T. Drapanas, New Orleans, La., John E. Kennedy, J. Craig Youngblood, James W. McCartney, Ben H. Sheppard, Jr., Houston, Tex., for American Petrofina Co., et al.

1

Lawrence E. Donohoe, Jr., Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, et al., Edward C. Abell, Jr., Lafayette, La., for Transco Energy Co.

2

Andrews & Kurth, Alfred H. Ebert, Jr., Houston, Tex., for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. & Transco Energy.

3

Fulbright & Jaworski, M.W. Parse, Jr., Houston, Tex., for Transco Exploration Co. & TXP Operating Co.

4

Earl H. Willis, St. Martinville, La., for Nonparty Washington Gas Light Co.

5

Roxanne Armstrong, Dan A. Spencer, Houston, Tex., for Superior Oil Co.

6

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; John M. Duhe, Jr., Judge.

7

Before BROWN, JOHNSON, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

8

IT IS ORDERED that the protective order entered by the district court as amended in Civil Action No. 84-2138 shall be modified to make American Petrofina Company of Texas, Fina Oil & Gas, Inc., and Fina Exploration, Inc. (collectively "Fina") a party to the protective order subject to the same restrictions and conditions as the other parties to the protective order. Fina shall therefore not be barred by the protective order from making discovery requests in the pending litigation in the state courts of Louisiana for materials produced by Transco Energy Company, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Transco Exploration Company, Transco Exploration Partners, Ltd. and TXP Operating Company (collectively "Transco") in this federal action, including interrogatory answers, documents, and depositions of Transco employees and witnesses, under the same restrictions and conditions as the other parties to the protective order. This order is expressly conditioned on Fina's assent to the terms, restrictions and conditions of the protective order.

9

In holding that the protective order cannot bar Fina's discovery efforts in the state court proceeding, we are persuaded by the rationale of Judge Wisdom, sitting by designation, in Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 635 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir.1980).

10

Questions of the discoverability in the state litigation of the materials discovered in the federal litigation are, of course, for the state courts of Louisiana, before whom the litigation between Fina and Transco is pending.

11

VACATED AND REMANDED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1986: 21990: 11991: 11992: 12003: 12009: 12023: 219862026peak 1986 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)
  2. United Nuclear Corporation v. Cranford Insurance Company905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1990)
  3. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. David Greenblatt, the Official Secured Creditors' Committee of Amfesco Industries, Inc., Etc.964 F.2d 1227 (1st Cir. 1992)
  4. CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.257 F.R.D. 195 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
  5. Grundberg v. Upjohn Co.140 F.R.D. 459 (D. Utah 1991)
  6. Stack v. Gamill796 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Dial v. Department of Veterans AffairsNo. 6:21-cv-01071 (D. Kan. July 12, 2023)
  2. Becht v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.No. 2:23-cv-01119 (E.D. La. July 7, 2023)
  3. CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.257 F.R.D. 195 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
  4. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)
  5. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. David Greenblatt, the Official Secured Creditors' Committee of Amfesco Industries, Inc., Etc.964 F.2d 1227 (1st Cir. 1992)
  6. Grundberg v. Upjohn Co.140 F.R.D. 459 (D. Utah 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass'n, the State of N.Y., Intervening, 635 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir. 1981) 125

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list