Menu
Tax Notes logo
HOMETax Notes ResearchFederalCourt Documentscourt opinions and orders

COURT STAYS ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT PENDING APPEAL.

APR. 29, 2003

Diageo Inc., U.S. v.

DATED APR. 29, 2003
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. DIAGEO, INC., Respondent.
  • Court
    United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • Docket
    No. 02-MC-11 (DSD/SRN)
  • Judge
    Doty, David S.
  • Cross-Reference
    United States v. Diageo Inc., No. 02-MC-11 (DSD/SRN) (D. Minn.

    Feb. 20, 2003). For a summary, see Tax Notes, Apr. 21, 2003, p.

    378; for the full text, see Doc 2003-8974 (3 original pages) or

    2003 TNT 71-58.)
  • Parallel Citation
    91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2003-2236
    2003 WL 21254778
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2003-15191 (3 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2003 TNT 123-13

Diageo Inc., U.S. v.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

 

 

ORDER

 

 

[1] This matter is before the court upon respondent Diageo Inc.'s ("Diageo") motion for a stay of the court's order dated February 19, 2003, pending Diageo's limited appeal of that order. After a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, the court grants Diageo's motion for a stay pending appeal of the court's order dated February 19, 2003.

 

BACKGROUND

 

 

[2] On February 19, 2003, the court ordered Diageo to produce six documents to the United States. Diageo produced five of those documents and withheld the sixth document, Document No. 88. Diageo has filed an appeal of the court's order dated February 19, 2003, and requests a stay of that order pending the filing and resolution of Diageo's appeal of the order with respect to Document No. 88. After careful consideration, the court grant's Diageo's motion for a stay.

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

[3] In determining whether to grant a motion for stay pending appeal of a civil order, the court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the movant has made a strong showing that the movant is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal, (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, (3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure other parties interests in the proceeding and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 107 S. Ct. 2113 (1987) United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 15, 16 (D.D.C. 2003); United States v. Fitzgerald, 884 F. Supp. 376, 377 (D. Idaho 1995); United States v. Miller, No. 4-78 Civ. 351, 1979 WL 1405 (D. Minn. June 11, 1979); United States v. Interstate Tool & Eng'g Corp., No. 74-C-114, 1975 WL 565 (E.D. Wis. April 18, 1975). The first factor is ordinarily the most important. Fitzgerald, 884 F. Supp. at 377.

[4] While Diageo has not made a strong showing of the likelihood of success on the merits, the court nevertheless concludes that a stay is warranted because the other three factors, together with the balance of equities, see 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 2d § 2904, weigh in favor of granting Diageo's motion, given the strong value the law places on the attorney-client privilege. If Diageo were required to produce the document now and then was successful on appeal, Diageo would be irreparably harmed because Diageo would not be able to recover the privileged nature of the document. Additionally, there is no evidence that a stay would injure the government. Although the court recognizes the public interest in tax enforcement and collection, that interest is outweighed by the strong interest in protecting and maintaining the attorney-client privilege in this case, especially because a stay will not irreparably impede tax enforcement and collection efforts in this action.

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

[5] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Diageo's motion for a stay pending respondent Diageo's limited appeal of the court's order as it applies to only one document that includes a memorandum that is essentially the same as another document that the court determined is privileged and not subject to disclosure is denied.

Dated: April, 29th, 2003

David S. Doty, Judge

 

United States District Court
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. DIAGEO, INC., Respondent.
  • Court
    United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • Docket
    No. 02-MC-11 (DSD/SRN)
  • Judge
    Doty, David S.
  • Cross-Reference
    United States v. Diageo Inc., No. 02-MC-11 (DSD/SRN) (D. Minn.

    Feb. 20, 2003). For a summary, see Tax Notes, Apr. 21, 2003, p.

    378; for the full text, see Doc 2003-8974 (3 original pages) or

    2003 TNT 71-58.)
  • Parallel Citation
    91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2003-2236
    2003 WL 21254778
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2003-15191 (3 original pages)
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2003 TNT 123-13
Copy RID