P.H. Glatfelter Co. v. Winword Prospects, Ltd.

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal of Dist. Ct.’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to respond to certain discovery requests under circumstances where: (1) defendant was served with non-party subpoena in pending CERCLA lawsuit involving plaintiff and third-party; (2) defendant is entity allegedly conducting third-party’s defense of CERCLA claims; and (3) same Dist. Ct. judge that ruled on instant motion to compel was also assigned to resolve CERCLA claims. Collateral order doctrine did not apply so as to provide jurisdiction for Ct. of Appeals to resolve instant appeal, where, although resolution of motion to compel is ancillary to underlying CERCLA claims, plaintiff has opportunity to seek review of instant discovery issue once Dist. Ct. resolves CERCLA claims, since same Dist. Ct. judge would have acted on both matters. Ct. noted that other courts would have held that Ct. of Appeals would have jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine to consider instant appeal if Dist. Ct. that had not been assigned to underlying CERCLA lawsuit had ruled on instant discovery dispute.