McDowell v. United States

Court of Claims

McDowell v. United States

229 Ct. Cl. 550, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 542, 1981 WL 22054

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 30, 1981

DocketNo. 226-81C

StatusPublished

This text of 229 Ct. Cl. 550 (McDowell v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDowell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 550, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 542, 1981 WL 22054 (cc 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

The court is here presented with a request to review Trial Judge Yannello’s order of September 24, 1981 suspending all discovery proceedings in this case in anticipation of defendant’s filing of a motion for summary judgment.

The standard for such interlocutory review is clearly delineated by the rules of this court. Interlocutory review is granted where the trial judge certifies his order as involving an issue of controlling importance or an issue of deprivation of fundamental rights as to which there is substantial ground for differences of opinion and the ultimate termination of the litigation may be materially advanced by review. Rule 53(c)(2)(i). The trial judge has not so certified the order under consideration.

Absent such certification, the dissatisfied party may request interlocutory review upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances which necessitate review in order to [551]*551avoid irreparable injury or manifest waste of resources. Rule 53(c)(2)(ii).

Plaintiffs request provides no such showing. Plaintiff simply asserts that the suspension of discovery will result in needless delay and that such delay is detrimental to the plaintiff who, because of certain disabilities, has a need to plan for the future. We agree with the Government that such arguments fall short of the standards established by the court for interlocutory review.

it is therefore ordered upon consideration of plaintiffs request for review of the trial judge’s order of September 24, 1981, and defendant’s response thereto, that the said request is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court is here presented with a request to review Trial Judge Yannello’s order of September 24, 1981 suspending all discovery proceedings in this case in anticipation of defendant’s filing of a motion for summary judgment.

The standard for such interlocutory review is clearly delineated by the rules of this court. Interlocutory review is granted where the trial judge certifies his order as involving an issue of controlling importance or an issue of deprivation of fundamental rights as to which there is substantial ground for differences of opinion and the ultimate termination of the litigation may be materially advanced by review. Rule 53(c)(2)(i). The trial judge has not so certified the order under consideration.

Absent such certification, the dissatisfied party may request interlocutory review upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances which necessitate review in order to [551]*551avoid irreparable injury or manifest waste of resources. Rule 53(c)(2)(ii).

Plaintiffs request provides no such showing. Plaintiff simply asserts that the suspension of discovery will result in needless delay and that such delay is detrimental to the plaintiff who, because of certain disabilities, has a need to plan for the future. We agree with the Government that such arguments fall short of the standards established by the court for interlocutory review.

it is therefore ordered upon consideration of plaintiffs request for review of the trial judge’s order of September 24, 1981, and defendant’s response thereto, that the said request is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 Ct. Cl. 550, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 542, 1981 WL 22054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-united-states-cc-1981.