Multistate Tax Comm'n, Eugene F. Corrigan, Petitioners/cross-Appellants v. United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Multistate Tax Comm'n, Eugene F. Corrigan, Petitioners/cross-Appellants v. United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Trump's Castle Assoc. v. Tallone (njsuperctappdiv, 1994-07-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trump's Castle Assoc. v. Tallone
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Eq. 684, 690 , 69 A. 186 (E. & A. 1908); see also Multistate Tax Commissioner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 659 F. 2d 931, 933 (9th Cir.1981); Management Assistance, Inc. v. Computer Dimensions, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 666, 678 (N.D.Ga. 1982), aff'd sub nom., Computer Dimensions, Inc. v. Basic Four, 747 F. 2d 708 (11th Cir.1984); Heyden Chemical Corp. v. Burrell & Neidig, Inc., 2 N.J.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Multistate Tax Commission v. United States Steel Corp., 659 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (affirming a district court order as modified). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION, Eugene F. Corrigan, Et Al., Petitioners/Cross-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Et Al., Respondents/Appellants
80-3457, 80-3494.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 7, 1981.
659 F.2d 931
1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 17070
William D. Dexter, Tumwater, Wash., for Multistate Tax Com’n., Dale G. Higer, Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow & Gillespie, Boise, Idaho, Neil Pa-piano, Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, Los Angeles, Cal., for U. S. Steel Corp.
Kilkenny, Schroeder, Jameson.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an action by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) seeking an order compelling production of documents for its audit of United States Steel Corporation. These appeals are from the district court’s order delineating the rights and duties of the parties.

The district court stayed its order pending this appeal, but conditioned the stay upon the filing by U.S. Steel of a 60-day waiver of the statute of limitations. Such a condition was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1962); Foster v. United States, 265 F.2d 183, 188-89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 912, 79 S.Ct. 1297, 3 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1959); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c).

The district court did not consider any issues concerning the effectiveness of the waiver and the continued viability of the audit in the light of provisional assessments issued by some states. No such questions are properly before us.

The contested issues with respect to the substance of the order itself concern, first, the ruling that U.S. Steel should permit inspection of allegedly proprietary information, and second, the prohibition against MTC’s copying U.S. Steel documents. The first issue could well have been avoided by an in camera inspection by the district court to determine whether the documents in question do in fact contain information which should not be disclosed. We conclude that such an inspection would still be helpful in the circumstances. The district court’s order should be modified to provide for disclosure of the disputed materials subject to in camera inspection upon motion by U.S. Steel. With respect to copying, we believe that if, after MTC has completed its final inspection, it wishes to have copies of a reasonable number of documents, it may apply to the district court for an appropriate order.

The district court’s order is affirmed as modified.