Unpublished Dispositionin Re Chrysler Realty Corporation, Chrysler Creditcorporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Robertorgan, R.d. Frank, Petitionerspeter C. Matthews, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Chrysler Realty Corporation, Chrysler Credit Corporation,chrysler Motors Corporation, Robert Organ, R.d.frank, Defendants-appellants, 912 F.2d 465 (6th Cir. 1990)

ORDER

The petitioners, Chrysler Realty Corporation, Chrysler Credit Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Robert Organ, and R.D. Frank ("Chrysler") seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order which directs Lee Iacocca, Chrysler's chairman and chief executive officer, to be available for deposition at a convenient day in August. (Case No. 90-1839). The district court has filed brief response to the petition for writ of mandamus, stating that his views are adequately expressed in the hearing transcript. Chrysler has also filed a notice of appeal from the same order. (Case No. 90-1905). Chrysler now moves for a stay of the district court's order pending disposition of these cases.

This Court has generally held that discovery matters are not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or as an exception to the general rule of finality under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). See e.g. Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219 (6th Cir. 1981); Dow Chemical Company v. Taylor, 519 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1975). We conclude this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction in Case No. 90-1905.

The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations where the petitioner can show a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978); Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402-03 (1976). It cannot be used to control a district court in the exercise of discretionary duties. In re: Post-Newsweek Stations, 722 F.2d 325, 329 (6th Cir. 1983); City of Cleveland v. Krupansky, 619 F.2d 576, 578 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834 (1980). See also In re: Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 749 F.2d 300, 304 (6th Cir. 1984); In re: Kings World Productions, Inc., 898 F.2d 56 (6th Cir. 1990). On review, we conclude that Chrysler is not entitled to such extraordinary relief.

It is therefore ORDERED that the appeal in Case No. 90-1905 is dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The motion for stay is moot.