In re: George Lombardi, No. 13-3699 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, petitioned for a writ of mandamus of prohibition directed to the district court in an underlying civil action concerning Missouri's method for carrying out the death penalty. A three-judge panel of the court granted a writ with respect to discovery of the identity of the physician at issue, but denied a writ as to discovery of the identities of the pharmacy at issue and the laboratory at issue. On rehearing en banc, the court concluded that a writ should issue to vacate the orders requiring discovery of all three identities. It was clear and indisputable that the discovery ordered by the district court was not relevant to any claim that should survive a motion to dismiss and that the Director had no other adequate means to attain the relief he desired. Although denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily was not appealable, a writ of mandamus to correct an erroneous denial could be warranted in extraordinary circumstances where continued litigation would have significant unwarranted consequences. Discovery orders likewise were not ordinarily appealable, but mandamus could issue in extraordinarily circumstances to forbid discovery of irrelevant information where discovery would be oppressive and interfere with important state interests. These propositions taken together, along with the availability of alternative means for the Director to attain relief, lead the court to conclude that a writ should issue.
Court Description: Civil case - Missouri Execution Protocol Litigation. A writ of mandamus is issued to vacate the district court's orders requiring discovery of the identities of the physician who prescribes the chemical used in Missouri executions, the pharmacist who compounds the chemical and the laboratory that tests the chemical for potency, purity and sterility. Judge Gruender, concurring. Judge Bye, dissenting, joined by Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges. [ January 23, 2014
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.