Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Chestman, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee
Docket: 369
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; November 7, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was sought by the government in a civil case, specifically to obtain a stay of discovery pending a related criminal investigation. The district court denied intervention as of right but allowed permissive intervention and stayed discovery. The defendant, who had been indicted, appealed the intervention grant and sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, stating that the decision on intervention is not appealable as a collateral order since it does not conclusively determine the issue and can be reviewed after a final judgment, as established in *Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action*. Additionally, the court denied the writ of mandamus, emphasizing that such relief is only appropriate under extreme circumstances, particularly where there is a clear abuse of discretion. The court found no abuse of discretion in the government's intervention, noting that the defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the stay of discovery and that the district court could have independently issued the stay. The intervention aimed to prevent the use of civil discovery to circumvent limitations in the criminal case, justifying the government's interest. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.