841 F. 2d 1129 - Estate Domingo v. United States District Court for Western District of Washington
841 F2d 1129 Estate Domingo v. United States District Court for Western District of Washington
841 F.2d 1129
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
ESTATE Of Silme G. DOMINGO, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON, Respondent,
and
National Security Agency, et al., Real Parties in Interest.
No. 87-7329.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 1988.*
Decided March 8, 1988.
Before KOELSCH, REINHARDT and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. We conclude that the Bauman factors, as explained in Cement Antitrust, are not met. Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977); In re Cement Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 296), 688 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir.1982), aff'd mem. sub nom. Arizona v. United States District Court, 459 U.S. 1191 (1983). While the issue is indeed important and while there is no precedent on the question in this circuit, we see no reason why, under all the circumstances of this case, any error in the district court's ruling cannot be fully corrected on a post-verdict appeal (should petitioners still desire to contest the ruling at that time). The most important factor in our determination, however, is our conclusion that the district court's order holding that Public Law 86-36, Sec. 6, 73 Stat. 63, 64 (1959) (reprinted at 50 U.S.C. Sec. 402 note (1982)), protects the materials sought against disclosure is not clearly erroneous. Cf. Hayden v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 608 F.2d 1381, 1389-91 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 937 (1980).
PETITION DENIED.