In Re Missouri Department of Corrections
839 F.3d 732
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mississippi death-row inmates (Jordan and Chase) challenged Mississippi’s three-drug execution protocol and sought discovery from the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) about MDOC’s use of pentobarbital, including the identity of MDOC’s anonymous supplier ("M7").
- MDOC moved to quash the third-party subpoena in the Western District of Missouri, supported by Director Lombardi’s affidavit asserting suppliers require confidentiality and would stop supplying if identified. The district court found the affidavit insufficient and ordered production and a privilege log.
- MDOC sought mandamus in the Eighth Circuit to prohibit enforcement of the discovery orders; an initial panel denied relief as speculative, but MDOC petitioned for rehearing. M7 later intervened anonymously and declared it would cease supplying pentobarbital to anyone if its identity were disclosed.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated the original panel opinion, reconsidered after M7’s declaration, and evaluated mandamus factors: clear entitlement, lack of adequate alternative relief, and appropriateness of issuing the writ.
- The court concluded (1) M7’s identity is irrelevant because disclosure would end M7’s supply to any state (so it cannot show an available alternative method of execution); (2) disclosure would unduly burden MDOC by frustrating enforcement of state criminal law; and (3) MDOC lacks adequate alternative relief (a protective order would not prevent the supplier’s announced cessation). The court granted MDOC’s petitions and denied as moot M7’s separate petition request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of supplier identity to Eighth Amendment claim | Identity is relevant because pentobarbital availability is at issue and inmates alleged an available alternative method | Identity is irrelevant because M7 will cease supplying to any state if identified, so disclosure cannot help show an available alternative | Identity is irrelevant — disclosure would not aid inmates in proving an available alternative |
| Undue burden under FRCP 45 | Inmates: public statements show suppliers continue to sell; no undue burden shown | MDOC/M7: disclosure will cause M7 to stop supplying, depriving MDOC of lethal chemicals and harming state interest in enforcing criminal sentences | Disclosure would be unduly burdensome; harm to MDOC outweighs inmates’ need |
| Adequate alternative relief (protective order) | Inmates: district court could impose protective-order conditions limiting further disclosure and require third parties to be bound | MDOC/M7: M7 has declared it will stop supplying if identity is required; protective orders cannot prevent M7’s cessation or subsequent disclosure via investigations | No adequate alternative; protective orders insufficient given M7’s sworn intent to cease supply |
| Unclean hands / bad faith defense | Inmates: MDOC/M7 may be concealing sale of licensed product (Akorn) and so should be barred from relief | MDOC/M7: no clear evidence of bad faith suppression sufficient to invoke unclean hands | Unclean hands not established; mandamus appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (discussing mandamus as a corrective safety valve)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (mandamus may protect against oppressive discovery)
- In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (prior Eighth Circuit mandamus protecting supplier identity in similar context)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus prerequisites and discretionary considerations)
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (Eighth Amendment standard requiring an available alternative method of execution)
- In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (state interest in enforcing criminal law relevant to discovery burdens)
- Miscellaneous Docket Matter No. 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket Matter No. 2, 197 F.3d 922 (FRCP 45 undue-burden framework)
- Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318 (weighing harm against need in discovery disputes)
- Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806 (unclean hands doctrine)