Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
November 8, 1991 ; November 18, 1991, Filed
[*656] OPINION OF THE COURT
Sur Motion for a Stay
Appellants Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse International Projects Company (collectively Westinghouse) have moved this court [**2] for a stay pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) pending their appeal of the order of the district court directing the unsealing of material filed in support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Westinghouse. In accordance with this court's procedure, the motion for a stay was directed to a two-judge motion panel. We will deny the stay, but set forth the analysis underlying our decision in order to explicate an important legal issue raised by the movant and our standards for acting on stays pending appeal.
Procedural and Factual History
On December 1, 1988, the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) and National Power Corporation (NPC), the Philippine government agency that oversees electrical power generation, filed a 15-count complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey against the two Westinghouse companies and Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that fourteen years earlier Westinghouse had secured a turnkey contract from NPC to construct a nuclear power plant in the Philippines by bribing then-President Ferdinand Marcos, and that Burns and Roe Enterprises had procured the consulting contract [**3] and the architectural and engineering subcontract by the same means. The bribes were allegedly effected through defendants' payment of commissions to Herminio T. Disini, a special sales representative retained by defendants, who allegedly paid over to President Marcos all or a substantial part of the commissions. Disini was a close friend of President Marcos, and his wife was Mrs. Marcos' cousin and personal physician.
The complaint included a claim for tortious interference with the fiduciary duty allegedly owed by former President Marcos and claims under RICO and other federal statutes and state law. The Republic and NPC sought rescission of the contracts and damages. Westinghouse filed a motion to stay the action pending arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the construction contract. The district court stayed all claims relating to work under the contract and those alleging fraud in the inducement or execution thereof pending arbitration, but left pending and unstayed the tortious interference claim and a related conspiracy claim.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
949 F.2d 653 *; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26992 **; 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; WESTNGHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS COMPANY; BURNS AND ROE ENTERPRISES, INC. Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse International Projects Company, Appellants; Public Citizen, Inc., Essential Information Inc., and Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, Appellees-Intervenors
Prior History: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; D.C. Civil No. 88-05150.
district court, public access, summary judgment motion, documents, confidential, unsealing, parties, records, protective order, proceedings, intervenors, irreparable injury, courts, merits, seal, judicial record, cases, public interest, pending appeal, access rights, trade secret, factors, motions, common law presumption, common law right, summary judgment, defendants', designation, Electric, argues
Civil Procedure, Entry of Judgments, Stays of Judgments, General Overview, Administrative Law, Governmental Information, Freedom of Information, Evidence, Presumptions, Exceptions, Common Law Presumptions, Governments, Courts, Court Records, Criminal Law & Procedure, Preliminary Proceedings, Juries & Jurors, Voir Dire, Summary Judgment, Hearings, Trade Secrets Law, Civil Actions, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review