UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FRONTIER REFINING, INC., a Wyoming corporation; COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, PLC; OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD; INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD; SIRIUS (UK) INSURANCE PLC, UNI STOREBRAND SKADEFORSIKRING, CODAN INSURANCE, HOUSTON CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, GJENSIDEGE FORSIKRING, HULL AND COMPANY and ALEXANDER HOWDEN ENERGY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GORMAN-RUPP COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JOE M. TEIG and HOLLAND & HART,

Movants-Appellants.

No. 96-8015

(Dist. of Wyoming)

(D.C. No. 94-CV-172)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, HENRY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

This case arises out of a related appeal, Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-
Rupp Co., No. 96-8014. In that case, Frontier Refining Inc. ("Frontier") brought an indemnity action against Gorman-Rupp Co. ("Gorman-Rupp'), claiming that a pump manufactured by Gorman-Rupp caused a fire and explosion at Frontier's Cheyenne, Wyoming refinery. Frontier sought to recover approximately $19.25 million it paid in settlement of claims brought by victims of the fire and explosion. Joe Teig and Holland & Hart represented Frontier in the underlying, settled litigation.

During the subsequent indemnity action brought by Frontier against Gorman-Rupp, the district court ordered Holland & Hart to divulge documents relating to the underlying litigation. Holland & Hart claimed the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The district court also ordered Teig to answer questions in deposition and to testify at trial regarding communications and documents he claimed were privileged and protected by the work product doctrine. Teig and Holland & Hart complied with the orders. Following trial, Teig and Holland & Hart brought this appeal, challenging the district court's attorney-client and work product rulings. 1

Based on our conclusion in Frontier Refining Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., No. 96-8014, that the district court erred in compelling disclosure of the privileged materials and work product and that the issue need not be revisited on remand, we conclude that this appeal is moot. United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 967 n.6 (10th Cir. 1996); Longley v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1366, 1367 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge