Gochis v. All State Insurance ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

        December 14, 1994       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1773

                               WILLIAM GOCHIS, ET AL.,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                             ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

                                 ____________________

            Thomas M.  Hefferon  with whom  James W.  Nagle was  on brief  for
___________________             _______________
        appellant.
            Sarah  Tucker  with  whom  Nelson  P.  Lovins  was  on  brief  for
_____________              __________________
        appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________





















               Per Curiam.  The  brief summary order by the  district court

          does not, in this  instance, give us a sufficient basis to review

          its  decision largely denying Allstate's requests  for costs as a

          prevailing party. 

               On the one hand,  after reading the briefs and  hearing oral

          argument, it appears that  the grant of judgment to  Allstate was

          not  predicated on  a  single  point of  law  that, at  the  time

          depositions  were taken and copies made, was dispositive.  On the

          other hand,  if some, but not all,  of the depositions and copies

          have proven clearly  unnecessary, irrelevant,  or cumulative,  we

          lack the exposure  and vantage point of  the trial judge to  make

          such a discriminating determination.

               We  vacate the existing judgment  and remand to the district

          court  for  reconsideration  of  whether,  and  to  what  extent,

          Allstate  is entitled  to reimbursement.   Costs to  appellant on

          appeal.






















                                         -2-