in Re Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 internal citations omitted . And, “even…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE FUJITSU LIMITED AND FUJITSU NETWORK
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Petitioners.
______________________
2014-155
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
in No. 1:12-cv-03229, Judge James F. Holderman, Jr.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, D YK and MOORE , Circuit
Judges.
P ROST , Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communica-
tions, Inc. (petitioners) petition for a writ of mandamus to
direct the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to vacate its orders compelling produc-
tion of certain documents.
In seeking a writ of mandamus, petitioners must es-
tablish a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and that
Case: 14-155 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2014

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE FUJITSU LIMITED 2
they “lack adequate alternative means to obtain the
relief” they seek. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S.
367, 380-81 (2004) (internal citations omitted). And,
“even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the
issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be
satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Id. at 381.
That standard has not been met here. The Supreme
Court has held that issues concerning requests to compel
documents can be raised on timely appeal to this court
from a final district court decision. Mohawk Indus., Inc.
v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 109 (2009) (“postjudgment
appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of litigants
and ensure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege”).
That holding applies to the circumstances of this case.
We also deny petitioners’ alternative request that we
direct the district court to enter an opinion “that provides
guidance to the parties as to the scope of the 2014 Orders”
because that request also does not meet the standard for
granting mandamus.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition for mandamus is denied.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s26
Case: 14-155 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2014

-- 2 of 2 --