IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________

No. 97-60792 _____________________

MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

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

PROTECTION MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of Cardox Corporation, a Division of Air Liquide American Corporation; ARKWRIGHT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of Farmland Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants, TERRA INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (5:96-CV-150) _________________________________________________________________ January 26, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Defendant-appellant Terra International, Inc. (“Terra”)

seeks direct appellate review of the district court’s orders

affirming certain discovery orders entered by the magistrate

judge in a lawsuit between Terra and Mississippi Chemical

Corporation (“MCC”). These orders include (1) orders requiring

Terra to produce certain documents that Terra alleges are

undiscoverable and (2) an order granting MCC’s motion for a

protective order sequestering fact witnesses prior to their

depositions and barring fact witnesses from attending the

depositions of other witnesses. MCC has filed a motion to

dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Terra contends that we possess jurisdiction to review the

above discovery orders pursuant to the collateral order doctrine

as established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,

(1949). We conclude that the orders that are the

subject of this appeal do not meet the Cohen test. See Texaco,

Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.,

(5th Cir. 1993); Honig v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,

(5th Cir. 1968). The cases that Terra cites in support

of its contrary position are inapposite. We therefore DISMISS

Terra’s appeal without prejudice.

DISMISSED.

2