Ama v. Ss, 354356

On January 26, 2020 respondent shot petitioner; they were religiously (not legally) married and lived together.
A related criminal case imposed a no-contact condition and temporarily caused respondent to move out; the criminal court later allowed her to return home.
Petitioner obtained an ex parte personal protection order (PPO) on May 7, 2020 prohibiting respondent from entering petitioner’s residence.
Respondent timely moved (within 14 days) to modify/terminate the ex parte PPO and requested an evidentiary hearing; she later sought to compel petitioner’s deposition after he missed a remote deposition.
The trial court denied the motion to terminate the PPO and the motion to compel discovery, and denied an evidentiary hearing “at this time,” citing the pending criminal case; respondent appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to schedule/hold an evidentiary hearing on respondent’s motion to terminate the ex parte PPO	Petitioner argued the court could delay the civil PPO proceeding because the related criminal case was pending and no hearing was required now	Respondent argued she timely requested a hearing under MCL 600.2950(14)/MCR 3.707(A)(2), which mandates a hearing within 14 days of the motion	Court reversed: the statute and rule unambiguously require the court to schedule an evidentiary hearing; failure to do so was error
Whether the trial court erred by denying respondent’s motion to compel petitioner’s deposition	Petitioner argued limiting deposition was reasonable to protect the victim and prevent civil discovery from being used to aid the criminal case	Respondent argued a deposition was needed to narrow issues for the evidentiary hearing	Court affirmed: even assuming discovery is available, the court acted within its discretion to deny a deposition in favor of live testimony at the hearing given concerns about criminal discovery misuse

TM v MZ, 501 Mich 312 (2018) (governing statute for domestic-relationship PPOs)
Pickering v Pickering, 253 Mich App 694 (2002) (petitioner bears burden for ex parte PPO; burden continues when respondent seeks termination)
In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich App 398 (2017) (use of the word "shall" in statute is mandatory)
Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57 (2002) (courts must apply unambiguous statutes as written)
People v Lemcool (After Remand), 445 Mich 491 (1994) (trial courts have broad discretion over discovery scope)
People v Greenfield, 271 Mich App 442 (2006) (courts should prevent criminal defendants from using civil discovery to obtain evidence unavailable under criminal discovery rules)