66 So. 3d 124
Miss.2011Background
- Kelly Blossom sought to depose two witnesses in a divorce proceeding: C.B., a minor victim in Kelly’s criminal sexual-battery case, and R.W., who Kelly claimed had knowledge about the rapes in that case.
- At the time, Kelly was facing criminal charges for sexual battery and was represented by the same counsel in both the criminal and divorce cases.
- Michael Blossom filed a complaint seeking restraints on Kelly and opposed discovery; he later moved for a protective order to bar the depositions of C.B. and R.W.
- The Rankin County chancellor granted a protective order barring the depositions on May 10, 2010, after a May 4 motion by Michael; the State sought to intervene but was barred for notice concerns.
- Kelly filed an interlocutory appeal under Rule 5, challenging the protective order on discovery grounds; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted review to the extent of the protective-order issue.
- The court ultimately held that the protective orders violated Rule 26(d) requirements and reversed and remanded for disposition consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the chancellor err by issuing protective orders preventing deposition of C.B. and R.W. | Blossom contends C.B. and R.W. are relevant witnesses under Rule 26 and discovery should proceed. | Blossom argues the protective orders were appropriate to protect a minor victim and avoid undue burden. | Yes; protective orders were not properly justified under Rule 26(d) and must be reconsidered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control, Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1992) (discovery abuse-of-discretion standard; broad discretion to trial courts)
- Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So. 2d 1192 (Miss. 2003) (discovery orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; chancellor has considerable discretion)
- Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So.2d 615 (Miss. 1992) (interlocutory appeals in discovery are rare and viewed with caution)
- In Re Knapp, 536 So.2d 1330 (Miss. 1988) (limits on interlocutory discovery appeals; flexible pre-trial discovery rules)
- Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney L., 511 So.2d 119 (Miss. 1987) (discovery rules and court discretion in pre-trial proceedings)
- American Electric v. Singarayar, 530 So.2d 1319 (Miss. 1988) (interlocutory review and standards governing discovery disputes)