Constantinos P. Angelopoulos v. Theodore P. Angelopoulos, Neptunia Inc., Transmar Corp., Didiac Establishment, Beta Steel Corp., and Top Gun Investment Corp. II
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 170
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Constantinos and Theodore Angelopoulos, Greek citizens, disputed ownership and inheritance interests in Beta Steel arising from their father's estate; Greek courts previously ruled Theodore sole owner.
- Constantinos sued in Indiana (2008). Parties entered an agreed Protective Order designating certain discovery materials confidential and limiting their use to the Indiana action unless the trial court approved other use.
- Theodore designated portions of his deposition confidential; Constantinos filed those depositions in opposition to motions to dismiss. The trial court dismissed Constantinos’s complaint on comity/res judicata grounds.
- On prior appeal this court affirmed dismissal but held the trial court erred by sealing deposition material without an Administrative Rule 9(H) hearing; remanded for Theodore to prove by clear and convincing evidence why portions should not be public.
- On remand the trial court: (1) after hearing, found Theodore met the Rule 9 burden (risk of kidnapping/terrorism, sensitive financial information) and excluded certain deposition portions from public access; and (2) denied Constantinos’s motion to modify the Protective Order to allow using confidential discovery in future Greek litigation. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Constantinos) | Defendant's Argument (Theodore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether portions of Theodore’s deposition should be excluded from public access under Ind. Admin. R. 9 | Deposition filed in court should be public; prior protective designation for discovery cannot override Rule 9; remand required the court to open it | Release would create significant risk of substantial harm (kidnapping/terrorism) and disclose sensitive financial/trade information; Rule 9 burden on Theodore to prove confidentiality | Court held Theodore met his clear-and-convincing burden under Rule 9 (risk of harm, sensitive info); excluded specified deposition portions from public record |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Constantinos’s motion to modify the Protective Order to permit use of confidential materials in future Greek litigation | Protective Order expressly permits use in other proceedings with court approval; Constantinos sought permission to use materials in pending/future Greek litigation | Trial court should deny because Indiana litigation has concluded on ownership (comity/res judicata), Constantinos presented no admissible evidence to justify modification, and release could increase risk to Theodore/family | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in denying modification; Constantinos bore burden and offered insufficient evidence; Greek courts control admissibility in Greece |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 2008) (describing Rule 9 public-access framework and burden to justify sealing)
- Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (prior appeal affirming dismissal on comity/res judicata and directing Rule 9 hearing)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (appellate review standard for clear-and-convincing evidentiary burdens)