Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 610
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- The Star sought to stay the trial court’s discovery order compelling disclosure of the anonymous commentator’s identity.
- The Millers contended the discovery order was interlocutory, not a final judgment, raising jurisdictional questions for appeal.
- The Star relied on final-judgment and constitutional-right theories to bypass Rule 14(B) certification and Rule 54(B) sequencing.
- The court held the discovery order was interlocutory and not severable as a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H) and Trial Rule 54(B).
- The Star has standing as a de jure third-party representative to pursue an appeal under Trial Rule 54(B), but the distinct-and-separate-branch doctrine was repudiated and Berry governs finality for less-than-all issues.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with a seven-day stay continuing as ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: is the discovery order appealable as a final judgment? | Star: order is final and severable under 2(H)(1)/(2) or 2(H)(5) based on constitutional right | Miller: order is interlocutory; Berry/54(B) require express certification | Interlocutory; not a final judgment; jurisdiction lacking |
| Standing: does Star have standing to appeal as a third-party representative? | Star: jus tertii standing allows appeal on First Amendment grounds for anonymous commentator | Millers: Star’s standing inferred but cannot create direct appeal rights beyond 54(B) | Star has de jure standing to pursue appeal under 54(B) as third-party representative; not a direct-right appeal |
| Distinct and Separate Branch Doctrine: should it allow a direct appeal from a discovery order? | Star: doctrine should permit final-judgment treatment of the order | Court rejects; Berry supersedes; 54(B)/56(C) controls | Doctrine overruled; finality determined by 54(B) certification |
| Rule 14(B) certification: can Rule 14(B) be bypassed given non-party status? | Star: lack of party status justifies direct appeal under constitutional right | Yaeger/DaimlerChrysler require certification and acceptance; no bypass | Rule 14(B) certification required; not satisfied; no direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 327 (Ind.1994) (supersedes distinct-and-separate-branch doctrine; 54(B) controls finality)
- Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 696 N.E.2d 383 (Ind.1998) (less-than-all issues final only under 54(B))
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind.2003) (defining final judgment and appellate rule interpretation)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (jurisdiction issue raised sua sponte; Rule 14 standards)
- State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824 (Ind.1992) (discovery orders appealable only with certification/acceptance)
- In re WTHR-TV, 693 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.1998) (discretionary interlocutory appeal; 14(B) compliance required)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 838 N.E.2d 449 (Ind.2005) (affirms certification/acceptance requirement for Rule 14(B) appeals)
- Bailey v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc. (In re T.B.), 895 N.E.2d 321 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (distinguishable; final-judgment analysis under 34(C) context)