Winterbottom v. Ronan
227 Ariz. 364
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Crime Victims sought a protective order to bar their depositions in a legal malpractice case.
- Winterbottom was criminally charged and pled guilty to attempted molestation of his step-daughters.
- In the tort action, the Victims settled for $2.2 million; a portion was allocated to a malpractice recovery against counsel Lee.
- Lee withdrew from representation; Winterbottom represented himself and settled; Victims agreed not to execute on most assets except potential malpractice proceeds.
- Lee’s counsel subpoenaed the Victims for deposition; Victims sought protection under the Victims Bill of Rights and Rule 26(c).
- Superior court denied the protective order, but limited deposition questions; Victims filed a petition for special action challenging the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Victims Bill of Rights precludes deposition by non-defendant | Victims should be protected regardless of who seeks deposition | Protection applies only if the deposer is the defendant or his agent | No, not precluded by plain language. |
| Whether deposition by a non-defendant is permissible under the constitutional provision | Lee’s conduct does not implicate the defendant or his agent | The deposee is adverse to Winterbottom’s position | Permissible; provisions do not apply because deposee is not a defendant or agent. |
| Whether Victims have standing to pursue special action to enforce rights | Victims have independent rights to protect from deposition | Standing limited to direct party interests | Victims have standing to seek special action; jurisdiction acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Champlin v. Sargeant, 192 Ariz. 371 (Ariz. 1998) (protects crime victims’ rights under Victims Bill of Rights)
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (Ariz. 2003) (interprets Victims Bill of Rights’ plain language)
- State v. Williams, 175 Ariz. 98 (Ariz. 1993) (statutory interpretation guiding constitutional provisions)
- Lee, 226 Ariz. 234 (Ariz. 2011) (vital interpretation of Victims Bill of Rights scope)
- Sun Health Corp. v. Myers, 205 Ariz. 315 (Ariz. App. 2003) (special-action jurisdiction for wrongful denial of rights)
- N. Valley Emergency Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 208 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. 2004) (limits on judicial modification of statutory text)