It is a general rule that orders regarding matters of discovery are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be upset on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
Stanback v. Stanback,
“The authority of the trial judge to issue ... [a] protective order [under Rule 26(c)] is not unqualified. The statute provides that such order may be issued only ‘for good cause shown’ and that it may be issued only ‘to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ ”
In the present case Judge Gantt recited that “. . . good cause has been shown and the interests of justice require that protection be afforded Collier Cobb & Associates, Inc.” Unlike
Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc.,
where Justice Lake found that there was “[n]o . . . basis [of good cause] for the order prohibiting . . . [discovery] shown in the record,” the record before us demonstrates an adequate basis for the judge’s order limiting discovery. Furthermore, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the judgment of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the prior action in Moore County involving the same parties “... foreclosed and estopped [the parties] from litigating all issuable matters contained in the pleadings of the Moore County action ...”
Young v. Young,
Affirmed.