Case Title: Ex parte Opie Earl Sullivan. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Steven Ray Parnell v. Opie Earl Sullivan) (Washington Circuit Court: CV-11-900048). Petition Dismissed. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1120855

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL:  10/25/2013
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014
_________________________
1120855
_________________________
Ex parte Opie Earl Sullivan
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Steven Ray Parnell
v.
Opie Earl Sullivan)
(Washington Circuit Court, CV-11-900048)
WISE, Justice.
PETITION DISMISSED.  NO OPINION.
1120855
Moore, C.J., and Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main,
and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Shaw, J., dissents.
2
1120855
SHAW, Justice (dissenting).  
Steven Ray Parnell sued Opie Earl Sullivan seeking
damages for injuries he alleges were caused by Sullivan's
negligence 
and 
wantonness 
in 
causing 
a 
motor-vehicle 
accident. 
In the course of discovery, Parnell filed interrogatories and
requests for production seeking information regarding, among
other things, whether Sullivan had "transferred or conveyed
any real or personal property to any third party" since the
time of the accident.  Sullivan responded, arguing that the
information sought was not relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action, that the information sought was
inadmissible 
information 
that 
was 
not 
reasonably 
calculated 
to
lead to the discovery of admissible information, and that the
request violated Rule 403, Ala. R. Evid.  Parnell filed a
motion to compel Sullivan to respond to the interrogatories
and requests for production.  The trial court conducted a
hearing and ultimately granted Parnell's motion to compel.
Sullivan filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with
this Court, challenging the trial court's order compelling
discovery.  No stay of the lower court proceedings was
originally requested.  Soon thereafter, Parnell filed an
3
1120855
amended complaint in the trial court adding a claim alleging
fraudulent conveyance.  This Court ordered answers and briefs
to the petition.  See Rule 21(b), Ala. R. App. P.  
Mandamus relief is appropriate when the petitioner can
show "(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an
imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, 
accompanied 
by
a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy;
and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court."  Ex
parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001).  This
Court generally does not review discovery orders pursuant to
extraordinary writs.  Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So.
2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003).  However, we have identified certain
circumstances in which a discovery order may be reviewed by a
petition for a writ of mandamus, including "when a discovery
order compels the production of patently irrelevant or
duplicative documents the production of which clearly
constitutes harassment or imposes a burden on the producing
party far out of proportion to any benefit received by the
requesting party...."  Ex parte Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc.,
879 So. 2d 1134, 1137 (Ala. 2003).  
4
1120855
Sullivan argues the discovery sought by Parnell is
patently irrelevant.  Parnell contends, however, that the
addition of the fraudulent-conveyance claim mooted Sullivan's
objections because the discovery sought is relevant to the new
claim.  At this point, we are not in a position to determine
whether the discovery sought is relevant to the new claim. 
Thus, I am unable to determine whether Sullivan's mandamus
petition is moot.  Instead, the fact that the fraudulent-
conveyance claim may render the trial court's order proper
precludes Sullivan from demonstrating a clear legal right to
the relief sought.  BOC, supra.  I would thus deny the
petition instead of dismissing it.    
5