Case Title: Deptula v. MCI, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 304, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD DEPTULA, 
 
 
Non-Party Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MCI, LLC, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 304, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N18C-07-022   
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 14, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 15, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 15th day of August 2019, upon consideration of the notice to show cause 
and the appellant’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Richard Deptula, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s decision dated June 27, 2019, denying Deptula’s motion to quash a subpoena 
in a civil action.   
(2) 
The Clerk of this Court issued a notice to Deptula to show cause why 
his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  Deptula filed a response to 
the notice to show cause, but it does not address the interlocutory nature of the 
appeal.   
 
2 
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.”1  The Superior Court’s denial of a motion to quash 
a subpoena is an interlocutory ruling because did not finally resolve the merits of the 
underlying case.2   
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders.3  
Deptula’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without 
jurisdiction to hear his interlocutory appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice 
                                                 
1 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
2 Id. 
3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).