Title: Ex parte USA Water Ski, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Joy King Ewing, f/k/a Joy King, as personal representative of the Estate of Stewart Arthur Bieber, and Rachel K. Bieber v. Colonel Biggs Water Ski Show Team et al.) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-12-900283). Petition Denied. No Opinion.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 05/30/2014
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
____________________
1130229
____________________
Ex parte USA Water Ski, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Joy King Ewing, f/k/a Joy King, as personal
representative of the Estate of Stewart Arthur Bieber, and
Rachel K. Bieber
v.
Colonel Biggs Water Ski Show Team et al.)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-12-900283)
STUART, Justice.
PETITION DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1130229
2
Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Wise, and Bryan, JJ.,
concur.
Moore, C.J., concurs specially.
1130229
See also Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810,
1
817 (Ala. 2003) (Moore, C.J., concurring in the result).
3
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in denying the petition for the writ of
mandamus. I write separately to emphasize that the petition
before us demonstrates why this Court should avoid meddling in
discovery matters before the trial court. In Ex parte USA
Water Ski, Inc., [Ms. 1120744, June 21, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___
(Ala. 2013), this Court held that a certain post-accident
report was privileged under the work-product doctrine and
directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling USA
Water Ski, Inc., to produce the post-accident report. Although
I did not write, I dissented for the reasons I dissented in Ex
parte Mobile Gas Corp., 123 So. 3d 499, 516 (Ala. 2013),
namely, because "I do not believe mandamus relief is proper in
the context of discovery proceedings."  "Discovery matters are
1
within the trial court's sound discretion, and this Court will
not reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless
the trial court has clearly exceeded its discretion." Ex parte
Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003). 
Now new facts have come to light in this case that
suggest the post-accident report was not prepared in
1130229
4
anticipation of trial and, hence, is not protected by the
work-product doctrine. We are back to where we began: The
trial court has ordered USA Water Ski to produce the post-
accident report, and USA Water Ski again seeks a writ of
mandamus directing the trial court to protect the post-
accident report as privileged under the work-product doctrine.
This time the Court reaches the right conclusion by deferring
to the trial court's findings and denying the petition for a
writ of mandamus. A trial court's discretion in discovery
matters is necessarily wide because discovery is detailed and
intricate. Trial courts are more involved with the specific
facts, the parties, and the evidence and are in a better
position 
to 
evaluate 
what 
documents 
are 
or 
are 
not
discoverable.  
The trial court did not exceed its discretion by ordering
the production of the post-accident report. Nor did its order
require an extraordinary remedy that would necessitate this
Court's involvement in the case at this time. Therefore, I
concur to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.