Title: Bjornberg v. Powell

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Bjornberg v. Powell (99-181); 169 Vt. 586; 733 A.2d 84

[Filed 01-Jun-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-181

                              APRIL TERM, 1999

Sharon Bjornberg	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
Douglas Powell and the Burton	       }
Corporation	                       }	DOCKET NO. S257-98CnC

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Because the issues defendant seeks to have reviewed do not make this
  one of those rare  cases in which extraordinary relief is an appropriate
  means for challenging a pretrial discovery  order on the ground that the
  trial court abused its discretion, defendant's petition for extraordinary 
  relief is denied.  See Chrysler Corp. v. Makovec, 157 Vt. 84, 88-89, 596 A.2d 1284, 1287  (1991); Monti v. State, 151 Vt. 609, 611, 563 A.2d 629,
  630 (1989).  Further, because defendant  has failed to demonstrate that the
  superior court abused its discretion in denying permission to  appeal,
  defendant's request for interlocutory appeal is denied.

       DOOLEY, J., dissenting.  Although phrased as an interlocutory appeal,
  or a petition for  extraordinary relief, this is a true collateral order
  appeal.  The superior court has ordered that  plaintiff provide defendant's
  counsel copies of certain mental health and other medical records,  but
  that defendant's counsel "must keep records in his office and not
  duplicate."  Arguing that the  limitation on use is not supported by the
  record in this case, defendant seeks review of that  limitation.  Our test
  for whether a collateral order appeal is appropriate is whether the ruling
  to  be appealed "conclusively determines a disputed question," "resolves an
  important issue  completely separate from the merits of the action" and
  "will be effectively unreviewable on  appeal."  V.R.A.P. 5.1(a).  I doubt
  there is any dispute that this appeal meets that test.

       Although we once treated collateral order appeals as
  non-discretionary, our most recent  decisions make clear that "collateral
  appeals are discretionary interlocutory appeals."  In re J.G.,  160 Vt.
  250, 252,