Source: http://injurylawstpaul.com/messages/283.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:39:13+00:00

Document:
Court of Appeals Anderson, Paul H., J.
requesting a stay of the depositions.
criminal proceeding, a protective order staying civil discovery under Minn. R. Civ. P.
criminal proceeding involving overlapping evidentiary material.
The district court abused its discretion by denying the state�s request under Minn.
proceeding shared overlapping evidentiary material with the civil proceeding.
appeals erred when it denied the state�s petition for a writ of prohibition.
contravenes the policies behind the criminal discovery rules, we reverse.
against Ryan Deal for acts of criminal sexual conduct against B.Q., then 13 years old.
both the dissolution proceeding and Ryan Deal�s criminal proceeding.
Christina M. Deal filed a motion for a protective order under Minn. R. Civ. P.
the court seal the depositions or change the discovery method to a written deposition.
to permissively intervene in the marriage dissolution proceeding under Minn. R. Civ. P.
proceeding while a criminal trial is still pending.
518 and procedurally by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. See Minn. Stat.
518. Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a); Minn. R. Civ. P. app. A.
allow the parties� counsel to be present and to ask the child �reasonable questions.� Id.
beyond the scope of criminal discovery.
Denials of requests for permissive intervention are generally not appealable.
N.W.2d 225, 231 (Minn. 1979).
adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
assert the public�s interest in a pending criminal proceeding.
A conclusion that intervention should be permitted is supported by federal law.
statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene.� Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b); see Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02.
3 See Pfizer Ireland Pharms. v. Albers Med., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 591, 592 (W.D.Mo.
2004); Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 269 F. Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D.Conn.
v. United States Realty & Improvement, 310 U.S. 434, 458-60 (1940).
possible delay or prejudice from granting the intervention.
Inc. v. County of Hennepin, 450 N.W.2d 299, 306 (Minn. 1990); see also Moylan v.
under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01. There is a four-part test for intervention as of right.
(articulating the requirements for intervention as of right under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01).
Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 207; see also SEC v. Nacchio, No.
Civ.A05CV00480MSKCBS, 2005 WL 1799372, at *3 (D.Colo. July 28, 2005); SEC v.
government could intervene as of right).
Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01-.02 with Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03.
privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party.� Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02.
construed the discovery rules in favor of broad discovery.� Larson v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
Practice�Criminal Law and Procedure � 16.18 (3d ed. 2001).
Mussehl, 408 N.W.2d at 846.
pending civil and criminal proceedings involve overlapping evidentiary material.
6 The discovery provisions found in Minn. R. Civ. P. 26 are adapted from Fed. R.
�mirror[s]� the federal rule, Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 578 n.1.
prosecution�s case would result in perjury and manufactured evidence.
to the defendant of the disclosure.
Id. (quoting Developments in the Law-Discovery, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 940, 1052 (1961)).
his civil claims or liabilities.
Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487.
district court�s holding.8 Campbell, 307 F.2d at 483.
consistent with our holding in Rud and the policies behind our criminal discovery rules.
would contravene the aforementioned policies behind the criminal discovery rules.
consider this issue may be considered a �fatal defect� in the court�s ruling.
material. � � Afro-Lecon, 820 F.2d at 1204 (quoting Peden, 512 F.2d at 1103).
(D.Del. 2004); Ganim, 269 F. Supp. 2d at 8.
whether to stay civil discovery?
whether to stay the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q.
conviction may well have a dispositive effect.
intended to question both children about the alleged sexual abuse.
effect on the child of the actions of an abuser.� Minn. Stat. � 518.17 (2006).
the crime.� First Response, supra note 13.
68 B.U. L. Rev. 155, 159 (1988).
the once trusted adult who abused her; and she is particularly vulnerable during crossexamination.
deposition before the criminal trial.
Ryan Deal�s caretaking likely relevant to the criminal proceeding.
it denied the state�s request to stay the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q.
v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622, 626 (Minn. 1996).
be reviewed through normal appellate procedures.
B.Q. and C.Q. during the pendency of Ryan Deal�s criminal trial.

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v.