Case Name: LOWNDES PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Claude A. BROWER et al., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1974-05-08
Citations: 262 S.C. 431
Docket Number: 19821
Parties: LOWNDES PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Claude A. BROWER et al., Respondent
Judges: Moss, C. J., and Bussey, Brailsford and Littlejohn, JJ-, concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 262
Pages: 431–434

Head Matter:
19821
LOWNDES PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Claude A. BROWER et al., Respondent
(205 S. E. (2d) 184)
Messrs. David L. Freeman and Alfred F. Burgess of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, Greenville, for Ap-
Messrs. Leatherwoodj Walker, Todd & Mann and Ralph Bailey of Bailey and Dority, Greenville, for Respondents.
May 8,1974.

Opinion:
Lewis, Justice.
There was an earlier appeal in this case. 259 S. C. 322, 191 S. E. (2d) 761. The order of the lower court in that appeal was affirmed in part and reversed in part as the result of a determination that the defendants who had been employees of the plaintiff were guilty of a breach of their duty of loyalty to their employer. The action was remanded for the determination of the amount of the damages sustained by plaintiff. The parties were allowed on remand to rely upon the record already made and also to submit such additional testimony as deemed appropriate on the issue of damages.
After remand, plaintiffs gave notice, under Circuit Court Rule 87 (Vol. 15, pg. 67, Supplement to 1962 Code of Laws), of the taking of depositions of certain named defendants in connection with the determination of the issue of damages and, under Circuit Court Rule 88 (Vol. 15, pg. 72, 1962 Code of Laws), for the production by them of certain records deemed pertinent to that issue. This appeal is from an order of the lower court refusing to compel such discovery.
Although the parties have not raised the question, we dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order under appeal was an intermediate or interlocutory decision under Section 15-123 of the 1962 Code of Laws, and is not appealable before final judgment. Wallace v. Interamerican Trust Co., 246 S. C. 563, 144 S. E. (2d) 813.
This is in accord with the rule that, ordinarily, an order denying or compelling discovery is not directly appealable. Annotation: 37 A. L. R. (2d) 586; 4 Am. Jur. (2d), Appeal and Error, Sections 79 & 80.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Moss, C. J., and Bussey, Brailsford and Littlejohn, JJ-, concur.