Title: CHRISTINE L. COOK, M.D., ET AL. V. HON. AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, ET AL.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018-SC-000435-MR
State: Kentucky
Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court
Date: April 18, 2019

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. CORRECTED: MARCH 14, 2019 RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2019 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000435-MR CHRISTINE L. COOK, M. D. AND DR LYNN P. PARKER, M. D. ELLANTS ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. NO. 2018-CA-000162-OA JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 15-CI-001410 HON AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE, APPELLEE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT AND C. WILLIAM HELM, C. WILLIAM HELM, MB. BCHIR, AND UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST/APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING Appe llant s, Christ ine L. Cook, M.D. and Lynn Parke r, M.D., appe al from t he Court of Appe als ’ orde r de nying his pe t it ion for a writ of prohibit ion or mandamus. For t he following re asons, we affirm t he Court of Appe als ’ orde r. I. BACKGROUND Re al Part y in Int e re st , C. William He lm, M.D., has brought se ve n se parat e ac t ions arising out of t he fac t s surrounding his e mployme nt wit h t he Unive rsit y of Louisville . Two of t he se c laims have part ic ular import anc e in t he c urre nt appe al. In t he unde rlying ac t ion, He lm file d suit against t he Unive rsit y se e king damage s unde r a t he ory of whist le blowe r re t aliat ion base d on t he Unive rsit y’s non-re ne wal of his e mployme nt c ont rac t . Cook and Parke r are not part ie s t o t his ac t ion. Howe ve r, t he Unive rsit y ide nt ifie d t he m as t he t wo wit ne sse s who would have t he most informat ion c onc e rning He lm’s ac t ion. He lm sought t o de pose Cook and Parke r in t he whist le blowe r ac t ion and t he t wo file d a mot ion t o e it he r quash t he subpoe na alt oge t he r or for t he t rial c ourt t o e nt e r a prot e c t ive orde r limit ing t he sc ope of t he ir de posit ions base d on t he fac t He lm had de pose d t he t wo e xt e nsive ly in an e arlie r de famat ion suit against Cook and Parke r (t he se c ond c ase having re le vanc e he re in). The t rial c ourt e nt e re d an orde r de nying Cook and Parke r’s mot ion t o quash and mot ion for a prot e c t ive orde r. Cook and Parke r file d a writ t o t he Court of Appe als, asking t hat Court t o e it he r issue a writ c ommanding t he t rial c ourt t o e it he r quash t he ir de posit ions or t o e nt e r a prot e c t ive orde r limit ing t he ir sc ope . The Court of Appe als de c line d t o issue t he writ . Cook and Parke r appe ale d t hat de c ision t o t his Court , arguing t he Court of Appe als abuse d it s disc re t ion. For t he re asons t hat follow, we affirm t he Court of Appe als. II. ANALYSIS The issuanc e of a writ is an e xt raordinary re me dy, and we have always be e n c aut ious and c onse rvat ive in grant ing suc h re lie f. Grange Mut. Ins. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 808 (Ky. 2004). The st andard for grant ing pe t it ions for writ s of prohibit ion and mandamus is t he same . Mahoney v. McDonald- Burkman, 320 S.W.3d 75, 77 n.2 (Ky. 2010) (citing Martin v. Admin. Office of 2 Courts, 107 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Ky. 2003)). This Court se t t hat st andard fort h in Hoskins v. Maricle: A writ . . . may be grant e d upon a showing t hat (1) t he lowe r c ourt is proc e e ding or is about t o proc e e d out side of it s j urisdic t ion and t he re is no re me dy t hrough an applic at ion t o an int e rme diat e c ourt ; or (2) t hat t he lowe r c ourt is ac t ing or is about t o ac t e rrone ously, alt hough wit hin it s j urisdic t ion, and t he re e xist s no ade quat e re me dy by appe al or ot he rwise and gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury will re sult if t he pe t it ion is not grant e d. 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004). He re , t he re is no argume nt t hat t he lowe r c ourt lac ke d j urisdic t ion. The re fore , t his c ase falls unde r t he se c ond c lass of writ , whic h re quire s t hat t he re be (1) no ade quat e re me dy by appe al and (2) gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury. As we have not e d, “[i]n orde r for a writ t o issue , t he lac k of an ade quat e re me dy by appe al or ot he rwise is an absolut e pre re quisit e .” Ridgeway Nursing & Rehab. Facility, LLC v. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 635, 640 (Ky. 2013). The re fore , we t urn t o t he t hre shold issue of whe t he r Cook and Parke r have an ade quat e re me dy by appe al. In t his inst anc e , Cook and Parke r are non-part y wit ne sse s. This Court re c e nt ly addre sse d t his ve ry issue : our re se arc h disc lose s a rule in Ke nt uc ky law not c it e d by e it he r part y in t he pre se nt appe al or in t he c ourt s be low. This Court ’s pre de c e ssor in Marion Nat. Bank v. Abell’s Adm’x [11 S.W. 300, 301 (Ky. 1889)] e st ablishe d a rule t hat has not be e n abandone d sinc e it s c re at ion: A t rial c ourt orde r de nying a nonpart y’s mot ion t o quash a disc ove ry re que st is a final and imme diat e ly appe alable j udgme nt . ... In fairne ss t o t he part ie s t o t his appe al, we e mploy Just ic e Coope r’s art ic ulat ion of t he re asons for our addre ssing t he me rit s in t his c ase : “Sinc e t he Court of Appe als e xe rc ise d it s disc re t ion t o addre ss t he pe t it ion on it s me rit s, and [Allst at e ] doe s not e ve n asse rt t hat [Dr. Kle infe ld] has an ade quat e re me dy by appe al, we , t oo, will proc e e d dire c t ly t o t he me rit s of t he appe al.” 3 [Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Overstreet, 103 S.W.3d 31, 33 (Ky. 2003).] Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kleinfeld, No. 2018-SC-000417-MR, (Ky. Fe bruary 14, 2019). He re , j us t as in Kleinfeld, ne it he r t he part ie s nor t he Court of Appe als c it e d t his rule . The re fore , t he part ie s argue d (and t he Court of Appe als de c ide d t he c ase base d upon) whe t he r “gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury will re sult if t he pe t it ion is not grant e d.” Hoskins, 150 S.W.3d at 10. We follow Kleinfeld’s le ad and pic k up our analysis wit h t hat issue . Cook and Parke r fail t o show t hat a gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury will re sult if t he ir writ pe t it ion is not grant e d. The y insist t he Court of Appe als “faile d t o ade quat e ly addre ss t he issue of Drs. Cook and Parke r’s irre parable inj ury at all . . . [and] t ake int o ac c ount [t he ir] right not t o be subj e c t e d t o duplic at ive , re dundant , and harassing disc ove ry.” Howe ve r, t he fac t is t hat Appe llant s fail t o de monst rat e any spe c ific inj ury t hat rise s t o t he le ve l of irre parabilit y. Rat he r, t he y me re ly argue t hat t he t wo had alre ady give n e xt e nsive disc ove ry in a c ase wit h t he same fac t ual basis and t hat re quiring t he m t o provide addit ional disc ove ry “would, at a minimum be : (i) c umulat ive ; (ii) duplic at ive ; (iii) re dundant ; and (iv) unduly burde nsome . More ove r, it would also unne c e ssarily and unfairly re ope n a bac k door t o disc ove ry for Dr. He lm t o use in t he [se parat e de famat ion ac t ion] . . . .” While t he re may we ll be c irc umst anc e s in whic h a t rial c ourt ’s failure t o grant a prot e c t ive orde r suc h 4 as t hat sought by Cook and Parke r would re sult in gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury, Appe llant s do not show suc h an inj ury he re in. Furt he rmore , Cook and Parke r asse rt t hat our pre c e de nt c onc e rning gre at inj ust ic e and irre parable inj ury should not apply t o non-part ie s. Our c ase s make s it c le ar t hat “[i]nc onve nie nc e , e xpe nse , annoyanc e , and ot he r unde sirable aspe c t s of lit igat ion” do not amount t o gre at and irre parable inj ury. Fritsch v. Caudill, 146 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Ky. 2004). We se e no re ason t o de viat e from t his st andard unde r t he pre se nt se t of fac t s. Writ s re main e xt raordinary re lie f subj e c t t o t he disc re t ion of t he appe llat e c ourt re gardle ss of whe t he r t he individual se e king t he writ is a part y t o t he unde rlying lit igat ion. Appe llant s c an show no more t han t hat t he y will be inc onve nie nc e d or annoye d by be ing re quire d t o give de posit ions in t he unde rlying c ase . This doe s not amount t o gre at and irre parable inj ury, as t his Court has long he ld. Appe llant s also c laim t hat He lm may at t e mpt t o use informat ion he obt ains t hrough disc ove ry in t he whist le blowe r c ase in his de famat ion c ase against t he t wo of t he m in t he e ve nt t hat c ase may re t urn t o t he t rial c ourt . Howe ve r, t his spe c ulat ive c laim, e ve n if it c ame t o fruit ion, would not ne c e ssit at e t he grant ing of a writ . As we have he ld, “e vide nc e t hat is re le vant t o t he proc e e ding at hand, as is t he c ase he re , is disc ove rable de spit e t he fac t t hat t he e vide nc e may be use ful in ot he r c ont e xt s.” Grange, 151 S.W.3d at 814. Appe llant s ne xt c laim t he Court of Appe als e rre d by failing t o invoke t he “c e rt ain spe c ial c ase s ” e xc e pt ion in orde r t o grant t he ir writ . “This Court has 5 c onsist e nt ly re c ognize d an e xc e pt ion t o t he irre parable harm re quire me nt in ‘c e rt ain spe c ial c ase s.” Ridgeway, 415 S.W.3d at 639-40. In suc h c ase s, t his Court will e nt e rt ain t he pe t it ion “provide d a subst ant ial misc arriage of j us t ic e will re sult if t he lowe r c ourt is proc e e ding e rrone ously, and c orre c t ion of t he e rror is ne c e ssary and appropriat e in t he int e re st of orde rly j udic ial administ rat ion.” Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 801. We re vie w writ s unde r t he “c e rt ain spe c ial c ase s ” e xc e pt ion de novo. Grange, 151 S.W.3d at 810. He re , t he t rial c ourt re fuse d t o quash Cook and Parke r’s subpoe nas or t o limit t he sc ope of t he ir de posit ions. He lm de pose d Appe llant s in an unre lat e d mat t e r four ye ars prior t o his init iat ion of t he unde rlying whist le blowe r c laim. He lm asse rt s t hat he has gaine d ac c e ss t o nume rous ot he r doc ume nt s in t he int e rve ning t ime . The Unive rsit y insist s Cook and Parke r are t he t wo fac t wit ne sse s wit h t he most informat ion re garding t he whist le blowe r c laim. Furt he rmore , Ke nt uc ky Rule s of Civil Proc e dure (CR) 26.02(1) provide s, “[p]art ie s may obt ain disc ove ry re garding any mat t e r, not privile ge d, whic h is re le vant t o t he subj e c t mat t e r involve d in t he pe nding ac t ion . . . .” This rule is not wit hout limit at ion, howe ve r. In fac t , CR 26.03(1) provide s “Upon mot ion by a part y or by t he pe rson from whom disc ove ry is sought , and for good c ause shown, t he c ourt in whic h t he ac t ion is pe nding . . . may make any orde r whic h j ust ic e re quire s t o prot e c t a part y or pe rson from annoyanc e , e mbarrassme nt , oppre ssion, or undue burde n or e xpe nse . . . .” (Emphasis adde d.) This rule , howe ve r, doe s not re quire t he t rial c ourt t o grant suc h a prot e c t ive orde r. Rat he r, t he rule says t hat said c ourt may do so. He re , t he t rial c ourt use d it s 6 disc re t ion t o de c line t o issue suc h a prot e c t ive orde r.1 It is not “ne c e ssary and appropriat e in t he int e re st of orde rly j udic ial administ rat ion,” Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 801, for us t o upse t t his ruling by t he grant ing of an e xt raordinary, disc re t ionary writ . Finally, Cook and Parke r ask t his Court t o e xe rc ise it s ple nary powe r unde r Se c t ion 110 of t he Ke nt uc ky Const it ut ion and t o use our disc re t ion t o grant t he ir writ . Appe llant s insist t hat t he broad supe rvisory c ont rol of lowe r c ourt s Se c t ion 110 ve st s in t he Supre me Court allows us t o ove rt urn t he Court of Appe als de c ision e ve n if we hold (as we do) t hat c ourt did not abuse it s disc re t ion. We se e no re ason t o de viat e from our st andards in t his c ase and will not addre ss t his argume nt furt he r. III. CONCLUSION For t he fore going re asons, we affirm t he Court of Appe als ’ de nial of Appe llant s ’ pe t it ion for a writ . Mint on, C. J.; Hughe s, Ke lle r, Lambe rt , VanMe t e r and Wright , JJ., sit t ing. All c onc ur. 1 Appe llant s also make an argume nt unde r t he “c ollat e ral orde r doc t rine ” insist ing t he t rial c ourt abuse d it s disc re t ion in re fusing t o quash or limit t he ir de posit ions. It make s no diffe re nc e how t his argume nt is frame d. We st ill apply our writ st andard and c ome t o t he same c onc lusion. 7 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: Bre nt Robe rt Baughman Bingham Gre e ne baum Doll LLP Me lissa Norman Bork Bingham Gre e ne baum Doll LLP Be nj amin Le wis Bingham Gre e ne baum Doll LLP COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Audra Je an Ec ke rle COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: Mic hae l W. Oyle r Re e d, We it kamp, Sc he ll, 8s Vic e PLLC 8 2018-SC-000435-MR CHRISTINE L. COOK, M. D. AND DR LYNN P. PARKER, M. D. APPELLANTS ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. NO. 2018-CA-000162-OA JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 15-CI-001410 HON AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT APPELLEE AND C. WILLIAM HELM, C. WILLIAM HELM, MB. BCHIR, AND UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST/APPELLEES ORDER This Court he re by c orre c t s t he Me morandum Opinion of t he Court , re nde re d Marc h 14, 2019 in t he above -st yle d c ase , t o show a c orre c t e d vot e line . Subst it ut ion of a ne w Me morandum Opinion of t he Court Affirming is at t ac he d he re t o. Said c orre c t ion doe s not affe c t t he holding and is made only t o re fle c t t he c orre c t Just ic e s ’ name s in t he vot e line . ENTERED: Marc h lM , 2019. chiejZjustice