Opinion ID: 1662097
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stay of Judge O'Toole's Deposition

Text: Smulls subpoenaed Judge Daniel O'Toole, claiming Judge O'Toole also heard Judge Corrigan tell the barbecue joke. At the state's request, Judge O'Brien stayed the deposition until he determined Smulls was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim to which the deposition related. Judge O'Brien lifted the stay on January 5, 1998, but he denied Smulls' motion for a continuance of the evidentiary hearing until the deposition could be taken. Nonetheless, he assured Smulls that additional time would be provided as necessary. Smulls scheduled the deposition for March 9, 1998, but Judge O'Toole died on that very day after an extended bout with cancer. Smulls first claims that the state had no standing to request the stay. Smulls is mistaken. The rules of civil procedure apply to Rule 29.15 motions. Rule 29.15(a). Rule 56.01(c) permits any party to file a motion for a protective order. A request for a stay order falls within that rule. Smulls next claims that the trial court's stay of the deposition was improper because Smulls was denied access to a witness who had useful information. Trial courts have broad discretion in administering rules of discovery, which this Court will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Crowden v. Dandurand, 970 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo. banc 1998). As noted, the basis of the state's motion was that the deposition was premature and unduly burdensome until the motion court determined whether Smulls was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The stay was proper under Rule 56.01(c), which permits the trial court to make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Smulls' citation to Rule 56.01(b)(1), which states that parties are entitled to discovery on any relevant matter, does not address the issue. Judge O'Brien's ruling was not a determination that Smulls was not entitled to the discovery. The stay was in place only until he granted an evidentiary hearing and was lifted three months prior to Judge O'Toole's death. There was no abuse of discretion. See State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 504 (Mo. banc 2000). Smulls also argues that Judge O'Brien improperly refused to continue the evidentiary hearing until Judge O'Toole could be deposed. Smulls filed a motion requesting a continuance or, at minimum, that the court hold open the evidence until the deposition could be taken. In response, Judge O'Brien denied the motion, but stated he would grant a continuance at the close of Smulls' evidence if the deposition had not yet been secured. It is well settled that [t]he decision to grant or deny a request for a continuance ... rests within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Barton, 998 S.W.2d 19, 27 (Mo. banc 1999). Because the court was willing to grant a continuance if Judge O'Toole's deposition was not taken by the time Smulls rested his case, there was no abuse of discretion.