Opinion ID: 1781095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: trial court abused its discretion in limiting the pretrial discovery of the appellant.

Text: We do not agree. The complaint is that the court abused its discretion in requiring appellees to answer only nineteen of fifty-one interrogatories propounded by appellants. These interrogatories were reviewed individually in a hearing, and, without going into detail, the grounds for refusing to require answers were generally that appellants had asked for legal conclusionsor for facts equally available to both partiesor for facts already admitted. With respect to other queries, appellees' counsel stipulated that the testimony of all appellees would be the same as that of the appellees who had testified at the preliminary hearing for a temporary restraining order. [3] Additionally, appellants point to no specific instances of surprise or prejudice resulting from the trial court's action, and absent a specific showing of prejudice, it would appear that no abuse of discretion occurred.