Opinion ID: 864853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the circuit court abused its

Text: DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRIVILEGED. ¶6. The circuit court’s wholesale ruling that the documents were not privileged was an abuse of discretion. “[W]hen objections to discovery of specific documents are made, the trial court should deal with each on an item-by-item basis, carefully considering whether to allow discovery, and stating the rule or exception which provides the basis for the decision.” Hewes v. Langston, 853 So. 2d 1237, 1250 (Miss. 2003); see also Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So. 2d 615, 620 (Miss. 1992). The circuit court’s order simply stated that all of the documents were subject to discovery because they were kept in the regular course of business, they were not confessional or exclusively religious in nature, or there was a lack of expectation of privacy evidenced by distribution to people other than defendants. Blanket statements as to whether 1 The circuit court never ruled upon this motion. 4 documents may or may not be compelled in discovery procedures simply are not sufficient to meet the standard in Hewes, 853 So. 2d at 1250. ¶7. Only an in-camera inspection and subsequent document-by-document analysis, accompanied by the corresponding rule or exception, will meet the requirements for such determinations. It is impossible for this Court to rule on the decision of the circuit court as to the privilege of these documents because we are presented with a result but no specific reasoning. To hold otherwise would force this Court to become a finder of fact and “make a habit of conducting de novo review of items challenged during discovery.” Id. at 1249; see also Haynes, 597 So. 2d at 617; In re Knapp, 536 So. 2d 1330, 1333 (Miss. 1988).