Opinion ID: 1335190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Attorneys' Appeals

Text: The Cramers' attorneys argue that the trial court erred in finding them in contempt for failing to comply with the Breedloves' subpoenas duces tecum. We agree. [6] We can resolve this issue rather quickly, because the documents the Breedloves sought through the subpoenas are not properly discoverable through the Cramers' attorneys. Looking first at the court's order to Lionel Lofton, Lisa Cramer's attorney, the order requires Lofton to produce any and all documents he has in his possession which disclose the location of any funds obtained by [Lisa Cramer] from the Breedloves, and the order further requires Lofton to disclose the amounts of any and all funds currently held in escrow or on deposit by him or his firm. This request is indistinguishable from the discovery the Breedloves sought from the Cramers, and it is clear that Lofton would only have obtained documents relating to the Cramers' finances through his status as Lisa Cramer's attorney. The Breedloves cannot discover documents through the Cramers' attorneys when the compelled disclosure by the Cramers would be protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, although the Rules of Professional Conduct provide that an attorney may disclose privileged information when ordered by the court, see Rule 1.6(b)(7), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, we find the disclosure ordered here highly improper. The order directed to Charles Macloskie, Nathan Cramer's attorney, provides another illustrative point. Specifically, the order professes that the Breedloves are seeking the information described in the subpoenas in aid of enforcing an injunction issued by [this Court], and that without the information, [the Breedloves] cannot locate or trace the assets that are the subject of [this Court's] injunction. This justification is completely at odds with the purpose of discovery and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding by the Breedloves of their obligations in connection with this Court's injunction. Discovery is, of course, the process of seeking information from an adverse party to prepare for litigation, and the discovery sought in this case relates largely to the nature of the Breedloves' relationship with the Cramers. The Cramers have refused to respond to this discovery by asserting the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and this Court's issuance of an injunction has no impact on this analysis. If the privilege against self-incrimination protects the Cramers from disclosing the location of their assets to the Breedloves, that is the end of the matter. The Court's issuance of an injunction does not grant the Breedloves a license to use discovery as a tool to ensure that the injunction is being given effect. As a court order, the injunction is binding on the Cramers, their agents and attorneys, and anyone in active concert with the Cramers receiving actual notice of the injunction. Rule 65(d), SCRCP. A party who refuses to abide by an injunction entered by the court would of course be in contempt of court and subject to sanctions, and our jurisprudence clearly establishes that the proper procedure to determine whether a party should be held in contempt is to bring a summons and a rule to show cause. See Toyota of Florence, Inc. v. Lynch, 314 S.C. 257, 267, 442 S.E.2d 611, 617 (1994). Treating the injunction as a back door to allow the discovery of otherwise non-discoverable information gives the privilege against self-incrimination an impermissibly shallow dimension. Not to be outdone, the Cramers also misunderstand an important aspect of this Court's injunction. Specifically, the Cramers appear to overextend the privilege against self-incrimination and treat it as a limitation on what information a court may ascertain in its own right. Stated differently, the question of what information the Breedloves may not obtain in discovery is completely separate from what information a court may require to be disclosed, in camera if necessary, to ensure that court orders are observed. While the appearance that the Cramers are using money they obtained from the Breedloves to pay their attorneys' fees ought to be of significant concern, and thus, the Breedloves' desire for this information is understandable, this issue should be resolved rather quickly and easily without the involvement of the civil discovery process. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's decision finding the Cramers' attorneys in contempt.