Opinion ID: 1835448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Manner of Discovery

Text: The amended order is also due to be set aside to the extent that it limits Hicks's contact with the defendants' customers to a letter reviewed by the defendants and approved by the court. It is also apparent that the limitation the trial court placed on the method by which the Howells' attorneys could contact the policyholders, i.e., only by court-approved, and defense counsel reviewed, letters and postcards, created an awkward procedure that could prevent the acquisition of information. While contacts by letter may certainly be a useful option for the Howells' attorneys in their attempts to gather evidence, it should not be mandated by the trial court as the exclusive method. As this Court noted in Ex parte Stephens, [infra], it will be entirely up to the policy-holders whether to consent to speak to the attorneys. The Howells' attorneys have the right to use any legal method to gather evidence in this case, including, but not limited to, letters and postcards.  Ex parte Howell, 704 So.2d 479, 482 (Ala. 1997) (emphasis added), citing Ex parte Stephens, 676 So.2d 1307 (Ala.1996). The defendants also contend that, because of the sensitive nature of the services and merchandise they provide, they are entitled to limit Hicks's discovery efforts and that the aforementioned cases do not apply to the facts of this case. However, as this Court noted in Ex parte Stephens, the policyholders have the right to refuse to respond to Hicks's inquiries. Further, As noted in Ex parte Stephens, it cannot and should not be presumed that an officer of the court will act in an unethical manner. Howell, 704 So.2d at 482. Indeed, Hicks's attorney has acknowledged the sensitive nature of his requests and has indicated that discovery will be conducted accordingly. The trial court improperly placed arbitrary limits on Hicks's discovery and prevented Hicks from conducting meaningful discovery. Hicks is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order with regard to discovery and to enter an order that allows full discovery, which has the effect of saving time, effort, and money, in an effort to achieve substantial justice. Ex parte Rowland, 669 So.2d at 127, quoting Campbell v. Regal Typewriter Co., 341 So.2d 120, 123-24 (Ala.1976); Rule 26(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P.