Court Opinion

ID: 9854073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:00:19.817153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:54.230359
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
BAKES, Chief Justice.
A petition for rehearing was granted in this matter and the cause reargued. The Court has reviewed the record and reconsidered the arguments presented by counsel and continues to adhere to the views expressed and the conclusion reached in 1989 Opinion No. 82, filed on June 8, 1989, except that, as to the award of attorney fees on appeal against the appellant Win-free, the fees awarded to the respondent for defending against the appeal of Win-free will be limited to those fees necessarily incurred in defending against the limited issue she raised on appeal. Counsel for respondent, in preparing its memorandum of attorney fees pursuant to I.A.R. 41, will prorate and set out separately that portion of its fees addressed to the issues raised by Winfree on her appeal, and the balance of the fees attributable to the remainder of the case.
On rehearing appellant again argues that the trial court erred in issuing a protective order limiting the litigation discovery, and requiring appellant to avail herself of the information generated by the federal multidistrict action unless she could demonstrate any areas left uncovered by the discovery in that proceeding. The record demonstrates that there were more than eighty depositions taken in the Ohio multi-district litigation covering literally every employee with any relevant connection to the drug in question. Appellant has not shown any *486abuse of discretion on the trial court’s part in entering the discovery limitation order.
Our original opinion, as modified herein regarding the proration of attorney fees, is affirmed.
JOHNSON, BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.