Court Opinion

ID: 9635276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:44:47.071238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:22.516779
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that part of the majority opinion which states that the Court of Appeals properly acted to deny the writ of prohibition because there was no abuse of discretion. The petitioner had failed to meet its obligation and burden of showing all the prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of prohibition.
In particular reference to the walk through authorized by the circuit court, I would agree that CR 34.01 provides the basis for a court to order discovery or inspection of premises. Certainly, the circuit court should abide by the rule and specify in some detail the right of inspection. However, in this case, Wal-Mart has failed to demonstrate one of the prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, irreparable injury, resulting from a walk-through inspection. Wal-Mart could show no great or ruinous loss. Citation to McMurry v. Eckert, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 828 (1992), is inappropriate. The standards set out in McMurry, supra, to-wit: there was no other means to get the information; the information sought was relevant and nonprivileged and the information was critical to the case, are met in this case.
All that is sought here is to establish the existence and nature of documents in which Wal-Mart will have an adequate remedy on appeal, if any is needed.
Under all the circumstances, and as the majority notes, the cavalier attitude and dilatory tactics of Wal-Mart, I cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a walk-through order simply because it does not follow the exact language of CR 34.01 or 34.02(2).
KELLER, J., joins in this opinion.