Caplan v. Benator (Ex parte Sikes)
Decision Date | 26 August 2016 |
Docket Number | 2150469. |
Parties | Ex parte Griffin SIKES, Jr. (In re Rosalyn M. Caplan v. Patty S. Benator et al.). |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Griffin Sikes, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.
Jack Owen of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery, for Patty S. Benator.
James T. Patterson of Vernis & Bowling of Southern Alabama, LLC, Mobile, for Linda S. Fleet.
Griffin Sikes, Jr., an attorney, challenges a February 10, 2016, order of the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court") that ordered him to pay $3,000 as a sanction for vexatious discovery practices.
The record1 indicates that Sikes represented Rosalyn M. Caplan in a tort action in the trial court in which Caplan sought an award of damages from Patty S. Benator ("Benator"), Gene A. Benator, Linda S. Fleet ("Fleet"), and Stuart L. Fleet; later, a probate-court action involving the estate of Edgar K. Simon, Jr., was removed to the trial court and consolidated with the tort action. Caplan and Simon were in a relationship for a number of years, and they lived together in Simon's home in Montgomery from approximately 2005 until Simon's death on April 22, 2015. Benator and Fleet are Simon's daughters and are the coexecutors of Simon's estate ("the estate"); Gene Benator and Stuart Fleet are, respectively, Benator's husband and Fleet's husband. Under the terms of Simon's will, the house Simon and Caplan had shared during their relationship was left to Benator and Fleet, but the will also contained a provision allowing Caplan to live in the house for 90 days following Simon's death. Simon also made a specific bequest to Caplan from his estate. In her June 16, 2015, complaint in the tort action, Caplan alleged, among other things, that the defendants' conduct toward her since Simon's death had caused her to suffer a heart attack.
Benator and Fleet filed an objection to Caplan's notice to serve a nonparty subpoena, arguing that the documents requested were subject to the attorney-client privilege, were attorney work product, and were not relevant. They also filed an opposition to Caplan's motion in limine. The trial court set the discovery dispute for a hearing, and the parties filed supplemental briefs in the trial court in support of their respective positions.
Benator and Fleet objected to the July 31, 2015, notice of intent to serve a nonparty subpoena, and Caplan moved the trial court to overrule that objection.
The parties filed briefs in support of their positions on the discovery dispute, and the trial court conducted a hearing to consider the arguments of counsel. On August 18, 2015, the trial court entered an order ruling on the discovery dispute concerning Caplan's requests for nonparty subpoenas that sought certain information from the Hartley attorneys. That order reads as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Caplan did not seek appellate review of the August 18, 2015, order. Rather, on September 10, 2015, Caplan filed requests for production that, in pertinent part, requested copies of e-mails, text messages, letters, written correspondence, or recordings of any communications between Benator and Fleet and the Hartley attorneys or Jack Owen, Benator's attorney; any other documents pertaining to Benator's and Fleet's dealings with the Hartley attorneys; any documents containing information regarding whether the Hartley attorneys had advised Benator and Fleet concerning their conduct toward Caplan and the content of any such advice; and any documents or recordings that might substantiate the nature of that advice.
Benator and Fleet each objected to the deposition notice and the notice of intent to serve the nonparty subpoena, arguing that Caplan was repeating her earlier efforts to access information that the trial court had already determined was barred by the attorney-client privilege. Caplan argued that the records she had requested were not privileged and not within the scope of the August 18, 2015, order.
On November 20, 2015, Benator and Fleet moved for a partial summary judgment on Caplan's claim in the tort action asserting trespass. The trial court scheduled a hearing on that motion. Caplan opposed that partial-summary-judgment motion. The trial court later granted the motion for a partial summary judgment on Caplan's trespass claim.
On December 4, 2015, Caplan propounded her "third discovery requests," which were composed of interrogatories and a demand for a "privilege log." In her interrogatories to Benator and Fleet, Caplan demanded information regarding whether either Benator or Fleet had received legal advice with regard to their interactions with Caplan in April 2015 and, if so, the nature of any such advice. Caplan then requested that, for each communication that Benator or Fleet might claim was subject to the attorney-client privilege, Benator and Fleet create a "privilege log" setting forth detailed information regarding why that communication might be privileged.4 Caplan sought similar information with regard to other specific factual inquiries and, in addition, sought a statement from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magic City Capital, LLC v. Twickenham Place Partners, LLC
... ... Mobile Cty., 58 So. 3d 733, 738 (Ala. 2010). See also Ex parte Sikes, 218 So. 3d 839, 847 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). In this situation, ... ...
-
Willis v. Willis
... ... See Ex parte Ferguson , 819 So. 2d 626, 629 (Ala. 2001). " [T]he standard of review in ... " Ex parte Sikes , 218 So. 3d 839, 847 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting Drake v. Alabama ... ...
-
Norvell v. Norvell
... ... Mobile Cty. , 58 So.3d at 738 (some emphasis added). See also Ex parte Sikes , 218 So.3d 839, 847 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) ("[T]here were alternate ... ...
-
C.L.L.M. v. A.D.L.
...256 So.3d 1192EX PARTE C.L.L.M.(In re C.L.L.M.v.A.D.L.)2170142Court of Civil Appeals of ... See Ex parte Sikes, 218 So.3d 839, 847 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (" This court is required to ... ...