Ex parte Alabama Gas Corp., 022318 ALCIV, 2170285
|Opinion Judge:||THOMAS, Judge.|
|Party Name:||Ex parte Alabama Gas Corporation v. Alabama Gas Corporation In re: Robert Alan Smitherman|
|Judge Panel:||Thompson, P.J., and Pittman and Donaldson, JJ., concur. Moore, J., concurs in the result, with writing. MOORE, Judge, concurring in the result.|
|Case Date:||February 23, 2018|
|Court:||Alabama Court of Civil Appeals|
Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-17-901404
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Alabama Gas Corporation ("Alagasco"), the defendant in a pending action brought by Robert Alan Smitherman ("the employee") pursuant to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, § 25-5-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, petitions for a writ of mandamus ordering the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate a November 6, 2017, discovery order, which, according to Alagasco, "overrides and nullifies" certain discovery provisions of the Act. For the reasons stated herein, we deny the petition.
"'"Discovery matters are within the trial court's sound discretion, and this Court will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless the trial court has clearly exceeded its discretion. Home Ins. Co. v. Rice, 585 So.2d 859, 862 (Ala. 1991). Accordingly, mandamus will issue to reverse a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue only (1) where there is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion, and (2) where the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. The petitioner has an affirmative burden to prove the existence of each of these conditions." "'Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So.2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003).
"'Moreover, this Court will review by mandamus only those discovery matters involving (a) the disregard of a privilege,
(b) the ordered production of "patently irrelevant or duplicative documents, " (c) orders effectively eviscerating "a party's entire action or defense, " and (d) orders denying a party the opportunity to make a record sufficient for appellate review of the discovery issue. 872 So.2d at 813-14.'"
The materials provided for our review reveal that the employee suffered a work-related injury in 2015, that he had received authorized medical treatment and temporary-total-disability...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP