Ex parte Thomas

Decision Date03 September 1993
Citation628 So.2d 483
PartiesEx Parte Odia B. THOMAS. (Odia B. THOMAS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.). 1921047.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Michael J. Ballamy and Kenneth E. White, Phenix City, for petitioner.

John M. Britton, Phenix City, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

James R. McKoon, Jr., Phenix City, for Gerald L. Railsback.

KENNEDY, Justice.

Odia B. Thomas petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the Honorable Paul J. Miller, Jr., as circuit judge of Russell County, to grant her motions for the production and preservation of evidence pertaining to the defendant Gerald L. Railsback's use of drugs, to compel the defendant Railsback to answer questions concerning his drug use that he had refused to answer, and for sanctions for Railsback's refusal to answer those questions. Thomas also seeks to compel the trial court to grant her motion to strike Railsback's amended answers to interrogatories and to grant her motion to amend her complaint to include a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits against State Farm. We grant the writ in part and deny it in part.

The facts are as follows: Thomas sued Railsback, alleging that he had negligently and wantonly caused an automobile accident that caused her personal injuries and property damage. In her complaint, Thomas also claimed uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits against State Farm Insurance Company. State Farm filed a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R.Civ.P., motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted.

Along with the complaint, Thomas submitted interrogatories to Railsback. Question 24 asked: "In the twenty-four hour period preceding the accident did you have, or take any drug, narcotic, sedative, tranquilizer or other form of medication, or anything of an alcoholic nature to drink?" Railsback answered: "Tylenol # 2 and 5 milligram Valium."

Thomas then submitted to Railsback a request for admissions, asking Railsback to admit that he was driving his automobile under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the collision. Railsback's failure to respond prompted Thomas to file a second request for admissions and to request production of documents (e.g., prescriptions for controlled substances). Railsback again did not respond. Thomas filed a motion to compel, which was granted by the trial court. During deposition testimony, Railsback refused to answer questions concerning his use of drugs after the date of the accident. Railsback later filed three pleadings wherein he moved to amend his response to the interrogatories to state that he did not ingest any drug, medication, or alcohol in the 24 hours before the accident and, thereby, to deny the existence of any of the documents requested by Thomas.

Thomas filed a notice of her intention to serve a subpoena on a nonparty, a Veterans' Administration Hospital, in order to obtain medical records concerning the prescription drugs used by Railsback. Railsback objected to the notice, and the subpoena was not issued. Thomas then filed a motion for production of medical records, a motion to preserve evidence, and a motion to strike Railsback's amended answer to the interrogatories. Thomas then filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a claim against State Farm. The trial court held a hearing and denied all pending motions, except the motion to preserve evidence, which it did not rule upon.

The issues presented by Thomas case are: 1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Thomas discovery and production of Railsback's drug prescriptions and medical records and 2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Thomas's motion for leave to amend the complaint with respect to the claim against State Farm.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, and to justify issuance of such a writ there must be a clear showing of injury to the petitioner. Ex parte J.E.W., 608 So.2d 728 (Ala.1992). A writ of mandamus should be issued only when there is a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought, an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by refusal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2003
    ... ... Cawley of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C., for defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ...         H. Thomas Wells, Jr., and William B. Wahlheim, Jr., of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham; and Gordon A. Smith, W. Randall Bassett, and Daniel A. Hillman ... Sheraton Perimeter Park S. Hotel, 592 So.2d 218, 220 (Ala.1991) ( quoting Ex parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d 975, 977 (Ala.1983) )." ...          Allen, 624 So.2d at 1068 (emphasis added). This ... ...
  • Zaden v. Elkus
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 12 Septiembre 2003
    ... ... Elkus's medical-liability insurer, and whether the ex parte interviews Dr. Elkus's attorneys conducted with certain of Zaden's treating physicians were improper ...          I. Procedural History ... Griggs, 585 So.2d 1317, 881 So.2d 1006 1321 (Ala.1991)(emphasis supplied). See also Ex parte Thomas, 628 So.2d 483, 485 (Ala.1993) ...         Rule 403, Ala.R.Evid., on the other hand, states: ... "Although relevant, evidence may be ... ...
  • Ex parte Land
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 2 Julio 1998
    ... ... The Court stated: ... "Trial courts are vested with broad discretion in controlling the discovery process and in making rulings pertaining to discovery matters. Ex parte Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co., 684 So.2d 1292 (Ala.1996); Ex parte Thomas, 628 So.2d 483 (Ala.1993). A petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper means for seeking appellate review of the question whether a trial court has abused its discretion in a discovery matter. Ex parte Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co.; Ex parte General Motors Acceptance Corp., 631 So.2d 990 ... ...
  • EX PARTE LIBERTY NAT. LIFE INS. CO.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 14 Marzo 2003
    ... 858 So.2d 950 Ex parte LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ... (In re Thomas E. Deas v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company et al.) ... 1020057 ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... March 14, 2003 ...          858 So.2d 951 D. Brent Baker and Ross A. Frazer of Frazer, Greene, Upchurch & Baker, L.L.C., Mobile, for petitioner ...          858 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT