Patricia Johnson as Guardian Ad Litem for Child a minor v. Spartanburg County School District 7 .

• Decision Date: 27 October 2008
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 2008-UP-600.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patricia Johnson, as Guardian Ad Litem for Child, a minor, Respondent, v. Spartanburg County School District 7, Appellant.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED

PER CURIAM:

FACTS

Johnson is the guardian ad litem for Child,^[1] a minor who was allegedly the victim of a sexual assault on a school bus in September 2006. On April 16, 2007, Johnson filed a summons and complaint seeking an equitable bill of discovery and a temporary injunction. Johnson asked the circuit court to order the School District to maintain, preserve, and produce certain items and information relating to the incident and to refrain from moving, removing, or modifying any such items and information. Johnson contended the School District had conducted an investigation, including taking witness statements and gathering other information, following the incident. Johnson, therefore, wanted any information or evidence the School District had gathered to be preserved so she could determine whether any potential civil causes of action existed, identify all potential defendants, and potentially proceed with any civil matters related to the incident. The summons stated the School District had thirty days to file its answer.

On April 19, 2007, the circuit court issued an Order and Rule to Show Cause, directing the School District to appear on May 9, 2007, and show cause as to why the relief requested should not be granted. The circuit court stated:

[I]t would be prudent and proper to [o]rder [the School District] to maintain the evidence referenced in [Johnson's] [c]omplaint ([f]or [e]quitable [b]ill [of] [d]iscovery), in a safe place and to refrain and restrain from moving it, removing it and/or making any modifications to this evidence, along with any other items or materials that might potentially be considered as evidence in any possible civil litigation, until the hearing in this matter . . .

The School District appeared at the hearing but argued the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction to rule in the matter because the thirty days in which the School District could respond to either the summons and complaint or the Rule to Show Cause had yet to expire. The circuit court disagreed with the School District's argument and proceeded with the hearing.^[2]

At the close of the hearing, the circuit court stated it would allow Johnson to proceed with discovery. The circuit court finalized this decision by order on July 17, 2007. This order specified the discovery Johnson could move forward with and granted Johnson's request for an injunction. Specifically, the circuit court ordered the School District to preserve and maintain the evidence referenced in Johnson's complaint for equitable bill of discovery, along with any other items or materials that might be potentially considered as evidence in the possible civil litigation. The circuit court acknowledged Johnson was requesting evidence before any suit had been filed and that Johnson was not asking the circuit court to bind any defendant to any judgment. The circuit court concluded the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law provided for reasonable pre-suit discovery and for preservation of evidence. The circuit court noted, if a party were to sue without grounds, that party could face court-imposed penalties as well as liability for a groundless action.

On July 20, 2007, the School District filed a Motion to Reconsider and Amend, which the circuit court denied. This appeal follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Actions for injunctive relief are equitable in nature." Shaw v Coleman, 373 S.C. 485, 492, 645 S.E.2d 252, 256 (Ct App. 2007). When reviewing actions in equity, this Court may "correct errors of law and may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence." Blackmon v. Weaver, 366 S.C. 245 249, 621 S.E.2d 42, 44 (Ct. App. 2005).

LAW/ANALYSIS

The School District argues the circuit court erroneously granted Johnson's request for a temporary injunction because she failed to demonstrate two of the requirements for a temporary injunction: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) an inadequate remedy at law. We disagree.

The granting of a temporary injunction rests in the discretion of the trial court. Powell v. Immanuel Baptist Church, 261 S.C. 219 221, 199 S.E.2d 60, 61 (1973). The sole purpose for granting a temporary injunction is to preserve status quo in order to avoid possible irreparable injury to a party. Id. To establish a cause of action for a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm will be suffered if the injunction is not granted, (2) success on the merits is likely, and (3) the remedy at law is inadequate. Peek v Spartanburg Reg'l Healthcare Sys., 367 S.C. 450, 454-55, 626 S.E.2d 34, 36 (Ct. App. 2005).

At the hearing, Johnson argued she would likely succeed on the merits of the case because the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated an equitable bill of discovery is an independent civil action used to proceed with the discovery process when the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provide no other mechanism for doing so. Wofford v. Ethyl Corp., ...