Wellin v. Wellin
| Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:13-cv-1831-DCN,No. 2:13-cv-4067-DCN,No. 2:13-cv-3595-DCN,2:13-cv-1831-DCN,2:13-cv-3595-DCN,2:13-cv-4067-DCN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | WENDY WELLIN, as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Keith S. Wellin and as Trustee of the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust u/a/d December 11, 2001, Plaintiff, v. PETER J. WELLIN, et. al., Defendants. LARRY S. McDEVITT, as Trustee of the Wellin Family 2009 Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff, v. PETER J. WELLIN, et. al., Defendants. PETER J. WELLIN, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. WENDY WELLIN, individually and as Trustee of the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust u/a/d December 11, 2011, Defendant. |
These matters are before the court on an Amended Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by Special Master William L. Howard regarding the following non-dispositive discovery motions ("the Motions") in Wellin v. Wellin, et.al. ("Wellin I"), No. 2:13-cv-01831-DCN and McDevitt v. Wellin, et. al. ("McDevitt"), No. 2:13-cv-03595-DCN:
The Wellin Children and Wendy Wellin ("Wendy") filed objections to the R&R. For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the R&R with modifications, and grants in part and denies in part the above-listed motions in accordance with the recommendations of the R&R, except that the relevant time period allowed for discovery of Keith Wellin's ("Keith"), Keith's estate's, and the Revocable Trust's financial records shall be extended from December 31, 2013 until trial.
Because the parties are well-acquainted with these cases, the court will dispense with a recitation of the facts and include only a procedural history of thematters at hand. Wellin I, McDevitt, and Wellin, et. al. v. Wellin ("Wellin II"), No. 2:13-cv-4067-DCN have been consolidated for the purposes of pretrial discovery. Wellin I, ECF No. 271. On February 17, 2015, this court appointed William L. Howard to serve as special master over all non-dispositive, pre-trial matters and motions in these cases, including those pending before this court at the time. Wellin I, ECF No. 270. The special master heard the Motions on April 21, 2015 and issued the present R&R, recommending that the court grant the Motions in part and deny the Motions in part, on July 31, 2015. R&R at 65-69.
On August 4, 2015, the Wellin Children filed an objection to the R&R ("Wellin Children Objection"), arguing that they should be able to discover the financial records of Keith, his estate, and the Keith S. Wellin Florida Revocable Living Trust (the "Revocable Trust") from December 31, 2013 until trial. The same day, Wendy filed an objection to the R&R ("Wendy Objection") asking the court to permit redaction of the specific vendors' names and locations listed in the financial records that the Wellin Children subpoenaed from American Express. On August 25, 2015, the Wellin Children filed a reply to Wendy's objection ("Wellin Children Reply"), and Wendy filed two replies to the Wellin Children's objection, one in her capacity as plaintiff in Wellin I ("Plaintiff Wendy Reply"), and another in her capacity as an interested party ("Interested Party Wendy Reply").
In reviewing a special master's order, report, or recommendation, the court may "adopt or affirm, modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse, or resubmit to the master with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1). The court is required to review allobjections to any findings of fact or conclusions of law made or recommended by a special master de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3), (4); Wellin I, ECF No. 270. However, the special master's rulings on procedural matters will only be set aside for abuse of discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5); Wellin I, ECF No. 270, 6.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may "obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matters." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.
"The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" by forbidding or limiting the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). "The scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound discretion of the district court." Columbus-Am. Discovery Grp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 56 F.3d 556, 568 n.16 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc. of Ga., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988)); see also U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) ().
The Wellin Children argue that the R&R improperly restricts the period of time for which the Wellin Children may discover Keith's, his estate's, and his Revocable Trust's financial records. Whereas the R&R allowed the parties to discover each other's respective financial records from January 1, 2009 until December 31, 2013, R&R at 56, the Wellin Children contend that Keith's financial records—specifically, Keith's credit card records—from January 1, 2014 until Keith's death on September 14, 2014 are also relevant to the following issues: (i) Wendy's influence on and control over Keith's spending; (ii) whether Keith's financial condition was actually threatened; and if so, (iii) whether the Wellin Children caused such threat. Wellin Children Objection, 3. The Wellin Children also argue that the financial records showing the distributions and expenditures of Keith's estate and the Revocable Trust during the period following Keith's death on September 14, 2014 are relevant to determine damages in Wellin II, as it may be necessary to demonstrate what the Wellin Children's inheritance would have been "but for" Wendy's tortious action. Id. at 11.
Wendy's replies do not contest the Wellin Children's argument regarding the financial records for the period from January 1, 2014 to Keith's death. Interested Party Wendy Reply, 4 ("[Wendy]" has no objection to [the] deadline [for financial discovery] being moved to the date of Keith's death."). Therefore, the court will modify the R&R to allow for the discovery of Keith's financial records from January 1, 2014 until September 14, 2014. However, Wendy does dispute the WellinChildren's contention that the financial records of Keith's estate and the Revocable Trust following Keith's death are discoverable. Id. at 3-5; Plaintiff Wendy Reply, 3. Wendy's primary argument, set forth in both of her replies, is that the discoverability of distributions from Keith's estate and the Revocable Trust is not properly before the court because that issue was not addressed in the motions or the R&R. Interested Party Wendy Reply, 3-5; Plaintiff Wendy Reply, 3.
A review of the underlying motions, however, reveals that the issue is properly before the court. Wendy's Motions for Protective Order I and II were filed in response to various subpoenas duces tecum, seeking financial and related documents for the preceding five or ten years from banking institutions where Keith and Wendy held accounts. Wendy Motion for Protective Order I, 3; Wendy Motion for Protective Order II, 4. These subpoenas, all of which were issued after Keith's death, did not indicate that the relevant five or ten year period was to be measured from Keith's death. Rather, a fair reading of the subpoenas indicates that the five or ten year period should be measured from the date of the subpoeana. See, e.g., Motion for Protective Order II, Ex. 2 (). Thus, both motions were directed at subpoenas seeking to discover financial records after Keith's death. Wendy's Motion for Protective Order II clearly recognized this fact, arguing that "the [c]ourt should limit discovery of financial information to the years 2009 through [Keith's] death on September 14, 2014." Wendy Motion for Protective Order II, 6.
As to the Revocable Trust, the same subpoena to American Express explicitly sought information pertaining to accounts held "in the name of, for the benefit of, or under the control of . . . the Revocable Trust." Wendy Motion for Protective Order II, Ex. 2. Wendy even argued that the subpoena was overbroad, in part, because it requested account information pertaining to the Revocable Trust. Wendy Motion for Protective Order...
To continue reading
Request your trial