Miss. United Methodist Conference v. Brown


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-IA-02533-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-TS-02533 ; 2003-M-02533

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-15-2005
Opinion Author: Waller, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Objections to discovery of documents - Reasonable notice
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.,
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J.,
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-18-2003
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Tomie Green
Disposition: circuit court had completed the inspection, it summarily and without notice to the Conference released some of the documents to Brown.
Case Number: 251-02-1027CIV

Note: admitting evidence

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MISSISSIPPI UNITED METHODIST CONFERENCE




JOSEPH E. LOTTERHOS, CHARLES F. F. BARBOUR



 

Appellee: TELAYA BROWN MARJORIE S. BUSCHING, S. MARK WANN, TARA A. HARRISON  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Objections to discovery of documents - Reasonable notice

Summary of the Facts: During discovery in a suit filed by Telaya Brown against the Mississippi United Methodist Conference, the Conference produced documents to the circuit court for an in camera inspection. After the circuit court had completed the inspection, it summarily and without notice to the Conference released some of the documents to Brown. The Conference filed an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, claiming the documents in question are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the priest-penitent privilege codified by Rule 505 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, and the physician/psychotherapist-patient privilege codified by Rule 503 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence; the documents were released without notice to the Conference and before it was given a chance to appeal the circuit court’s decision concerning the documents; and it is necessary to recuse the circuit judge. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The circuit court’s wholesale ruling that the documents were not privileged was an abuse of discretion. When objections to discovery of specific documents are made, the trial court should deal with each on an item-by-item basis, carefully considering whether to allow discovery, and stating the rule or exception which provides the basis for the decision. Only an in-camera inspection and subsequent document-by-document analysis, accompanied by the corresponding rule or exception, will meet the requirements for such determinations. The fact that counsel for plaintiff was in possession of information that may be privileged hours before the defendant was even aware that such information had been released shocks the conscience of the Court. The circuit court should not have allowed either the order or the allegedly privileged documents to be released unless attorneys for both parties were present. It is essential that the objecting party be given a reasonable time to file an appeal of such an order before production of such documents, and orders of production of documents subject to objections on privilege should be stayed pending such appeals. The Conference asks for recusal of the circuit judge because of bias evidenced by statements made in her order to compel discovery and in a response. This issue is premature and not ripe for review because the circuit court has neither considered nor ruled upon such a motion.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court