Mississippi United Methodist Conference v. Telaya Brown ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
    NO. 2003-IA-02533-SCT
    MISSISSIPPI UNITED
    METHODIST CONFERENCE
    v.
    TELAYA BROWN
    DATE OF JUDGMENT:                           11/18/2003
    TRIAL JUDGE:                                HON. TOMIE T. GREEN
    COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:                  HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:                    JOSEPH E. LOTTERHOS
    CHARLES F. F. BARBOUR
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:                     MARJORIE S. BUSCHING
    S. MARK WANN
    TARA A. HARRISON
    NATURE OF THE CASE:                         CIVIL - OTHER
    DISPOSITION:                                REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/15/2005
    MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
    MANDATE ISSUED:
    BEFORE WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND CARLSON, JJ.
    WALLER, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
    ¶1.    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 this interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, claiming
    (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) it is necessary to recuse the circuit judge. We reverse and remand.
    FACTS
    ¶2.     Telaya Brown, a resident of Maryland and an insurance salesperson, met Jeffrey A.
    Stallworth at a church picnic in Mississippi. Stallworth, who was the pastor of the Anderson
    United Methodist Church at that time, explored the possibility of purchasing insurance for
    dependent children in his congregation from Brown, during one of their first meetings.       After
    a number of telephone conversations with Brown concerning the policies, Stallworth traveled
    to Maryland to meet with Brown and later met with a manager of an insurance company in
    Fairfax, Virginia. Stallworth allegedly told Brown that his hotel reservations had inadvertently
    been lost and asked if he could stay at her home. Brown consented, and Stallworth stayed in
    a guest bedroom in Brown’s house.             A few evenings later, Brown claims that Stallworth
    climbed into her bed and sexually assaulted her. About seven months after the alleged assault,
    Stallworth voluntarily pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in Maryland
    to a fourth degree sexual offense charge for the incident.
    ¶3.     Brown filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds
    County against Stallworth, alleging assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional
    infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion into seclusion and claiming negligent retention
    and negligent supervision by the Conference and Anderson UMC.              During discovery, Brown
    2
    requested from the Conference any documents pertaining to whether it had notice of any
    tendencies of Stallworth to engage in inappropriate behavior or any documents tending to show
    that Stallworth was unfit to be a pastor due to aggressive propensities toward the opposite sex.
    The Conference responded by objecting to the requested discovery as privileged and protected.
    A motion to compel discovery of such documents was filed by Brown, and the Conference
    submitted the documents to the court for an in-camera inspection.      A full document privilege
    log was also provided. A written order was entered as follows:
    Moreover, the court finds that the documents are documents kept
    in the regular course of business, and are not confessional or are
    not exclusively religious in their nature.        The documents
    calculated to lead to the discovery of other witnesses, facts and
    documents that are admissible. Finally, there does not appear to
    be an expectation of privacy by the authors of the document(s),
    inasmuch as some documents were distributed to several persons
    other than [] Stallworth and [the Conference].             IT IS
    THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a copy of
    documents numbering 7-8, 178-217, 239-240, and 291-569
    shall immediately be produced to [Brown’s] attorneys by the
    court.
    ¶4.      Additionally, the circuit court ordered documents it deemed to be irrelevant to be
    returned to the Conference and issued a protective order concerning the documents which were
    of a sensitive nature.   The next morning, Brown was instructed to appear before the circuit
    court at 10:00 a.m., at which time she was given a copy of the court’s order and the documents.
    The Conference alleges, however, that it was told to appear before the court at 2:00 p.m., at
    which time it received a copy of the order.          By this time, of course, Brown had been in
    possession of the documents for a few hours. The next day the Conference filed an emergency
    motion for an order to stay pending resolution of interlocutory appeal, for an order sealing the
    3
    circuit court’s order, and for other relief. A few days later the Conference filed an emergency
    petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, for certification of the interlocutory appeal,
    and for a stay of the state court action pending appeal with this Court because of the circuit
    court’s release of the documents in question.1            We granted the petition for interlocutory
    appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5.    The standard of review used in considering a            trial judge’s ruling regarding discovery
    is abuse of discretion. Boutwell v. Boutwell, 
    829 So. 2d 1216
    , 1223 (Miss. 2002).
    I.      WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS
    DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE
    DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRIVILEGED.
    ¶6.    The circuit court’s wholesale ruling that the documents were not privileged was an
    abuse of discretion.   “[W]hen 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.” Hewes
    v. Langston, 
    853 So. 2d 1237
    , 1250 (Miss. 2003); see also Haynes v. Anderson, 
    597 So. 2d 615
    , 620 (Miss. 1992). The circuit court’s order simply stated that all of the documents were
    subject to discovery because they were kept in the regular course of business, they were not
    confessional or exclusively religious in nature, or there was a lack of expectation of privacy
    evidenced by distribution to people other than defendants.         Blanket statements as to whether
    1
    The circuit court never ruled upon this motion.
    4
    documents may or may not be compelled in discovery procedures simply are not sufficient to
    meet the standard in 
    Hewes, 853 So. 2d at 1250
    .
    ¶7.    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.     It is impossible for this Court to rule on the decision of the circuit court as
    to the privilege of these documents because we are presented with a result but no specific
    reasoning.   To hold otherwise would force this Court to become a finder of fact and “make a
    habit of conducting de novo review of items challenged during discovery.”        
    Id. at 1249; see
    also 
    Haynes, 597 So. 2d at 617
    ; In re Knapp, 
    536 So. 2d 1330
    , 1333 (Miss. 1988).
    II.     THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS.
    ¶8.    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 this 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.               See, e.g.,
    Williamson v. Edmonds, 
    880 So. 2d 310
    , 321 (Miss. 2004) (adopting procedure for in camera
    inspection and ordering trial court to allow a reasonable time for proponent of privilege to
    inspect documents before they were released to party opposite).        Simply issuing a protective
    order in conjunction with the order compelling production was not enough to protect the rights
    of the Conference.        When questions like the privileged status of sensitive documents are at
    5
    issue, trial courts should be especially diligent to protect the rights of both parties. Here, the
    circuit court violated that protective responsibility by allowing one party premature inspection
    of documents before the ruling as to privilege could be appealed.
    III.    THE CONFERENCE’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL
    ¶9.     The Conference asks this Court to recuse the circuit judge because of bias evidenced
    by statements made in her order to compel discovery and in a response made to this Court. The
    Conference alleges that the circuit judge’s language and phrases give the appearance that she
    considers that the Conference is liable for Stallworth’s actions.     We find that this issue is
    premature and not ripe for review because the circuit court has neither considered nor ruled
    upon such a motion.     See Rule 1.15 of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and County
    Court Practice.2
    2
    Rule 1.15 of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice
    provides as follows:
    Any party may move for the recusal of a judge of the
    circuit or county court if it appears that the judge's impartially
    [sic] might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all the
    circumstances, or for other grounds provided in the Code of
    Judicial Conduct or otherwise as provided by law. A motion
    seeking recusal shall be filed with an affidavit of the party or the
    party's attorney setting forth the factual basis underlying the
    asserted grounds for recusal and declaring that the motion is filed
    in good faith and that the affiant truly believes the facts
    underlying the grounds stated to be true. Such motion shall, in the
    first instance, be filed with the judge who is the subject of the
    motion within 30 days following notification to the parties of the
    name of the judge assigned to the case; or, if it is based upon
    facts which could not reasonably have been known to the filing
    party within such time, it shall be filed within 30 days after the
    filing party could reasonably discover the facts underlying the
    grounds asserted. The subject judge shall consider and rule on the
    motion within 30 days of the filing of the motion, with hearing if
    6
    CONCLUSION
    ¶10.    We find that the circuit court abused its discretion after the in camera inspection of the
    documents produced by the Mississippi United Methodist Conference.         We reverse the order
    allowing production of the documents and remand this matter for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.
    ¶11.    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ.,
    CONCUR. EASLEY, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. DIAZ AND GRAVES, JJ., NOT
    PARTICIPATING.
    necessary. If a hearing is held, it shall be on the record in open
    court. The denial of a motion to recuse is subject to review by the
    Supreme Court on motion of the party filing the motion as
    provided in M.R.A.P. 48B.
    7