Ex Parte Whetstone

347 S.E.2d 881, 289 S.C. 580
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 22, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 347 S.E.2d 881 (Ex Parte Whetstone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Whetstone, 347 S.E.2d 881, 289 S.C. 580 (S.C. 1986).

Opinion

289 S.C. 580 (1986)
347 S.E.2d 881

Ex parte Michael K. WHETSTONE, Appellant.
In re Robert Wayne HAGINS, GAL for Robert Michael Hagins and Courtney Elaine Hagins, Plaintiffs
v.
Benjamin WHETSTONE and Celeste Mae White, as Trustees for Seven Stones Trust, a/k/a Seven Stones Holding Company, Defendants, of whom Robert Hayne Hagins is Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 22, 1986.

May 22, 1986.

ORDER

This is an appeal by a non-party witness from an order directing him to attend a deposition and produce certain documents. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground the order is interlocutory and not directly appealable. We grant the motion to dismiss.

An order directing a party to participate in discovery is interlocutory and not directly appealable under S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976). Patterson v. Specter Broadcasting, 287 S.C. 249, 335 S.E. (2d) 803 (1985); Lowndes Products, Inc. v. Brower, 262 S.C. 431, 205 S.E. (2d) 184 (1974). We now hold that an order directing a non-party to submit to discovery is not immediately appealable.

Instead of appealing immediately, a non-party has two alternatives. He may either comply with the discovery order and waive any right to challenge it on appeal, or refuse to comply with the order and appeal after he is held in contempt for his failure to comply. This is the same rule applied by the federal courts. See United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. *581 532, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 29 L.Ed. (2d) 85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Federal Trade Commission v. Alaska Land Leasing, Inc., 778 F. (2d) 577 (10th Cir.1985); Newton v. National Broadcasting Co., 726 F. (2d) 591 (9th Cir.1984).

Moreover, this rule is consistent with S.C. Code Ann. § 18-1-30 (1976), which limits appellate review to parties aggrieved by a judgment or order below. Brode v. Brode, 278 S.C. 457, 298 S.E. (2d) 443 (1982); Asbury v. South Carolina, 268 S.C. 40, 231 S.E. (2d) 306 (1977). This Court has defined an aggrieved party as one who is injured in a legal sense or one who has suffered an injury to person or property. Dunson v. Dunson, 278 S.C. 210, 294 S.E. (2d) 39 (1982); Cisson v. McWhorter, 255 S.C. 174, 177 S.E. (2d) 603 (1970); Bivens v. Knight, 254 S.C. 10, 173 S.E. (2d) 150 (1970).

A non-party suffers no legal injury when he is ordered to participate in discovery. The necessary legal injury does not arise until he is held in contempt.

Because appellant has not yet been held in contempt, he has not right to appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harland Jones v. Karen Robinson
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Tammy Richardson v. Halcyon Real Estate
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Whitfield v. Schimpf
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022
Lucas Marchant v. John Doe
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022
Montgomery v. Montgomery
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2019
Davis v. Parkview Apartments
762 S.E.2d 535 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2014)
Wieters v. Bon-Secours-St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc.
673 S.E.2d 417 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2009)
Estate of King v. Richland County and Prison Health Services
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008
Wieters v. Bon-Secours-St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc.
662 S.E.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Wieters v. BON-SECOURS-ST. FRANCIS XAVIER HOSP.
662 S.E.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)
Grosshuesch v. Cramer
659 S.E.2d 112 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2008)
BB & T v. Pender
625 S.E.2d 205 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Ex Parte Wilson
625 S.E.2d 205 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Leatherwood v. O'Conner
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005
Hagood v. Sommerville
607 S.E.2d 707 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Tucker v. Honda of South Carolina Manufacturing, Inc.
582 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2003)
Hooper v. Rockwell
513 S.E.2d 358 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
State v. Cox
492 S.E.2d 399 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1997)
Hamm v. South Carolina Public Service Commission
439 S.E.2d 852 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1994)
Hamm v. SC PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
439 S.E.2d 852 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
347 S.E.2d 881, 289 S.C. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-whetstone-sc-1986.