Ex parte Sikes, [Ms. 2150469, Aug. 26, 2016] __ So.3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). The Court of Civil Appeals denies a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by an attorney sanctioned by the Montgomery Circuit Court with a $3,000 fine for vexatious discovery practices. Holding that a trial court "is afforded broad discretion in managing discovery, and it may sanction parties who do not comply with the discovery process" (Ms. *22, quoting Ex parte Community Health Sys. Prof'l Servs. Corp., 72 So.3d 595, 603 (Ala. 2011)), and that "the choice of discovery sanctions is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent gross abuse of discretion" (Ms. *23, quoting Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc., 553 So.2d 82, 87 (Ala. 1989)), the court holds that repeated discovery requests, motions to compel, and a request to deem privileges waived were efforts to circumvent an earlier trial court discovery ruling (Ms. *27) such that "given the entirety of the circumstances, we cannot say that Sikes has demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion such that he has shown a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus." Ms. *28.
Related Documents: Ex parte Sikes