holding that a challenge to the trial court's refusal to allow discovery as to "one of the principal components of the relief sought ... falls within the exception noted in Ocwen pertaining to 'discovery going to a party's entire action or defense ....' " (quoting Ocwen, 872 So. 2d at 813-14 )
How later courts described this case
- holding that a challenge to the trial court's refusal to allow discovery as to "one of the principal components of the relief sought ... falls within the exception noted in Ocwen pertaining to 'discovery going to a party's entire action or defense ....' " (quoting Ocwen, 872 So. 2d at 813-14 )
- “[W]e hold that because the crucial inquiry to be undertaken by a trial court in a divorce action is to determine the fair value of the "parties’ assets rather than to adhere in all cases to their ‘fair market value,’ ” discovery concerning fair value is within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYAN, Judge,
concurring specially.
Because this petition for a writ of mandamus regards a discovery issue and because the main opinion does not “conclusively determine for all cases the proper valuation of an ownership share of a partnership of legal-service providers,” 50 So.3d at 1106,1 concur.
However, I write specially to state that the main opinion should not be interpreted as a mandate to the trial court to conclude that the husband’s interest in the law firm cannot be valued by the terms of the buy-sell agreement. I also write to emphasize that the utmost caution should be taken to protect the confidentiality of information obtained from the law firm. If at any point it is determined that information requested by the wife violates an attorney-client privilege, the wife should not be permitted access to such information.
THOMAS, J., concurs.