 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. South9/20/2004
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part; Dismissed in Part
{ } Appellant State of Ohio appeals the decision of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that denied various motions it filed in a pending divorce action between Appellee David South and Appellee Lori South. The following facts give rise to this appeal.
{ } On October 1, 2003, Appellee Lori South filed a complaint for divorce from Appellee David South. Appellee David South filed an answer and counterclaim on November 7, 2003. The parties had one child together, a five-year-old son. Appellee Lori South also has a daughter (hereinafter referred to as "C.S."). Appellee David South is not the biological father of C.S.
{ } Thereafter, on December 19, 2003, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted Appellee David South on two counts of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition. It is alleged that Appellee David South committed these acts against C.S. when she was eight years old.
{ } On February 13, 2004, Appellee David South filed a motion and judgment entry ordering the Fairfield County Children's Services Agency ("agency") to release all records regarding C.S. Appellee also filed a notice of deposition requiring the release of those records. On February 23, 2004, Appellant State of Ohio ("state") filed a motion to reconsider and requested the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the confidential records. The trial court overruled the state's motion to reconsider on March 3, 2004. Thereafter, the agency provided Appellee David South with its file.
{ } Appellee David South deposed Appellee Lori South on February 18, 2004. Counsel for Appellee Lori South advised her not to answer any questions regarding the alleged sexual abuse of C.S. One day after her deposition, Appellee Lori South filed a motion to limit her deposition to matters not involving the allegations of sexual abuse against C.S.
{ } In response, Appellee David South filed a motion to compel and request for sanctions. On March 18, 2004, the magistrate overruled Appellee Lori South's motion and granted Appellee David South's motion to compel. Subsequently, counsel for Appellee David South deposed Appellee Lori South regarding what C.S. told her about the alleged sexual abuse by Appellee David South.
{ } On May 5, 2004, Appellee David South filed a notice of deposition and subpoena duces tecum for Gary Pierce, the Fairfield County detective that investigated the criminal matter. The subpoena requested that Detective Pierce produce witness statements, including that of the victim. On this same date, notices of deposition were also sent to other witnesses for the state.
{ } In response, on May 28, 2004, the state filed a motion for protective order, in the criminal division. The judge, in the criminal division, conducted a phone conference on June 3, 2004. The judge indicated that he would defer to the domestic relations division. On this same day, the state filed, in the domestic relations division, a motion to intervene, motion for protective order, motion to terminate or limit depositions and motion to quash the subpoena. On June 4, 2004, the domestic relations division overruled all motions and denied a stay pending appeal. The domestic relations division ordered the noticed depositions to proceed as scheduled.
{ } The state filed a notice of appeal and requested a stay of the scheduled depositions. On June 7, 2004, this Court filed a judgment entry granting the state's motion for stay and setting a briefing schedule for this matter. We also ordered the parties to address, in addition to the substantive issues on appeal, whether the ju
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|