Ex parte The Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: George E. Russell et al v. The Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery; and Price McLemore et al. v. Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080884 Ex p a r t e t h e I n d u s t r i a l Development B o a r d o f the C i t y o f Montgomery PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : George E . R u s s e l l et a l . v. The I n d u s t r i a l Development B o a r d o f the C i t y o f Montgomery P r i c e McLemore e t a l . v. The I n d u s t r i a l (Montgomery Development B o a r d o f the C i t y o f Montgomery) C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-04-3282 and CV-05-1728) 1080884 SMITH, Justice. The plaintiffs 1 in the petitioner, the I n d u s t r i a l Montgomery ("the a l l e g i n g breach sought for protective court The grant trial to vacate a the p e t i t i o n following previous Board Montgomery sued court I I I , one denied the of the C i t y Circuit During discovery, the plaintiffs of the t h e IDB's of Court attorneys motion for a f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the order and t o e n t e r Facts The the actions o r d e r p r e v e n t i n g G a l l i o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n , a n d t h e IDB a p r o t e c t i v e order We in Thomas T. G a l l i o n has p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t trial Development of c o n t r a c t . to depose t h e IDB. IDB"), underlying denying t h e IDB's m o t i o n f o r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g the and i s s u e t h e and P r o c e d u r a l facts, consolidated the taken from appeal in motion. writ. History this the Court's opinion i n underlying actions, T h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n s a r e G e o r g e E. R u s s e l l a n d Thomas E. R u s s e l l , a s c o e x e c u t o r s a n d c o t r u s t e e s o f t h e w i l l a n d t e s t a m e n t a r y t r u s t o f E a r n e s t W. R u s s e l l , a n d M y r t i s R u s s e l l (case no. C V - 0 4 - 3 2 8 2 ) , and P r i c e McLemore, Mary H. M c L e m o r e , J o h n M c I n n i s , J r . , T i m o t h y N. M c I n n i s , C h a r l e s R. M c I n n i s , W i l l i a m s S. N e w e l l , a n d t h e P e o p l e s B a n k a n d T r u s t Company, as t r u s t e e f o r t h e A d a l i n e H o o p e r T r u s t A and B ( c a s e no. C V - 0 5 - 1 7 2 8 ) . 1 2 1080884 McLemore v. H y u n d a i M o t o r M a n u f a c t u r i n g Alabama, LLC, 318 ( A l a . 2008), are r e l e v a n t to the present 7 So. petition: " G e o r g e E. R u s s e l l a n d Thomas E. R u s s e l l , as coexecutors and cotrustees of the will and t e s t a m e n t a r y t r u s t o f E a r n e s t W. R u s s e l l , a n d M y r t i s R u s s e l l ('the R u s s e l l s ' ) , a n d P r i c e M c L e m o r e , M a r y H. M c L e m o r e , J o h n M c I n n i s , J r . , T i m o t h y N. M c I n n i s , C h a r l e s R. M c I n n i s , W i l l i a m s S. N e w e l l , a n d the P e o p l e s B a n k and T r u s t Company, as t r u s t e e f o r t h e A d a l i n e H o o p e r T r u s t A a n d B ('the M c L e m o r e g r o u p ' ) , sued the I n d u s t r i a l Development Board of the C i t y of Montgomery ('the IDB') and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC ('Hyundai'), alleging breach of c o n t r a c t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , they a l l e g e d that t h e I D B , on b e h a l f o f H y u n d a i , e x e r c i s e d o p t i o n s t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r r e a l p r o p e r t y b u t f a i l e d t o pay them i n accordance w i t h the most-favored-nation c l a u s e i n t h e o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t s t h e same p r i c e p e r a c r e t h a t was p a i d t o a n o t h e r l a n d o w n e r . ... "Facts " I n September 2001, v a r i o u s o f f i c i a l s of the State of Alabama, the City of Montgomery ('the City'), the Montgomery County Commission ('the C o u n t y ' ) , t h e M o n t g o m e r y A r e a Chamber o f Commerce, and t h e Montgomery W a t e r Works B o a r d began m a k i n g p r e p a r a t i o n s to secure options to purchase p r o p e r t y in the Montgomery area to create an incentive p a c k a g e i n t h e hope t h a t t h e y c o u l d p e r s u a d e H y u n d a i t o b u i l d an i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t i n t h e M o n t g o m e r y a r e a for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling motor v e h i c l e s . This intent i s e v i d e n c e d by a s i g n e d l e t t e r to Hyundai from the C i t y , the County, a n d t h e IDB s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y , ' i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h t h e S t a t e , ' w o u l d c o m m i t t o p r o v i d i n g an i n d u s t r i a l s i t e t o H y u n d a i a t no c o s t . Although the funds to purchase t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e t o be p r o v i d e d b y the C i t y a n d t h e C o u n t y o n l y , t h e o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t s on t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e a c q u i r e d by t h e IDB, whose p r i m a r y 3 3d 1080884 role in industrial projects i s to ' s e r v e as the e n t i t y through which monies f l o w f o r the purchase of l a n d f o r the u l t i m a t e use i n i n d u s t r y . ' B.M. Ahn, the Hyundai r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n charge of Hyundai's project to open a p l a n t i n the United States, testified during his deposition that one of the basic e l e m e n t s o f an i n c e n t i v e package i s 'free l a n d ' o f f e r e d t o an a u t o m o b i l e c o m p a n y as p a r t of the i n c e n t i v e f o r the company t o l o c a t e i n a c e r t a i n area. Ahn stated that H y u n d a i had no role in a c q u i r i n g t h e o p t i o n s on t h e land. "The R u s s e l l s o w n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 328 a c r e s o f l a n d i n Montgomery County. In the f a l l of 2001, R e u b e n T h o r n t o n , t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e IDB, entered i n t o an o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t on b e h a l f o f t h e IDB to purchase the R u s s e l l s ' p r o p e r t y f o r an industrial project. The a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d an o p t i o n p e r i o d o f 120 d a y s a n d stated: "'3. I f Purchaser e l e c t s to e x e r c i s e this O p t i o n the purchase p r i c e for the P r o p e r t y s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d as f o l l o w s : " ' S e l l e r and P u r c h a s e r s h a l l each, at its own cost and expense, secure a current a p p r a i s a l of the P r o p e r t y . The purchase price shall be the average of the two appraisals provided, h o w e v e r , i n no event s h a l l t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e be l e s s t h a n $4,500 p e r a c r e and further p r o v i d e d t h a t the purchase p r i c e shall i n no e v e n t be l e s s than the p r i c e per acre p a i d to any other landowner i n c l u d e d in the p r o j e c t p l a n n e d f o r the Property. The a c r e a g e s h a l l be determined 4 1080884 by a good and a c c u r a t e p r o v i d e d by P u r c h a s e r . survey [ 2 ] "'16. This Option constitutes the e n t i r e and complete agreement between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o and supersedes any p r i o r oral or w r i t t e n agreements between the parties with respect to the Property. I t is e x p r e s s l y agreed that there a r e no v e r b a l understandings or agreements which i n a n y way c h a n g e t h e t e r m s , c o v e n a n t s , a n d c o n d i t i o n s h e r e i n s e t f o r t h , a n d t h a t no m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s O p t i o n a n d no w a i v e r o f any o f i t s t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s made i n w r i t i n g a n d d u l y e x e c u t e d by t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . ' "The Russells and the IDB amended agreement i n February 2002 t o p r o v i d e : the option "'1. I t i s hereby agreed that the purchase p r i c e f o r the P r o p e r t y i s Four T h o u s a n d F i v e H u n d r e d and No/100 D o l l a r s ($4,500.00) p e r a c r e . The e x a c t n u m b e r o f acres t o be determined by the survey p r o v i d e d by P u r c h a s e r . "'2. extended f Effective Effective expiration i s now May The o p t i o n p e r i o d i s hereby o r a p e r i o d o f 120 d a y s f r o m t h e Date of the Option, which D a t e i s O c t o b e r 3, 2 0 0 1 . The d a t e o f t h e O p t i o n , as e x t e n d e d , 31, 2002. As n o t e d i n McLemore, " [ t ] h e p r o v i s i o n 'the purchase p r i c e s h a l l i n no e v e n t b e l e s s t h a n t h e p r i c e p e r a c r e p a i d to any o t h e r landowner i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t p l a n n e d f o rt h e P r o p e r t y ' i s known as a m o s t - f a v o r e d - n a t i o n c l a u s e o r a p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n c l a u s e . " 7 So. 3d a t 3 2 2 n.3. 2 5 1080884 "'3. E x c e p t as a m e n d e d h e r e b y , the Option i s i n a l l other respects ratified and confirmed.' " I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 2 , T h o r n t o n , on b e h a l f o f t h e IDB, entered into an option agreement w i t h the M c L e m o r e g r o u p , who o w n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 54 a c r e s o f l a n d near the R u s s e l l p r o p e r t y . The t e r m s i n t h e option agreement with the McLemore group are identical to the terms i n the original option a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e R u s s e l l s and t h e IDB. "The I D B a l s o a c q u i r e d f o u r a d d i t i o n a l o p t i o n agreements with landowners near the property b e l o n g i n g t o t h e R u s s e l l s and t h e McLemore g r o u p . D u r i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s , the IDB approached Joy Shelton about an option to purchase her p r o p e r t y ; h o w e v e r , she r e f u s e d to enter into an o p t i o n agreement. The I D B d e c i d e d t h a t t h e S h e l t o n property was not necessary for the incentive p a c k a g e . By m i d - M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , t h e IDB d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t was n o t g o i n g t o d e s i g n a t e a n y a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s , other than the funds a l r e a d y committed, to this particular project. The S t a t e a n d t h e I D B s e n t t h e i n c e n t i v e package, i n c l u d i n g the proposed p r o j e c t s i t e , to Hyundai f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . "On M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , Ahn c o n t a c t e d T o d d S t r a n g e , then the d i r e c t o r of the Alabama Development O f f i c e . He s t a t e d t h a t H y u n d a i h a d n o t d e c i d e d w h e t h e r t o l o c a t e the p l a n t i n Montgomery or i n K e n t u c k y but t h a t a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y w o u l d n e e d t o be a c q u i r e d f o r the r a i l access Hyundai r e q u i r e d i f Montgomery was t o be s e l e c t e d as the site f o r the Hyundai plant. Ahn i n f o r m e d S t r a n g e t h a t he w o u l d n e e d an a n s w e r b y n o o n o f t h e n e x t d a y as t o w h e t h e r t h e property could be acquired. Strange met with v a r i o u s S t a t e , C i t y , and C o u n t y o f f i c i a l s t o d i s c u s s Hyundai's request. R e c o g n i z i n g t h a t the C i t y and the County would not p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l funds to a c q u i r e more p r o p e r t y and t h a t the other option agreements c o n t a i n e d most-favored-nation clauses, 6 1080884 t h e y d e c i d e d t o a s k CSX Transportation, Inc., the r a i l company, t o a c q u i r e t h e o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e Shelton property. On M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , S t r a n g e s e n t David Hemphill, an assistant vice president for CSX, the f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r v i a f a c s i m i l e : "'Last evening, Thursday, March 28, 2 0 0 2 , a t 6:05 p.m. C e n t r a l S t a n d a r d Time, I received a call from Mr. B.M. Ahn, P r e s i d e n t H y u n d a i M o t o r C o m p a n y , U.S. from Seoul, Korea. He t o l d me t h e y w e r e i n t h e f i n a l s t a g e s o f t h e d e c i s i o n and n e e d e d t o make m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e i r M o n t g o m e r y s i t e layout because the CSX Railroad yard e s t i m a t e h a d come i n e x t r e m e l y high. In t h e i r ( H y u n d a i ' s ) r e d e s i g n , he w a n t e d t o do p a r a l l e l t r a c k s r u n n i n g n o r t h a n d s o u t h on the e a s t e r n s i d e of the p r o p e r t y boundary. His engineers t o l d h i m he w o u l d n o t h a v e enough room u n l e s s [additional property was] o b t a i n e d i n the southeast corner of the quadrant. This property had been d i s c u s s e d a c o u p l e o f m o n t h s ago b u t we had b e e n t o l d as r e c e n t l y as two w e e k s ago t h a t i t w o u l d n o t be n e c e s s a r y . So a c c o r d i n g l y , we d i d n o t p u r s u e a n y o p t i o n s "'As I i n d i c a t e d t o you l a s t n i g h t , o u r o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t s h a v e a 'most f a v o r e d n a t i o n ' c l a u s e w h e r e we a g r e e d t o p a y no m o r e f o r a n y one p a r c e l t h a n a n y o f the other parcels. A c c o r d i n g l y , I assembled a working group of the local Chamber of Commerce e x e c u t i v e s , e n g i n e e r i n g e x p e r t i s e , Dave E c h o l s and m y s e l f . We d e c i d e d the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e t o f o l l o w w o u l d be t o a s k CSX to o b t a i n a p a r c e l f o r rail access to keep i t outside the project [ 3 ] A s n o t e d i n M c L e m o r e , " E c h o l s was t h e p r o j e c t m a n a g e r Alabama Development O f f i c e f o r the Hyundai p r o j e c t . " 3 d a t 324 n.5. 3 the So. 7 at 7 1080884 agreement. As y o u k n o w C S X ' s a g r e e m e n t w i t h H y u n d a i i s s e p a r a t e and t h i s p r o p e r t y in t h e i r view i s f o r r a i l access only " ' D a v e , as y o u c a n a p p r e c i a t e there a r e a l o t o f d e t a i l s t o be w o r k e d o u t , b u t t h e s p i r i t and c o n c e p t i s f o r CSX t o o b t a i n the needed p a r c e l f o r r a i l access and w h a t e v e r t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e , C S X w o u l d be made w h o l e i n a m a n n e r we m u t u a l l y agreed upon.' " A l s o on M a r c h 2 9 , f o l l o w i n g e - m a i l t o Dave 2002, H e m p h i l l Echols: sent "'Regarding the [Shelton property] t h a t w i l l n e e d t o be p u r c h a s e d , you asked if CSX would be willing to buy this p r o p e r t y f o r t h e S t a t e and Montgomery a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 an a c r e . There i s no c o n t r a c t or option on the property c u r r e n t l y and you e s t i m a t e i t w i l l c o s t us approximately $750,000.00 w h i c h you are w i l l i n g t o r e f u n d t o us i n some f a s h i o n d u r i n g the t r a c k c o n s t r u c t i o n phase. Randy Evans[, a CSX official,] in principle a g r e e d t o t h i s a n d I a s k t h a t y o u f a x us a l e t t e r o u t l i n i n g e x a c t l y what you have i n mind. The p u r p o s e o f d o i n g i t t h i s way r a t h e r t h a n what you d i d i n g e t t i n g c o n t r o l o f t h e o t h e r 1600 a c r e s i s t o a v o i d p a y i n g the other landowners $8,000.00 an acre which would have a negative impact of $10,000,000.00 on the site cost. The r a i l r o a d does not get good l a n d v a l u e s i n a s i t u a t i o n l i k e t h i s a n d so I t h i n k t h e r e will be upward p r e s s u r e on that $8,000 number. Moreover, the other landowners w i l l g e t w i n d o f t h i s p l o y a n d may create n e g a t i v e community p u b l i c i t y . ... I n your 8 the 1080884 l e t t e r t o u s we w o u l d a s k t h a t y o u i n d i c a t e e x a c t l y how y o u i n t e n d t o p a y us d u r i n g t h e t r a c k work c o n s t r u c t i o n . ' "Mayor Bobby B r i g h t , mayor of the City of M o n t g o m e r y a n d an e x o f f i c i o member o f t h e I D B , was s e l e c t e d as t h e m a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o m e e t w i t h S h e l t o n t o a c q u i r e an a s s i g n a b l e o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t d e s i g n a t i n g t h e C i t y as t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e S h e l t o n property. Before Bright agreed to meet with S h e l t o n , he t o l d S t r a n g e a n d o t h e r S t a t e o f f i c i a l s t h a t t h e C i t y and t h e C o u n t y w o u l d n o t p r o v i d e any a d d i t i o n a l money t o w a r d t h e p r o j e c t . They a s s u r e d h i m t h a t t h e C i t y a n d t h e C o u n t y w o u l d n o t be a s k e d or expected to c o n t r i b u t e any funds toward the p u r c h a s e o f t h e S h e l t o n p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e o p t i o n w o u l d be a s s i g n e d t o e i t h e r C S X o r t h e S t a t e . Randy G e o r g e , p r e s i d e n t of the Montgomery A r e a Chamber of Commerce and s e c r e t a r y of the IDB, and [Ellen] M c N a i r , a member o f t h e C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e , w e n t w i t h B r i g h t t o meet w i t h S h e l t o n . Bright obtained an a s s i g n a b l e o p t i o n , d e s i g n a t i n g t h e C i t y , n o t t h e I D B , as t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y ; t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e p r o p e r t y was $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 p e r a c r e . "McNair informed Thomas H. G a l l i o n I I I , the IDB's a t t o r n e y , of the a c q u i s i t i o n of the o p t i o n to purchase the Shelton property. During her d e p o s i t i o n , she s t a t e d : "'On F r i d a y when ... I came b a c k from v i s i t i n g w i t h Mrs. Shelton, I contacted both Mr. Gallion and Mr. [Frank] M c P h i l l i p s [ , one o f t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e State i n v o l v e d i n the Hyundai p r o j e c t ] . My c o n c e r n was, ... j u s t t o l e t t h e m k n o w w h a t had h a p p e n e d , you know, w i t h T h u r s d a y n i g h t b e c a u s e i t h a p p e n e d so f a s t . They were not aware of i t u n t i l a f t e r the f a c t , so I w a n t e d t o t e l l them what had happened. 9 1080884 "'But a l s o I was just a l i t t l e concerned w i t h [Mayor B r i g h t ] t a k i n g out the o p t i o n - b e c a u s e he was a l o c a l p e r s o n , and his a c t i o n of j u s t t a k i n g out the o p t i o n w h i c h w o u l d be a s s i g n e d t o CSX o r s o m e b o d y , t h a t j u s t made me a l i t t l e n e r v o u s . "'So I j u s t said--you know, I was, you know, j u s t c a l l i n g t h e m j u s t t o be sure t h a t t h a t w o u l d n ' t t r i g g e r a n y - - y o u know, we j u s t d i d n ' t know w h e t h e r o r n o t that w o u l d , a n d so I j u s t w a n t e d t o be s u r e . So I c o n t a c t e d b o t h of them.' "On A p r i l 1, 2 0 0 2 , H y u n d a i a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t was g o i n g to b u i l d the p l a n t i n Montgomery. On April 15, 2 0 0 2 , t h e v a r i o u s S t a t e a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s i n v o l v e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e IDB, entered into a project agreement with Hyundai detailing the l o c a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p l a n t ('the project agreement'). The p r o j e c t a g r e e m e n t , i n s e c t i o n 3.1 of Article 3, stated that 'the Montgomery IDB presently holds purchase options necessary to acquire fee simple title to each p a r c e l of real estate comprising the P r o j e c t S i t e . ' The project a g r e e m e n t f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 3.4 that the IDB was to e x e r c i s e each option and in section 3 . 6 ( a ) t h a t t h e IDB was then to t r a n s f e r t i t l e of the property to Hyundai. Section 3.20 of the project agreement, entitled 'CSX Agreement,' provided separately for the a c q u i s i t i o n of the Shelton property, s t a t i n g : "'The State and Local Governments s h a l l use t h e i r b e s t e f f o r t s t o c a u s e CSX T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o e n t e r i n t o an a g r e e m e n t with [Hyundai] i n form s a t i s f a c t o r y to [Hyundai], which w i l l provide for rail service for [Hyundai] on terms and conditions as favorable to [Hyundai] as those offered to other automobile manufacturers. In a d d i t i o n , the S t a t e and 10 1080884 C i t y s h a l l use t h e i r b e s t e f f o r t s t o cause CSX Transportation to provide the i n c e n t i v e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e l e t t e r f r o m CSX Transportation dated D e c e m b e r 17, 2001. The State represents and warrants that [Hyundai] w i l l a c q u i r e fee simple t i t l e to [the Shelton property] for use in connection with c o n s t r u c t i o n of a rail s w i t c h y a r d by or b e f o r e September 30, 2002. I f and t o t h e e x t e n t [ H y u n d a i ] makes any payment f o r t h e c o s t o f a c q u i r i n g s u c h acreage, the State shall reimburse [ H y u n d a i ] f o r s u c h c o s t s by i n c r e a s i n g by an equivalent amount the monies made available from the State in Training E q u i p m e n t F u n d p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e 4 b y no l a t e r than the l a s t q u a r t e r of the c a l e n d a r year 2003. The C i t y a g r e e s t h a t i t w i l l zone such a d d i t i o n a l a c r e a g e t h e same a s the P r o j e c t S i t e . The L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t s agree to abate taxes that are a p p l i c a b l e to s u c h a d d i t i o n a l a c r e a g e i n t h e same m a n n e r a n d t o t h e same e x t e n t a s ... abatement of taxes of the P r o j e c t S i t e . ' "The IDB a s s i g n e d t h e o p t i o n s on t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e R u s s e l l s and t h e McLemore g r o u p t o t h e C i t y and t h e C o u n t y . On May 14, 2 0 0 2 , t h e C i t y and t h e C o u n t y p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y f o r $4,500 per acre. The City and the County then deeded the p r o p e r t y t o t h e IDB, w h i c h t h e n d e e d e d t h e p r o p e r t y to Hyundai. "The C i t y n e v e r e x e r c i s e d i t s o p t i o n on the Shelton property. On May 22, 2002, H e n r y M a b r y , t h e n d i r e c t o r o f f i n a n c e f o r t h e S t a t e , s e n t Ahn a l e t t e r c o n f i r m i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e w o u l d be funding the purchase of the S h e l t o n p r o p e r t y , stating: "'This i s to c o n f i r m t h a t the S t a t e of Alabama w i l l p r o v i d e the f u n d i n g f o r the p u r c h a s e of the 93 a c r e s set aside for 11 1080884 H y u n d a i ' s r a i l y a r d on t h e d a t e o f c l o s i n g . This w i l l o b v i a t e any need f o r Hyundai t o borrow t o pay f o r t h i s a c q u i s i t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the State w i l l pay the reasonable due d i l i g e n c e c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n c o n n e c t i o n with Hyundai's acquisition of this property. This l e t t e r of assurance i s being p r o v i d e d t o y o u p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 3.20 o f the P r o j e c t Agreement.' "On May 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e d a y t h e o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t on t h e S h e l t o n p r o p e r t y was t o e x p i r e , CSX e n t e r e d into a r e a l - e s t a t e sales contract f o r the purchase o f t h e p r o p e r t y a t $12,000 p e r a c r e . When H y u n d a i l e a r n e d t h a t C S X , a n d n o t t h e S t a t e , was t o p a y f o r the rail installation a n d t h a t H y u n d a i w o u l d be expected to enter into a long-term contract with CSX, Hyundai decided t o i n s t a l l the r a i l using i t s own f u n d s . As a r e s u l t o f H y u n d a i ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o i n v o l v e CSX i n r a i l i n s t a l l a t i o n , CSX a s s i g n e d t h e r e a l - e s t a t e contract to Hyundai. According to the a s s i g n m e n t c o n t r a c t , CSX a s s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t t o H y u n d a i on May 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e t h e r e a l estate contract between CSX and Shelton was executed. On J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , f u n d s f r o m t h e S t a t e o f Alabama Incentives Finance Authority were transferred t o Hyundai t o pay f o r the Shelton p r o p e r t y , and Hyundai purchased t h e p r o p e r t y . " A f t e r a l l t h e l a n d was a c q u i r e d a n d d e e d e d t o Hyundai, Hyundai leased a l l the property, i n c l u d i n g t h e S h e l t o n p r o p e r t y , t o t h e IDB s o t h a t t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ('ALDOT') c o u l d p e r f o r m s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n on t h e p r o p e r t y . Additionally, the IDB entered into a tax-abatement agreement with H y u n d a i so t h a t H y u n d a i ' s p r o p e r t y c o u l d r e c e i v e t h e p r e v i o u s l y a g r e e d upon abatement from ad valorem t a x a t i o n and other tax incentives. The S h e l t o n property was included in the tax-abatement agreement. 12 1080884 "Subsequently, t h e R u s s e l l s and the McLemore group each f i l e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t the IDB and Hyundai, alleging t h a t the IDB and H y u n d a i had b r e a c h e d the m o s t - f a v o r e d - n a t i o n clause i n t h e o p t i o n a g r e e m e n t s by not p a y i n g them $12,000 per acre for their property. According to the Russells and the McLemore group, the Shelton p r o p e r t y was ' i n c l u d e d i n the p r o j e c t agreement' and, consequently, t h e y s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p a i d , as Shelton was paid, $12,000 per acre for their property. A f t e r some d i s c o v e r y , t h e IDB a n d H y u n d a i moved f o r summary j u d g m e n t s . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d the motions. A d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y was conducted, a n d a s p e c i a l m a s t e r was appointed. The IDB and Hyundai filed renewed motions for a summary judgment. The s p e c i a l m a s t e r h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t s on t h e m o t i o n s a n d t h e n r e c o m m e n d e d t o t h e trial c o u r t t h a t t h e m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t be granted. The trial c o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g the special master's recommendation, entered summary j u d g m e n t s f o r t h e IDB a n d H y u n d a i . The R u s s e l l s a n d the McLemore g r o u p appealed." 7 So. 3d In at 321-26 (footnotes McLemore, this omitted). Court affirmed entered i n f a v o r of Hyundai but entered i n f a v o r of the summary address of its judgment "the order counsel to reversed In l i g h t the IDB, i s s u e whether the discretion protective legal as IDB. by f o r the "[r]econsideration IDB." of t h i s i s s u e by 13 judgment summary judgment the of the r e v e r s a l of we the IDB's 3d motion Thomas T. a t 339. the trial the declined c o u r t exceeded the deposing 7 So. summary however, trial granting prohibiting the We to scope for a Gallion I I I , stated court on that remand 1080884 is proper." On court The Id. remand, on February 5, 2009, IDB f i l e d a r e s p o n s e March 5, 2009, recommended Gallion's an the p l a i n t i f f s order trial the that master court Gallion's assigned grant 5 order master's trial deposition. order. to the motion T h a t same d a y , t h e t r i a l the special c o u r t ' s March i n the a n d moved f o r a p r o t e c t i v e the t r i a l adopting a motion t o compel special deposition. filed On the case t o compel court entered recommendation. The stated: "[The p l a i n t i f f s seek] t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f o n e o f D e f e n d a n t I D B ' s c o u n s e l , Thomas T. G a l l i o n , I I I , c o n c e r n i n g h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e negotiation and exercise of the options, the n e g o t i a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e P r o j e c t Agreement, and the c l o s i n g of the s a l e . T h i s C o u r t i s w e l l aware of t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n S h e l t o n v. A m e r i c a n M o t o r s C o r p . , 805 F . 2 d 1 3 2 3 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) . After applying those standards to t h i s matter, i t i s the o p i n i o n a n d o r d e r o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t [ p ] l a i n t i f f s be p e r m i t t e d t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f Mr. G a l l i o n as t o t h e s e l i m i t e d a r e a s . " Noting that testimony, certain Mr. the objections likely Gallion questions improper," attend " i t is that the t r i a l t h a t may and/or Mr. court deposition that and during the h i s counsel will Gallion and/or instructed to arise." 14 "make deposition object h i s counsel the special immediate to deem master to rulings on 1080884 On March deposition 12, 2009, the p l a i n t i f f s f o r G a l l i o n , s t a t i n g that v i d e o t a p e d and r e q u e s t i n g available On f o r production March deposition Among 13, notice other trial w o u l d be documents 4 t h e IDB objection to the protective order. the i t s March 5 court deposition filed moved IDB for a requested order. an On the trial April 10, court 2009, to in a t h e IDB a s k e d a s an a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t Gallion's taken be to consider, written not oral that the Gallion upon upon examination. The plaintiffs initially written of the deposition supplement to i t s motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order, the notice G a l l i o n have c e r t a i n that again things, reconsider a at the d e p o s i t i o n . 2009, and issued had supplemented questions motion requested to and noted depose questions. On A p r i l 1, 2 0 0 9 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s deposition to G a l l i o n , along production of documents. with On issued another notice of a d d i t i o n a l requests April 9, 2009, the f o rthe plaintiffs A l s o on M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e IDB i s s u e d d e p o s i t i o n n o t i c e s f o r F r a n k Hawthorne and Randy M y e r s , t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r the plaintiffs. On M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s m o v e d f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order as t o t h e n o t i c e o f d e p o s i t i o n i s s u e d t o Hawthorne and Myers. The t r i a l c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y d e n i e d t h e IDB's r e q u e s t t o depose Hawthorne and M y e r s . In the present p e t i t i o n , t h e IDB d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of i t s r e q u e s t t o depose Hawthorne and Myers. 4 15 1080884 issued a third indicated of deposition the deposition On A p r i l the notice video w o u l d be 15, 2009, deposition to Gallion. be areas set f o r t h i n the t r i a l court's i.e., Gallion's in option involvement agreements negotiations closing t h a t G a l l i o n be r e q u i r e d April in 20, 2009. an o r d e r filed the project of the " s a l e . " its petition permitted order on three 5, 2009, of the options; agreement; also that the of March The s p e c i a l m a s t e r and of the (2) t h e (3) t h e recommended t o produce t h e r e q u e s t e d documents by The t r i a l on A p r i l recommended (1) t h e n e g o t i a t i o n and t h e e x e r c i s e concerning notices videotaped. the s p e c i a l master of G a l l i o n Both court adopted those 15, 2009. f o r the writ Standard On A p r i l recommendations 20, 2009, t h e IDB o f mandamus. of Review "'A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l b e " i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court." Ex p a r t e United Serv. Stations, I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e H o r t o n Homes, I n c . , 774 S o . 2 d 5 3 6 , 539 (Ala. 2000). Regarding discovery matters s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s Court has s t a t e d : 16 1080884 "'Discovery matters are within the t r i a l c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e t i o n , and t h i s Court w i l l not reverse a trial court's ruling on a d i s c o v e r y issue unless the trial court has clearly exceeded i t s discretion. Home I n s . C o . v . R i c e , 585 S o . 2d 8 5 9 , 862 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . Accordingly, mandamus w i l l issue to reverse a trial c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y i s s u e o n l y (1) w h e r e t h e r e i s a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and (2) w h e r e t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y d o e s n o t h a v e an a d e q u a t e r e m e d y b y o r d i n a r y a p p e a l . The p e t i t i o n e r h a s an a f f i r m a t i v e b u r d e n t o prove the existence of each of these conditions. " ' G e n e r a l l y , an a p p e a l o f a d i s c o v e r y order i s an adequate remedy, notwithstanding the fact that that p r o c e d u r e may d e l a y a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s review of a p e t i t i o n e r ' s grievance or impose on the petitioner additional expense; our j u d i c i a l system cannot a f f o r d immediate mandamus review of every discovery order.' "Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d e r a l B a n k , F S B , 872 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 813 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . I n Ocwen, t h i s Court identified 'four circumstances i n which a d i s c o v e r y o r d e r may b e r e v i e w e d b y a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex p a r t e D i l l a r d Dep't S t o r e s , Inc., 879 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) (citing Ocwen). Those c i r c u m s t a n c e s include: "'(a) [W]hen a p r i v i l e g e i s d i s r e g a r d e d , s e e E x p a r t e M i l t o p e C o r p . , 823 S o . 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 4 - 4 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; (b) when a d i s c o v e r y order compels the p r o d u c t i o n of p a t e n t l y irrelevant o r d u p l i c a t i v e documents t h e production of which c l e a r l y constitutes harassment or imposes a burden on t h e 17 1080884 producing party f a r out of proportion to any benefit received by t h e requesting p a r t y , s e e , e . g . , Ex p a r t e Compass Bank, 686 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 5 , 1138 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; ( c ) when the t r i a l c o u r t e i t h e r imposes sanctions e f f e c t i v e l y p r e c l u d i n g a d e c i s i o n on t h e merits or denies discovery going to a p a r t y ' s e n t i r e a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e so t h a t , i n e i t h e r e v e n t , t h e outcome o f t h e case has been a l l but determined and t h e p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d be m e r e l y g o i n g through t h e m o t i o n s o f a t r i a l t o o b t a i n an a p p e a l ; o r (d) when t h e t r i a l c o u r t impermissibly prevents the p e t i t i o n e r from making a r e c o r d on t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e s o t h a t a n a p p e l l a t e court cannot review the e f f e c t of the trial court's alleged error. The burden rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that i t s p e t i t i o n presents such an e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e - - t h a t i s , o n e i n w h i c h an a p p e a l i s n o t an a d e q u a t e r e m e d y . S e e E x p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g C o . , 601 S o . 2 d 4 2 3 , 426 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' "Dillard, Ex parte (Ala. Guaranty Pest 2009). proper 879 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 3 7 . " Thus, Control, a petition means b y w h i c h to review I n c . , 21 S o . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 5 - 2 6 f o r the writ o f mandamus the discovery order i s a i n these cases. Discussion In exceeded i t s petition, t h e IDB c o n t e n d s i t s discretion i n ordering c o u l d depose G a l l i o n ; that (1) t h a t the t r i a l the court plaintiffs (2) t h a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f G a l l i o n c o u l d 18 1080884 be r e c o r d e d documents on v i d e o ; and (3) t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s had G a l l i o n had t o produce the requested in their notices of broad and deposition. "The liberal 200, 959 Alabama Rules discovery." 208 ( A l a . 2008) to (citing Rule obtain "depositions upon oral relevant 26(a), to the subject admissible long as discovery Rule oral Ex p a r t e any matter i t "appears 5 not involved Rule reasonably C i v . P., ways, including 26(b)(1) sought might permits is action n o t be under Rule 26(b)(1) to a lead to so the evidence." 30(a), 956, authorizes i n the pending calculated of admissible 991 S o . 2 d p r i v i l e g e d , which information i t i s discoverable Hosp., C i v . P., several matter, the relevant at t r i a l , in allow O ' N e a l , 713 S o . 2 d A l a . R. examination." "regarding Although Procedure St. Vincent's discovery discovery " Civil Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 1998)). party of examination A l a . R. and s t a t e s , addresses i n relevant depositions upon part: R u l e 2 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s t a t e s : " P a r t i e s may o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y b y one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m e t h o d s : d e p o s i t i o n s upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n . " 5 19 1080884 " A f t e r commencement o f t h e a c t i o n , any p a r t y may t a k e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f any p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g a p a r t y , by d e p o s i t i o n upon o r a l examination. Leave of court, granted with or without n o t i c e , must be obtained only i f the p l a i n t i f f seeks to take a d e p o s i t i o n p r i o r to the e x p i r a t i o n of t h i r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t u p o n a n y d e f e n d a n t o r o t h e r mode o f s e r v i c e u n d e r R u l e 4, e x c e p t t h a t l e a v e i s n o t r e q u i r e d (1) i f a d e f e n d a n t has served a notice of taking deposition or o t h e r w i s e s o u g h t d i s c o v e r y , o r (2) i f s p e c i a l n o t i c e i s g i v e n as p r o v i d e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n ( b ) ( 2 ) o f t h i s r u l e . ... " (Emphasis Rule 30 including Even required permitted added.) allows On the opposing i t s face, taking of a therefore, deposition limit under of any of person, counsel. so, under c e r t a i n circumstances to the language a Rule party's use 26(a). In of the the t r i a l discovery particular, Rule court i s methods 26(b)(1) states: "The f r e q u e n c y o r e x t e n t o f u s e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y methods set forth in subdivision (a) s h a l l be l i m i t e d by t h e c o u r t i f i t d e t e r m i n e s : ( i ) that the discovery sought i s unreasonably cumulative or d u p l i c a t i v e , o r i s o b t a i n a b l e f r o m some o t h e r source t h a t i s more c o n v e n i e n t , l e s s burdensome, or l e s s expensive; ( i i ) t h a t t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y has had ample o p p o r t u n i t y by d i s c o v e r y i n t h e a c t i o n t o obtain the information sought; or ( i i i ) that the d i s c o v e r y i s u n d u l y burdensome or e x p e n s i v e , taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e n e e d s o f t h e c a s e , t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y , l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e p a r t i e s ' resources, and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i s s u e s a t s t a k e i n t h e litigation. The court may a c t upon i t s own 20 1080884 i n i t i a t i v e a f t e r reasonable n o t i c e or motion under s u b d i v i s i o n ( c ) . " Rule 26(c) pursuant to a provides: "Upon m o t i o n b y a p a r t y o r b y t h e p e r s o n f r o m whom d i s c o v e r y i s s o u g h t , and f o r good c a u s e shown, t h e court in which the action is pending or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , on m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o a d e p o s i t i o n or production or i n s p e c t i o n , the court in the circuit where the deposition or production or i n s p e c t i o n i s t o be t a k e n may make a n y o r d e r w h i c h j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s to p r o t e c t a p a r t y or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue b u r d e n o r e x p e n s e , i n c l u d i n g one o r more o f the following: (1) t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y n o t be h a d ; (2) t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y may be h a d o n l y on specified t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e time or p l a c e ; (3) t h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y may be had only by a method of discovery other than that s e l e c t e d by t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y ; (4) t h a t c e r t a i n m a t t e r s n o t be i n q u i r e d i n t o , o r t h a t t h e scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) t h a t d i s c o v e r y be c o n d u c t e d w i t h no one p r e s e n t e x c e p t p e r s o n s d e s i g n a t e d by t h e c o u r t ; (6) t h a t a d e p o s i t i o n a f t e r b e i n g s e a l e d be o p e n e d o n l y b y o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t ; (7) t h a t a t r a d e s e c r e t o r other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; (8) t h a t the p a r t i e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f i l e s p e c i f i e d documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be o p e n e d as d i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t . A m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s h a l l be a c c o m p a n i e d b y a s t a t e m e n t of the a t t o r n e y f o r the moving p a r t y s t a t i n g t h a t the attorney, before filing the motion, has endeavored to r e s o l v e the s u b j e c t of the d i s c o v e r y motion t h r o u g h c o r r e s p o n d e n c e or d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l or, i f the o p p o s i n g p a r t y i s not r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , w i t h t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y . " Thus, the trial court is 21 authorized, on its own 1080884 initiative under under Rule 26(c), would otherwise Subpoena ("In words, the circumstances or under a party Rule seeking of of a 30. See In re 2003) a deposition when are such that i t creates that (2d C i r . i t s request, deposition party of a deposition 350 F . 3 d 6 5 , 70 the propriety proposed the motion need judges facts the may and an i n a p p r o p r i a t e burden hardship."). Some party courts have i s attempting approach, the party initial Shelton 1986), 6 applied t o depose seeking v. The l e a d i n g American a heightened opposing i t s request case Motors utilized counsel. before exemplifying Corp., a n d t h e IDB i n t h e p r e s e n t approach standard i n Shelton 805 petition a this has t h e the deposition this F.2d when Under t o depose opposing counsel burden of j u s t i f y i n g may p r o c e e d . the permitted although o r on the taking to Friedman, demonstrate prevent 26(b)(1) to prevent be Issued other not Rule approach i s 1323 (8th Cir. u r g e s us t o adopt f o r instances i n which a "'Federal cases construing the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure a r e p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y i n c o n s t r u i n g the Alabama Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , w h i c h were p a t t e r n e d after the F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . ' " Ex p a r t e S a f e w a y I n s . Co. o f A l a b a m a , 990 S o . 2 d 344 , 349 n.2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g H i l b , R o g a l & H a m i l t o n C o . v . B e i e r s d o e r f e r , 989 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 6 n.3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ) . 6 22 1080884 party seeks In Eighth to Shelton, Circuit depose the held opposing United that counsel. States the Court taking of of Appeals opposing for the counsel's deposition " s h o u l d be l i m i t e d t o [ t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ] where t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n has shown that (1) no other means exist to obtain the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n t o d e p o s e o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l ... ; (2) the information sought is relevant and n o n p r i v i l e g e d ; a n d (3) t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s c r u c i a l t o the p r e p a r a t i o n of the case." 805 F.2d at 1327 (emphasis In d i s c u s s i n g S h e l t o n , for the Second C i r c u i t has added). the U n i t e d States Court of Appeals observed: "Shelton ... represents a departure from the otherwise permissive deposition-discovery regime under the F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure. The E i g h t h C i r c u i t summarized the s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s t h a t animated i t s h e i g h t e n e d standard f o r d e p o s i t i o n s of o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l as f o l l o w s : " ' T a k i n g the d e p o s i t i o n of o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l not o n l y d i s r u p t s the a d v e r s a r i a l system and l o w e r s t h e s t a n d a r d s o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n , but i t a l s o adds to the a l r e a d y burdensome t i m e and c o s t s o f l i t i g a t i o n . I t i s not hard to imagine a d d i t i o n a l p r e t r i a l delays t o r e s o l v e w o r k - p r o d u c t and a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t o b j e c t i o n s , as w e l l as d e l a y s t o r e s o l v e c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e attorney's testimony. Finally, the practice of deposing opposing counsel d e t r a c t s from the q u a l i t y of c l i e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Counsel s h o u l d be f r e e t o d e v o t e h i s o r h e r time 23 1080884 and e f f o r t s t o p r e p a r i n g t h e c l i e n t ' s c a s e w i t h o u t f e a r o f b e i n g i n t e r r o g a t e d by h i s or her opponent. Moreover, the "chilling e f f e c t " t h a t s u c h p r a c t i c e w i l l h a v e on t h e t r u t h f u l communications from the c l i e n t to the a t t o r n e y i s obvious.' " [ 8 0 5 F.2d] a t 1327. Although the S h e l t o n c o u r t d i d not e x p l i c i t l y r e s t t h i s aspect of i t s h o l d i n g on concerns about intruding on attorney-client privilege, such concerns were implicit in the court's concern over a 'chilling effect' on a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t communications. "The Eighth Circuit further explained the p o l i c i e s animating i t s S h e l t o n d e c i s i o n i n Pamida, I n c . v . E.S. O r i g i n a l s , I n c . , 281 F . 3 d 726 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) , and limited the Shelton r u l e ' s reach. In Pamida, the plaintiff shoe retailer sued for indemnification from shoe m a n u f a c t u r e r s for the c o s t s i t i n c u r r e d i n t h e d e f e n s e and s e t t l e m e n t of a patent infringement lawsuit. The d e f e n d a n t s h o e m a n u f a c t u r e r s sought to depose the a t t o r n e y s who represented the plaintiff both in the indemnification action and the original patent lawsuit about whether the plaintiff had given a d e q u a t e n o t i c e o f i t s i n d e m n i t y c l a i m , as w e l l as whether the fees the plaintiff sought were reasonably incurred in defending the patent infringement lawsuit. In permitting the depositions, the Eighth Circuit explained that Shelton 'was intended to guard against the " h a r a s s i n g p r a c t i c e of deposing opposing counsel ... t h a t does n o t h i n g f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e but rather prolongs and increases the costs of l i t i g a t i o n , demeans t h e p r o f e s s i o n , and c o n s t i t u t e s an a b u s e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s . " ' I d . a t 729-30 ( q u o t i n g S h e l t o n , 805 F . 2 d a t 1 3 3 0 ) . Such c o n c e r n s were not implicated, according to the Eighth Circuit, when an attorney seeks only relevant i n f o r m a t i o n about p r i o r t e r m i n a t e d litigation: 24 1080884 "'The Shelton test was intend[ed] to protect against the ills of deposing opposing counsel i n a pending case which c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y l e a d to the d i s c l o s u r e of the attorney's litigation strategy. Because t h i s abuse of the d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s had b e c o m e an e v e r increasing practice, t h i s C o u r t e r e c t e d t h e S h e l t o n t e s t as a barrier to p r o t e c t t r i a l attorneys from these depositions. But S h e l t o n was not intended to provide heightened protection t o a t t o r n e y s who r e p r e s e n t e d a c l i e n t i n a c o m p l e t e d c a s e and t h e n a l s o h a p p e n e d t o represent t h a t same c l i e n t i n a p e n d i n g c a s e w h e r e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n known o n l y by the a t t o r n e y s r e g a r d i n g the p r i o r concluded c a s e was crucial.' "Id. at 730 (internal citations omitted). A c c o r d i n g l y , the c o u r t h e l d t h a t '[the defendant] need not s a t i s f y S h e l t o n to depose the [plaintiff's] attorneys regarding information involving the concluded patent infringement case,' but t h a t the proposed depositions were still subject to the s t a n d a r d s o f R u l e 26. I d . at 730-31." Friedman, 350 F.3d In Shelton approach. 7 70-71. the Friedman, at Second Instead, Circuit the court declined held to adopt the that The court stated that "only the Sixth Circuit has f o l l o w e d the E i g h t h i n adopting the S h e l t o n r u l e . " 350 F.3d a t 71 ( c i t i n g N a t i o n w i d e M u t . I n s . Co. v . Home I n s . Co., 278 F . 3 d 6 2 1 , 628 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . However, the c o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t "[t]wo o t h e r c i r c u i t s have u p h e l d lower court rulings p r e m i s e d on S h e l t o n b y a f f i r m i n g on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t the r u l i n g s w e r e w i t h i n t h e l o w e r c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o manage d i s c o v e r y u n d e r R u l e 26." 350 F . 3 d a t 71 n.3 ( c i t i n g B o u g h t o n v . C o t t e r C o r p . , 65 F . 3 d 823, 830-31 (10th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) , and N g u y e n v . E x c e l C o r p . , 197 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 8 - 0 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . 7 25 1080884 " t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 2 6 [ , F e d . R. C i v . P.,] require a flexible approach to lawyer d e p o s i t i o n s whereby t h e j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s u p e r v i s i n g discovery takes into consideration a l l of the relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether the proposed d e p o s i t i o n would e n t a i l an inappropriate burden or hardship. Such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may i n c l u d e t h e n e e d t o d e p o s e t h e lawyer, the lawyer's role i n connection with the m a t t e r on w h i c h d i s c o v e r y i s s o u g h t a n d i n r e l a t i o n to the pending l i t i g a t i o n , the r i s k of encountering p r i v i l e g e and w o r k - p r o d u c t i s s u e s , and t h e e x t e n t o f discovery already conducted. T h e s e f a c t o r s may, i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be e s p e c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e to consider i n determining whether interrogatories s h o u l d be u s e d a t l e a s t i n i t i a l l y a n d s o m e t i m e s i n l i e u of a deposition. Under t h i s approach, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d deponent i s a l a w y e r does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n s u l a t e him or her from a d e p o s i t i o n nor automatically require prior resort to alternative discovery devices, but i t is a c i r c u m s t a n c e t o be considered." 350 F.3d a t 72. As to t h e Second the Federal that requires Circuit Rules observed of C i v i l the party i n Friedman Procedure, seeking i t s request f o rthe deposition normal process discovery i s sought compliance with must j u s t i f y 70 ("Shelton 26, i n which must move for a i t s discovery request. represents a party protective the party Shelton to seeking from order whom in discovery S e e F r i e d m a n , 350 F . 3 d a t a departure 26 of i s a departure from the Rule Rule 26(c) before ... that part respect t o depose o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l justify under with from the otherwise 1080884 permissive of C i v i l v. deposition-discovery Procedure."). Fuji Trucolor 1996) Federal good Shelton depose the of for noted limit to counsel do not counsel. under Rule or the limit the to party of adopt seeking the has the a however, a party's to Rule protective 26, Ala. order R. and demonstrating 26(c). that the motion prevent or Shelton deposition requires extent in subdivision 27 factors are useful for a p r o t e c t i v e order the 26(b)(1) frequency forth under Rule initially their 26(c) IDB's r e q u e s t i t requires ... to preclude preclude justify La. P., for to (W.D. Civ. Rather, above, set of Inc. for seeking "[t]he methods cause burden 36 Procedure deposition the under Rule think, 26(c) bears Group, to p r e v e n t the d e p o s i t i o n of i t s counsel evaluating Rule Civil Rules i t s need moving "good c a u s e " We the F.R.D. 34, t h e r e f o r e d e c l i n e the opposing seeking burden of a p p r o a c h i n s o f a r as deposition. party As We 168 the p r o t e c t i v e order deposition testimony."). to Rules seeking demonstrating the Inc., prohibit taking Thus, the p a r t y attorney's a l s o Rainbow I n v e s t o r s Missouri, ("[T]he specifically See regime under the F e d e r a l of use the of (a)" i f the of its trial under counsel. court to the discovery court concludes 1080884 "(i) that the discovery sought i s unreasonably cumulative or d u p l i c a t i v e , or i s obtainable from some o t h e r source that i s more c o n v e n i e n t , less burdensome, or l e s s expensive; ( i i ) that the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery i n the action to obtain the information sought; or ( i i i ) that the discovery i s unduly burdensome or e x p e n s i v e , t a k i n g into account the needs of the case, t h e amount in controversy, limitations on t h e p a r t i e s ' resources, and t h e importance of the issues at stake in the litigation." In the unique context of a d e p o s i t i o n of i t s counsel, means of implementing evaluating whether protective order Therefore, order attempt the Shelton there i s good i n support to prevent the factors are a p r a c t i c a l the requirements under Rule to prevent party's cause of Rule 26(b)(1) f o r the issuance and of a 26(c). of i t s motion the deposition for a of i t s counsel, protective the moving p a r t y may d e m o n s t r a t e " g o o d c a u s e " u n d e r R u l e 2 6 ( c ) b y s h o w i n g that one o r more that there sought; not of the f o l l o w i n g circumstances are other (2) t h a t relevant; or means b y w h i c h t o o b t a i n the information (3) that Shelton f a c t o r s a r e n o t t h e e x c l u s i v e means b y w h i c h that good cause the exists 28 case. sought to show of i s privileged information under (1) the information crucial could the preparation the sought exist: Of Rule or i s i s not course, a the party 26(c) f o r a 1080884 protective order counsel. Similarly, consider only preventing the the Shelton the deposition trial court factors attempt t o depose opposing c o u n s e l circumstances o u t l i n e d i n Rule other makes the and t h a t , presents t h e same arguments of the options; As under and the Gallion's the whether the information i n i t sp e t i t i o n was cases. to this Court as t o court's order o f G a l l i o n as t o h i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n agreements and t h e e x e r c i s e (2) t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s relating to the project (3) t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e " s a l e . " IDB points involvement option as out, there i s evidence to the actual agreements, aspect of negotiating the option Ellen not The IDB but purchase there is indicating price no McNair agreements. o f t h e Montgomery A r e a 29 According Chamber o f paid evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t G a l l i o n was s p e c i f i c a l l y i n v o l v e d i n a n y IDB, an t h e IDB a r g u e d t h a t t h e of the p l a i n t i f f s ' the negotiation of the option agreement; to one o r more o f t h e s p e c i f i c areas i d e n t i f i e d i n the t r i a l permitting the deposition (1) required 26(b)(1). therefore, to the preparation three i s not party's s o u g h t b y G a l l i o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n was a v a i l a b l e f r o m sources crucial the i n determining In moving f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , information of other to the Commerce 1080884 testified that Gallion was involved in p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o be p a i d u n d e r t h e o p t i o n also testified Todd Strange, involved was then and John those same the demonstrated purchase that obtaining IDB also there has information option represented t h e Chamber the director Walter Stowers are of the the IDB were there are the negotiations the obtaining than deposing that Alabama Additionally, about of she Commerce, the Consequently, means other shown of of testified the agreements, but negotiations. IDB has information Gallion. other means of about the n e g o t i a t i o n of the language of agreements. a group of price. the purchase p r i c e The Kyser t h e m s e l v e s have regarding the who in landowners about Jerry Office, Development that negotiating Jesse Williams, of landowners, d r a f t e d an attorney those who agreements. No e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t G a l l i o n was involved in negotiating the agreements. language of or d r a f t i n g the o p t i o n t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , t h e IDB a s s e r t e d with of that i t d i d not t h e R u s s e l l s o r t h e McLemore g r o u p r e g a r d i n g the option agreements, Thomas R u s s e l l , Price and George McLemore, that they d i d not n e g o t i a t e with 30 and In answers negotiate the language Russell, Myrtis Russell, Mary McLemore testified f r o m t h e IDB regarding anyone 1080884 the language the of record from understanding Williams IDB exercise The IDB of points exercised on George regarding the language options from G a l l i o n to plaintiffs options, the plaintiffs as IDB t o why Similarly, the the the negotiations 2002. of has the IDB clause, relating information t h a t the has options produced the project including agreement i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s from the exercised. information the project The project that property referred 31 regarding agreement agreement LLC, McPhillips testified to under o p t i o n i n c l u d e the S h e l t o n / W a l k e r p r o p e r t y . were letters exercise Frank M c P h i l l i p s of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, the sources. the were State. regarding other d r a f t e d by the the clause. from representing both agreements option available attorney sources. and of shown t h a t to their the regarding options to about IDB answered has other The as in testified that i t i s undisputed 15, i s evidence IDB i s a v a i l a b l e from April and have demonstrated that the out the most-favored-nation a l s o has the of There most-favored-nation Randall the agreements. members the particularly The option two of and negotiations and the the with project the According IDB and is was an that site as did not to M c P h i l l i p s , 1080884 the Shelton/Walker property project site. treated separately." addressing project it the Shelton/Walker 2002. yard to site, with the and i t was a section included was so that testified property do i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s with Hyundai's M c P h i l l i p s s a i d he d i d n o t p r o v i d e attorneys a d r a f t of s e c t i o n t o t h e IDB b e c a u s e t h e IDB h a d made i t c l e a r t h a t would not provide Finally, regarding the a n y m o r e money IDB has f o r the project. demonstrated that the c l o s i n g i s a v a i l a b l e from other Gallion. The Additionally, the the r a i l nothing McPhillips agreement a f t e r in April that I t was "had IDB has IDB has produced the p l a i n t i f f s sources a l l the c l o s i n g were p r e s e n t information besides documents. at the closing, answered several interrogatories the argues that and about the Gallion i s closing. In sum, unnecessary the areas Gallion's plaintiffs IDB because, as to which deposition or has i t says, already information the either trial the concerns expressed Appeals i n Shelton, t h e IDB regarding court's i s otherwise been Echoing deposing obtained available by by t h e E i g h t h contends 32 order that the each of compels to the plaintiffs. Circuit deposing Court of Gallion 1080884 would best produce cumulative worst further disrupt the litigation harassment, increased costs, and unnecessary Shelton, F.2d and at at counsel the 805 not only standards already of Title Fla. of to harass the the case. ... are the relationship is 1267 to deposition a quarterback also (3d or 6 Moore's ed. and (W.D. listen Federal i t of also delay. of and ... i n on lowers to to These other invitation and 33 delay burdens attorney client presumptions party shouldn't the side's under be huddle."). at may 897 other Practice § 2 6.105[2][b](ii) 2009): 302 that a p r o t e c t i v e order sucker-punch the West held disrupt the ("[A] the F.R.D. 3 0 1 , N i l e s Home f o r C h i l d r e n , 1 995) to and added to l i t i g a t i o n , for obtaining Mo. opposing adds have in See litigation."); however, p a r t i e s , and C a s c o n e v. Supp. 1263, result i n h e r e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e an threatened. R u l e 2 6 ( a ) . " ) ; and use courts, attorneys, good cause but costs Moreover, costs are upon and deposition P a l m B e a c h C o u n t y , 132 attorneys information a d v e r s a r i a l system and ("Federal attorney placed constitute the profession, v. duplicative ("Taking the time Co. 1990) depositions 1327 disrupts burdensome Peninsular (S.D. at or F. able side's See 26-527 1080884 "Most courts have recognized that deposing c o u n s e l t e n d s t o d i s r u p t t h e a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m and add to the time and costs of litigation. It n e c e s s i t a t e s p r e t r i a l delays to resolve work-product and a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t o b j e c t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , the practice of deposing counsel detracts from the quality of client representation because the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s t a i n t e d by t h e w o r r y t h a t c o u n s e l w i l l be i n t e r r o g a t e d b y t h e o p p o n e n t . " We agree with the IDB that present cases implicate the same concerns Shelton decision the burdens typically doing regarding the circumstances and the problems a c c o m p a n y an a t t e m p t t o d e p o s e o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l . so, we recognize that those concerns i m p l i c a t e d t o t h e same d e g r e e h e r e b e c a u s e completely analogous to Shelton. in the underlay that in which the information litigation, deposition the attorney of obtained perhaps In not these cases are not For example, opposing had are that unlike counsel in Shelton, sought preparation only for t h e IDB h a s n o t a s s e r t e d s p e c i f i c w a y s i n w h i c h i t contends t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n sought i s p r i v i l e g e d . 8 However, we a l s o are not persuaded that the present cases are analogous to Pamida, Originals, 72 6 Cir. 2002), I n c . v. E.S. i n which the I n c . , 281 United States Court F.3d of Appeals (8th for T h e IDB h a s made g e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s t o t h a t e f f e c t , s u c h a s t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t " [ a ] n y t e s t i m o n y o f Mr. G a l l i o n a b o u t t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s a l s o r u n s t h e r i s k o f i n t r u d i n g on p r i v i l e g e d matters." ( P e t i t i o n , p. 27 ( e m p h a s i s added).) 8 34 1080884 the Eighth Circuit distinguished d e p o s i t i o n of o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l from the opposing counsel's lawsuits. Unlike the Shelton regarding involvement scenario and permitted relevant information in a prior, i n Pamida, the completed plaintiffs seek to depose G a l l i o n about h i s involvement i n the transaction his that forms the involvement Under obtain in a prior, the demonstrated that the by deposing then preparation Gallion's of was personally the project parties, other and person information transaction." contend was agreement, the the case. in the closing p. once case, the IDB sought to plaintiffs other to of plaintiffs the options" IDB was knowledge 24.) that 35 show that argue that case because " G a l l i o n negotiations the sources, plaintiffs' of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between personal (Answer, not c r u c i a l to the to t h e i r the underlying lawsuits, plaintiffs The here lawsuit. this nonetheless representing from to is crucial involved the present G a l l i o n i s a v a i l a b l e from their testimony of information shifted Gallion's testimony of the completed circumstances burden the basis the and able options, a l l of because to provide concerning Ultimately, the the "[n]o any this plaintiffs 1080884 " [ t ] h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e IDB members a n d o t h e r s i n v o l v e d , h a s b e e n t h a t M r . G a l l i o n was t h e p e r s o n f r o m t h e IDB t h a t was i n v o l v e d i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f the options; that received notice that the Shelton/Walker property was p a r t of the p r o j e c t ; t h a t was i n v o l v e d i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t agreement (which i n c l u d e d the Shelton/Walker land and required t h e IDB t o e x e r c i s e the options to purchase the P l a i n t i f f s ' property); that exercised the o p t i o n s t o purchase t h e P l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y by t h e I D B ; a n d t h a t was i n v o l v e d i n t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e property. Mr. G a l l i o n i s , t h e r e f o r e , a m a t e r i a l and n e c e s s a r y w i t n e s s t o t h e e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n and i s t h e o n l y p e r s o n f r o m t h e IDB who c a n t e s t i f y from p e r s o n a l knowledge. No o n e e l s e h a s b e e n a b l e t o do s o , n o t e v e n t h e I D B ' s [ R u l e 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . " ( A n s w e r , p. 2 8 . ) In support of t h e i r position, deposition testimony of Berry 30(b)(6), A l a . R. the p l a i n t i f f s G r a n t , who t e s t i f i e d C i v . P., representative cite the as t h e R u l e f o r the IDB. 9 The p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t G a l l i o n has a l r e a d y agreed t o be d e p o s e d , a n d t h e p l a i n t i f f s s u p p o r t t h a t a s s e r t i o n w i t h a s e l e c t i v e quotation from a t r a n s c r i p t of a hearing before the t r i a l court i n which G a l l i o n stated: 9 "The question i s do I h a v e t o s u b m i t t o a d e p o s i t i o n w h i c h I ' l l t e l l y o u r i g h t now I w i l l . He [the a t t o r n e y f o r the p l a i n t i f f s ] can ask those questions. I d o n ' t g i v e a h o o t o r h e c k i f he v i d e o s i t o r b r i n g s i n MGM s t u d i o s , b u t I w a n t t o be a b l e to ask him those questions I j u s t t o l d you." I n i t s m a t e r i a l s , t h e IDB p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l transcript of that same h e a r i n g , and those i n d i c a t e t h a t G a l l i o n ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he was d e p o s e d was c o n d i t i o n e d u p o n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' 36 pages from t h e pages clearly w i l l i n g t o be attorneys also 1080884 Specifically, he had the very the p l a i n t i f f s little this knowledge t r a n s a c t i o n " and keep them i n f o r m e d case." The on that concerning "the IDB the depends t r a n s a c t i o n s such ( A n s w e r , p. testimony a s s e r t t h a t Grant as "admitted negotiations on the Mr. Gallion of Grant p r o v i d e d by the plaintiffs was "A. You're coming to the wrong p e r s o n . Again, you've got to understand the context i n which the [ I D B ] o p e r a t e s , t h e way we m e e t . We d e a l i n l e g a l d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h I c o u l d r e a d 10 t i m e s a n d c o u l d n ' t t e l l you t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f what I r e a d o r what i t m e a n t , a n d t h a t ' s why we d e p e n d on c o u n s e l . That's why o u r - - a n y p r o j e c t t h a t c o m e s b e f o r e u s r e q u e s t i n g a c t i o n , t h e v e r y f i r s t t h i n g we do i s we w a n t t o know f r o m o u r a t t o r n e y i f t h i s i s c o r r e c t , i f i t ' s s o m e t h i n g we c a n a c t on i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e , i f t h e r e a r e a n y p r o b l e m s w i t h i t . A n d t h a t ' s t h e way we operate. "Q. A n d I'm u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a n d I'm h e a r i n g it from a l o t of people. ... But the Rules of P r o c e d u r e a l l o w me t o d e p o s e s o m e b o d y f r o m t h e IDB who c a n a n s w e r s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s . deposed. to 25.) "Q. B u t many o f t h e q u e s t i o n s I a s k e d o f Mr. [Reuben] T h o r n t o n [ , t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e IDB,] he s a i d he w a s n ' t a b l e t o a n s w e r t h a t ... t h a t t h i n g s w o u l d be presented and he w o u l d s i g n t h e m . So t h a t ' s why I'm t r y i n g t o f i n d s o m e b o d y w i t h t h e IDB who can answer specific questions and detailed q u e s t i o n s about the involvement. t o be and transaction in follows: agreeing that See supra 37 note 4. as 1080884 "A. memory. I will answer them as b e s t I can given my "Q. Right. B u t as I g a t h e r f r o m y o u , d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t why a l e a s e was e n t e r e d i n t o o r why t h e o p t i o n was a s s i g n e d t o t h e C i t y o r t h e C o u n t y was n o t r e a l l y a d e c i s i o n t h a t would have been d i s c u s s e d o r made b y y o u a n d t h e o t h e r m e m b e r s o f the board. "A. I t ' s p o s s i b l e i t would have been. with [Gallion's] consent." Other not than asserting that explained why i t i s so, the p l a i n t i f f s testimony discussed above, that i s crucial case. have testimony Grant's Gallion's that of As G a l l i o n was i n v o l v e d the option The Area the also there i s no i n negotiating cite evidence of their indicating any o f t h e language the a f f i d a v i t a c t i o n s were f i l e d . representatives County, to the preparation and deposition o f R e u b e n T h o r n t o n , t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e IDB when t h e underlying how demonstrates agreements. plaintiffs testimony Again, the C i t y of Thornton's a f f i d a v i t the State o f Montgomery, Chamber o f Commerce w o r k e d industrial project. IDB's p a r t i c i p a t i o n plaintiffs assert The of Alabama, 38 Montgomery t h e IDB, and t h e Montgomery together affidavit to obtain also i n the purchase of the land. that described land f o r described the However, t h e 1080884 "when Mr. T h o r n t o n ' s deposition was taken, he a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d no p e r s o n a l knowledge of the statements contained i n h i s a f f i d a v i t [ , ] i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y , M r . G a l l i o n , was t h e p e r s o n w i t h the most knowledge c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , t h a t Mr. G a l l i o n a u t h o r e d t h e A f f i d a v i t , a n d t h a t he j u s t signed i t . " (Answer, p . 2 5.) In s u p p o r t o f t h i s following portion assertion, the p l a i n t i f f s attached the of Thornton's deposition: "Q. And your attorney drafted advised to sign [thea f f i d a v i t ] ; isn't "MR. GALLION: W e l l , A g a i n , t h e r e was a l i t t l e o v e r i t , b u t ... you that up a n d true? l e t me o b j e c t to that. b i t m o r e t o i t . We w e n t "Q. Many o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t w e ' v e g o n e o v e r - a n d I r e a l l y d o n ' t w a n t t o go t h r o u g h p a r a g r a p h b y paragraph--but you would agree with me that s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a r e made i n y o u r a f f i d a v i t a n d y o u r supplemental affidavit, you have no independent k n o w l e d g e o f t h a t , do y o u ? "A. I guess that's "Q. I'm c o r r e c t ; right. Yes. right? "MR. G A L L I O N : W e l l , I object. A s t o some. O b v i o u s l y , he h a s i n d e p e n d e n t k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t h i s name i s a n d w h e r e i n t h e h e l l h e i s . "(Off The is eight the record affidavit pages discussion.)" of Thornton long to which and d e s c r i b e s 39 the p l a i n t i f f s in detail refer how t h e v a r i o u s 1080884 governmental obtain the representatives and f o r the p r o j e c t . t h a t he h a s asserts land "personal entities in [the] a f f i d a v i t . " we do not think deposition personal worked together to In the a f f i d a v i t , knowledge of a l lf a c t s set C o n t r a r y to the p l a i n t i f f s ' the above-quoted demonstrates knowledge Thornton portion forth assertion, of Thornton's t h a t T h o r n t o n " a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d of the statements contained in Ellen McNair, no his affidavit." Finally, member of testified the the that negotiations do assertion, the McNair Chamber Mr. was involved Gallion the not landowners." include they do a citation not landowners. testified negotiation of involvement in negotiating the As elaborate that the the stated Gallion purchase "initial purchase e s t a b l i s h that of during in was IDB involved price. Even negotiations" however, Gallion's 40 the a "has initial 26.) support on the the p. the i n i t i a l above, price, Commerce, (Answer, alleged involvement during necessarily that Area and with assert Montgomery with plaintiffs Gallion's plaintiffs The of that extent of negotiations asserts only i f in the Gallion's extended that that beyond does testimony i s crucial not to 1080884 the plaintiffs' In the portion exhibit of McNair's to the p l a i n t i f f s ' contacted March cases. Gallion 28, "tak[en] 2002, testified was an and that option told on the as on that attached testified the night then ... w o u l d have property The p l a i n t i f f s as that an she Thursday, Bright had property, and known t h a t before also cite w h i c h were s e r v e d of Mayor on t h e S h e l t o n / W a l k e r the Walker f o r admission, IDB a n s w e r e d them "Gallion a g r e e m e n t was s i g n e d . " requests answer, McNair and M c P h i l l i p s out the option" she deposition the there project the following on t h e IDB a n d w h i c h "denied": "35. A d m i t t h a t Thomas T. G a l l i o n , I I I , t h e attorney f o r the IDB, knew that Hyundai was demanding that the Shelton/Walker property be purchased f o r use by Hyundai prior t o t h e IDB s i g n i n g the P r o j e c t Agreement. "36. A d m i t t h a t Thomas T. G a l l i o n , I I I , t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e I D B , knew t h a t a n O p t i o n was s i g n e d by t h e Mayor o f Montgomery f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e S h e l t o n / W a l k e r p r o p e r t y p r i o r t o t h e IDB s i g n i n g t h e P r o j e c t Agreement." The only plaintiffs representative contend that of the "[t]he only person IDB] that would [i.e., the have personal knowledge concerning the notice provided b y M r s . M c N a i r i s Mr. Gallion." p. however, (Answer, 28.) Clearly, 41 McNair has 1080884 testified Gallion; the about thus, alleged Gallion notice, the notice the the contract; 747 So. demonstrated alleges claim she source of not preparing order deposing Accordingly, we cases, the hold the of depose him and the IDB is plaintiffs that the the 42 preparation of on the Gallion is from trial to a deposing court have by the v. not McNair of their contract. i s not topics entitled Co. notice because deposing must a breach & Cas. the Gallion each that (2) alleged breach about alleged breach-of- plaintiffs about that a have performance under The to that plaintiffs Farm F i r e Gallion shown has the be the on to about "would provided own 1999). may who contract; State f o r an demonstrated preventing See is crucial to IDB claim, plaintiffs' IDB sought McNair a valid recover the their of (Ala. information plaintiffs have 293 the i t cases seek to recover the provided to of provided information Although whether damages. 2d was have o b t a i n e d e s t a b l i s h that (3) that seeking Because of To (4) alleges representative existence and she Gallion. plaintiffs' defendants; Slade, to only claim. (1) notice plaintiffs knowledge" contract prove the i s the personal the the only which the plaintiffs crucial to protective Gallion. exceeded its 1080884 discretion i n d e n y i n g t h e IDB's m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e to prevent the p l a i n t i f f s g r a n t t h e IDB's p e t i t i o n the trial court for a protective from deposing G a l l i o n . i t s order and t o e n t e r IDB's m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r from deposing G a l l i o n . therefore f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s , a n d we d i r e c t to vacate order We order denying t h e IDB's a new o r d e r preventing motion granting the the p l a i n t i f f s 1 0 Conclusion The IDB's p e t i t i o n PETITION Lyons, Cobb, GRANTED; WRIT Woodall, Murdock, f o ra writ Stuart, o f mandamus i s g r a n t e d . ISSUED. B o l i n , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , dissents. C.J., recuses herself. O u r h o l d i n g t h a t t h e IDB i s e n t i t l e d t o a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r p r e v e n t i n g G a l l i o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n r e n d e r s moot t h e IDB's challenges to the t r i a l court's additional rulings that the d e p o s i t i o n c o u l d be v i d e o t a p e d a n d t h a t G a l l i o n p r o d u c e a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n t h e documents t h e p l a i n t i f f s requested i n their notices of deposition. 1 0 43 1080884 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e In adopting ordering the IDB"), standard F.2d in Development as a f a c t articulated i t s application those insufficient trial evidence and t h a t discretion" i ndenying FSB, The f a c t s Given opinion, court preventing the t r i a l of the Shelton opinion. o f t h e main legal A parties already 11 applied the I cannot to support the t r i a l by t h e t r i a l advocated d e s c r i b e d near t h e conclude that there i s t h e f i n d i n g s made court court areinconsistent i n t h e manner the testimony "clearly by t h e exceeded i t s t h e IDB's m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r Ex p a r t e (citing 862 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . that thepetitioner right found to rule Gallion's deposition. 585 So. 2 d 859, conclude o f Montgomery court standard 872 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 813 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) Rice, I I I , counsel f o r of the City 1 1 master and i n S h e l t o n v . A m e r i c a n M o t o r s C o r p . , 805 f i n d i n g s necessary t h e main end Board witness, 1323 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) . with in t h e recommendation of t h e s p e c i a l t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Thomas T. G a l l i o n Industrial ("the (dissenting). ... t o t h e o r d e r Ocwen Home I n s . C o . v . A c c o r d i n g l y , I cannot h a s shown i n t h i s sought." F e d . Bank, Ex p a r t e Court Horton n u m b e r o f o t h e r a t t o r n e y s who r e p r e s e n t e d i n v o l v e d i n the " p r o j e c t " at issue i n these have been deposed as f a c t w i t n e s s e s . 44 "a c l e a r Homes, various actions 1080884 Inc., 774 compelled So. to 2d 536, 539 ( A l a . 2000 ) . dissent. 45 Therefore, I am

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.