Pugh v. Pugh

Annotate this Case
Pugh v. Pugh IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo---- Brenten C. Pugh, 

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Jodi Pugh,

Defendant and Petitioner. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981803-CA

F I L E D
(January 7, 1999)

1999 UT App 002

-----
 


Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable David S. Young

Attorneys:
Debbie A. Robb, Salt Lake City, for Petitioner
John C. Rooker, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Wilkins, Bench, and Orme.

-----

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the court on a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. Petitioner seeks permission to appeal an order compelling her to produce certain documents, asserting that the documents are not relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence, that the documents are unreliable and that the order is an unwarranted invasion of her privacy.

Rule 5(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order must be filed within 20 days after the entry of the order. In the case at hand, the order was entered November 9, 1998, however, the petition was not filed with this court until December 7, 1998, more than 20 days later. Thus, the petition is not timely under Utah R. App. P. 5(a).

Moreover, Utah R. App. P. 5(e) provides that this court may grant a petition for interlocutory appeal only if the order involves substantial rights and may materially affect the final decision or where a determination of the correctness of the order prior to final judgment will better serve the administration and interests of justice. Petitioner fails to assert, let alone demonstrate, that the order involves substantial rights and may materially affect the final decision or that a determination of the correctness of the order prior to final judgment will better serve the administration and interests of justice. Rather, she merely states that the case will not move forward until the issue is decided and that the issue is of public interest and may arise again in other cases.

Because the petition was filed late, and because the criteria for granting a petition to appeal an interlocutory order set forth in Utah R. App. P. 5(e) have not been met, the petition is denied.

______________________________
Michael J. Wilkins,
Presiding Judge

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge