Leatherwood v. O'Conner

THIS OPINION HAS
NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Leatherwood, Walker Todd & Mann, P.C.,       
Respondent,

v.

Denis O’Connor, BBT Financial Services Limited, and Mont Clava Limited,       
Defendants,

Of Whom BBT Financial Services Limited, Third Party Plaintiff, and Denis
O’Connor are        Appellants,

v.

James L. Rogers, Jr.,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 
2005-UP-075

Heard January 12, 2005 – Filed January
31, 2005

DISMISSED

Desa A. Ballard, of West Columbia, for Appellants.

William A. Coates and Carroll H. Roe, Jr., of Greenville,
for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Denis O’Connor and BBT Financial
Services Limited (“BBT”) appeal from a protective order limiting Appellants’
discovery requests to the time period Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann,
P.C. (“Leatherwood”) represented the Appellants.  We dismiss.

FACTS

BBT’s owner, Denis O’Connor,
hired Leatherwood to assist in its purchase of a textile mill from Greenwood
Mills.  However, the sale fell through and BBT sued Greenwood Mills in federal
court.  Eventually, the case settled and Leatherwood formally terminated its
representation of O’Connor.  Later, Leatherwood brought this action to collect
attorney’s fees from O’Connor and BBT (Appellants).  Appellants counterclaimed
for conversion, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty, and brought
a third party complaint against a specific Leatherwood attorney.  Appellants’
claims concern the firm’s connection with a group of investors called Liberty
Denim who eventually leased the mill from its new owner and received an option
from the new owner to purchase a separate wastewater treatment facility.  This
appeal follows an order issued by the trial court limiting Appellants’ discovery
from third parties to the time period when Leatherwood represented BBT.                     

LAW/ ANALYSIS

Appellants claim the trial court erred
by making factual conclusions that were unrelated and inappropriate to a protection
motion, thereby quashing subpoenas seeking relevant information without proper
legal justification and resulting in summary judgment as to Appellants’ counterclaims
for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.  However, an order denying or
compelling discovery is not directly appealable because it is an intermediate
or interlocutory decision not appealable before final judgment under section
14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code (1977). Ex Parte Whetstone, 289 S.C.
580, 580, 347 S.E.2d 881, 881 (1986).

DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.